Excellent and I would wager an accurate summary of how we got here. You always demonstrate how the pieces fit together, how ideas evolved. You make the trail clear - too difficult to deny from my perspective. I am going to circulate this essay to anyone I think might read it.
But Schopenhauer can be right, Hegel wrong, and the Totalitarians can still do incalculable damage. They must be convinced they are wrong--or stopped.
Schopenhauer says, "[T]his real world of the cognizable, in which we are and which is in us, will remain both the material and the limit of our discussion: it is so rich in content that it could never be exhausted by even the deepest investigation of which the human spirit is capable."
He continues:
"[I]t will be entirely unnecessary for us to take refuge in *insubtantial negative concepts*, and then somehow make even ourselves believe that we are saying something when we raise our eyebrows and talk about the 'Absolute,' the 'infinite,' the 'supersensible' or any other mere negations ('it is nothing but a negative expression combined with an unclear representation': Julian, *Orations*, 5), instead of which we could just say: 'Cloud Cuckoo-land': but we will not need to serve up these sorts of empty, covered dishes."
That is, Hegel serves up empty, covered dishes.
It is important to know *that* Hegel believes *what* Hegel believes, but Schopenhauer, at least, thought Hegel's beliefs were empty, Cloud Cuckoo-land.
The mischief-making Escape Key has so extensively documented is, similarly, based on insubstantial negative concepts, perhaps the most obvious being the closed system; Schopenhauer, by contrast, thought this real world "could never be exhausted."
The Totalitarians must fail.
(The quotes above are from Schopenhauer's *The World as Will and Representation*, Volume 1, Cambridge, 2010, p. 299.)
Thanks for the history lesson. It seems that philosophers-to-bankers were smarter than we gave them credit for. Yet, not being biologists or physiologists, they missed a glaring fact hiding in plain sight. "Bodies" are not permanent while species and ecosystems are, via absolutely fundamental mechanisms of recombination and recurrent embryology.
BIS Unified LedgeR ? The immediate shortfall all this regulatory thinking fails to capture is creation via recombination and compounding invention - including distributed innovation, cost-of-coordination/integration and return-on-coordination. "Money" or currency is static while creation is dynamic. There is no column for creation or innovation in Double-Entry Bookkeeping although, strangely, there is one for Destruction.
Rather than "Selfishness is the disease" the reality we face is that "thermodynamics is the cause" and Context Nomads must figure out how to have their brief contexts and surf continuous recombinant creation too.
It seems that Bankers/Accountants see physiology (and thermodynamics) as static when in reality it is, if anything, increasingly dynamic. All currency is fiat currency because it denominates interpersonal credit, which is continuously created as net return-on-coordination. The best bankers can do is be a drag on recombinant creation. Today, we can replace the entire Federal Reserve, all CBs and the BIS too with an app on a mobile phone. It's inevitable. Information doesn't need tally sticks or currency tokens to be leveraged. Bitcoin, BIS-Coin or ReCoor-coin? The people will continue speaking until better/faster/leaner info plumbing appears. As some Roman once said, "No law can withstand the will of the people."
Bag the drag? It's already happening. A few bankers can't rule over 8 billion people if those people do not want to be governed by a few laggards. Offspring are stubborn that way. They're already off exploring what's next. The biggest arsenal the bankers have is depression, aka controlled suicide. Just call their bluff, again. Even their own kids eventually find it boring.
Magee observes in his fascinating 'Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition' (https://archive.org/details/hegel-and-the-hermetic-tradition) that Hegel - rightfully so - regarded the 'higher realities' of the human experience to be too complex for the average person to have the time or inclination even if he had the ability to comprehend them, so they must be crystallised into a kind of faith-based or even pseudo-religious system. I'm not sure if this is what he had in mind or if he considered the possibility of 'machine learning' or humanity governed by an inescapable transhumanist hellscape
It's an elegant sentiment, and one that kings and rulers have been presumably wrestling with forever beyond documented history not only in Platonic or Machievelian terms of statescraft
Either way, though he was smart and I'm certainly not that familiar with his ideas but considering simply what Marx did with them alone (assuming he actually wrote all that crap) personally I think we are better off without them...
A problem where all of the life of the organism depends on the central processor of the organism is that if there is a failure, from power outage, lack of generator fuel, Carrington event, etc. the parts of the organism, people in this case, all die.
The rational structuring of the mind becomes the context and the means OF a mind-problem seeking external resolution by 'changing the world' rather than integrating mind within being.
The first premise of the article - of integration to social organisms - is the result of an extended reach over an environment of explicated order via the structuring of identification in surrogate power—the power given to ideas, agreements and contracts, as distinct from indigenous power which is integral to being ot to mind as it DOES - not as it thinks or masks itself to be.
All the above represent an invocation and use of the mind to solve inner conflicts externally as an explicate representation of an inner or implicate order. The desire to make concrete as the setting of a will over life, nature—and others attempts the 'fixing' of a past framed by lack, deprivation, denial and treachery. Such a 'self' is then operating as a countermeasure to its own explicate projections. It is this sense of self-defence that operates invisibly as a convergence of controls set over and against the very life that remains the source of power, and thus operates progressive death as a fulfilment of 'historic progress'.
Pre modern thinking has no concept of 'progress', for it recognised and participated in the wholeness of cyclic, spiral and spiritual unfoldment.
The basis for wholeness or unified purposed can not be structured - but as a reset of a Humpty Dumpty syndrome. To put this another way, Mind is not a structure excepting it engages in such concept as its chosen or accepted identification or 'self-fulfilment'.
By living from internalised structure, we choose to not live from wholeness - which is of a living creative presence that cannot be controlled - because there is no 'other' to it. The prior nature of being to the artefacts of thought is as a timeless or implicate order to a process of reflective representations of time and place.
Our capacity for vested identifications with masking social order at cost of direct and shared appreciation for being is the addiction of a mind to its own thinking - such as to run a blind mechanism of masking manipulation as a private and personal self-gratification. It is these 'identities' that collectivise in death as 'salvation' from hated and feared life.
The wish to project and target hateful and painful conflict away from a sense of self-control is a reflex of persistence in patterns of evasion and delay, costs sacrifice of wholeness to save the mask — or idol of -a surrogate self.
That we release conflicts or die in them is the progressive pain of living a lie.
The living unfoldment and emergence runs beneath the radar of a control-mindset, that by its own self-definitions knows not what it does.
Sharing or agreement IS the power by which communication and exchange is both given and received as one in value - not in form. But the decision to share in the fruits of a lie given power, trust or acceptance as true - runs a counterfeit 'reality'.
It might be evident that apart from being, we are focussed in and responsive or subject to 'realities' of mostly internalised and invisible beliefs, running stealth or 'unconscious' for the purpose of protecting self-illusions seeking power, love, joy, peace, justice or fulfilment. That this runs a futile inversion is not an insight that an ongoing addiction wants to face, own or truly address. Better then the 'problems' by which to join in 'solutions' that maintain some face of control?
The truly moral dimension is truth - not accusation of sins to the 'othered'.
That what we be-live as our body our mind and our world, actually runs a form of 'dispossession' is easily lost to the attempt to save even the little that we hath.
The comprehensive exposures of systematic and circular reasoning in Escape Key's work is best applied to the recognition of the use to which we put the mind - and let run as if our own.
It is hard to question the experience of reality that we unconsciously make, but the experience of 'reality breaking down' or even 'reality as a vector of threat' ought to tell us that it is not reality in truth that is insane, but our mind or making of an experience of reality. The paradox here is that the recognition of this fact is the awakening of a light of sanity - from which a process of true re-integration with reality can be recognised and accepted - regardless the kicking and screaming of a 'resistance' to love's honesty - in this situation, in this place, in this relationship...
'The comprehensive exposures of systematic and circular reasoning in Escape Key's work is best applied to the recognition of the use to which we put the mind - and let run as if our own.'
Thank you for this piece, translated in French here : https://zanzibar.substack.com/p/le-sang-social
Excellent and I would wager an accurate summary of how we got here. You always demonstrate how the pieces fit together, how ideas evolved. You make the trail clear - too difficult to deny from my perspective. I am going to circulate this essay to anyone I think might read it.
Schopenhauer didn't think much of Hegel.
But Schopenhauer can be right, Hegel wrong, and the Totalitarians can still do incalculable damage. They must be convinced they are wrong--or stopped.
Schopenhauer says, "[T]his real world of the cognizable, in which we are and which is in us, will remain both the material and the limit of our discussion: it is so rich in content that it could never be exhausted by even the deepest investigation of which the human spirit is capable."
He continues:
"[I]t will be entirely unnecessary for us to take refuge in *insubtantial negative concepts*, and then somehow make even ourselves believe that we are saying something when we raise our eyebrows and talk about the 'Absolute,' the 'infinite,' the 'supersensible' or any other mere negations ('it is nothing but a negative expression combined with an unclear representation': Julian, *Orations*, 5), instead of which we could just say: 'Cloud Cuckoo-land': but we will not need to serve up these sorts of empty, covered dishes."
That is, Hegel serves up empty, covered dishes.
It is important to know *that* Hegel believes *what* Hegel believes, but Schopenhauer, at least, thought Hegel's beliefs were empty, Cloud Cuckoo-land.
The mischief-making Escape Key has so extensively documented is, similarly, based on insubstantial negative concepts, perhaps the most obvious being the closed system; Schopenhauer, by contrast, thought this real world "could never be exhausted."
The Totalitarians must fail.
(The quotes above are from Schopenhauer's *The World as Will and Representation*, Volume 1, Cambridge, 2010, p. 299.)
Blessings and appreciation from Sydney Australia.
Great, as usual ❤️
Thanks for the history lesson. It seems that philosophers-to-bankers were smarter than we gave them credit for. Yet, not being biologists or physiologists, they missed a glaring fact hiding in plain sight. "Bodies" are not permanent while species and ecosystems are, via absolutely fundamental mechanisms of recombination and recurrent embryology.
BIS Unified LedgeR ? The immediate shortfall all this regulatory thinking fails to capture is creation via recombination and compounding invention - including distributed innovation, cost-of-coordination/integration and return-on-coordination. "Money" or currency is static while creation is dynamic. There is no column for creation or innovation in Double-Entry Bookkeeping although, strangely, there is one for Destruction.
Rather than "Selfishness is the disease" the reality we face is that "thermodynamics is the cause" and Context Nomads must figure out how to have their brief contexts and surf continuous recombinant creation too.
It seems that Bankers/Accountants see physiology (and thermodynamics) as static when in reality it is, if anything, increasingly dynamic. All currency is fiat currency because it denominates interpersonal credit, which is continuously created as net return-on-coordination. The best bankers can do is be a drag on recombinant creation. Today, we can replace the entire Federal Reserve, all CBs and the BIS too with an app on a mobile phone. It's inevitable. Information doesn't need tally sticks or currency tokens to be leveraged. Bitcoin, BIS-Coin or ReCoor-coin? The people will continue speaking until better/faster/leaner info plumbing appears. As some Roman once said, "No law can withstand the will of the people."
Bag the drag? It's already happening. A few bankers can't rule over 8 billion people if those people do not want to be governed by a few laggards. Offspring are stubborn that way. They're already off exploring what's next. The biggest arsenal the bankers have is depression, aka controlled suicide. Just call their bluff, again. Even their own kids eventually find it boring.
Magee observes in his fascinating 'Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition' (https://archive.org/details/hegel-and-the-hermetic-tradition) that Hegel - rightfully so - regarded the 'higher realities' of the human experience to be too complex for the average person to have the time or inclination even if he had the ability to comprehend them, so they must be crystallised into a kind of faith-based or even pseudo-religious system. I'm not sure if this is what he had in mind or if he considered the possibility of 'machine learning' or humanity governed by an inescapable transhumanist hellscape
It's an elegant sentiment, and one that kings and rulers have been presumably wrestling with forever beyond documented history not only in Platonic or Machievelian terms of statescraft
Either way, though he was smart and I'm certainly not that familiar with his ideas but considering simply what Marx did with them alone (assuming he actually wrote all that crap) personally I think we are better off without them...
A problem where all of the life of the organism depends on the central processor of the organism is that if there is a failure, from power outage, lack of generator fuel, Carrington event, etc. the parts of the organism, people in this case, all die.
Yes; critique as blueprint.
The rational structuring of the mind becomes the context and the means OF a mind-problem seeking external resolution by 'changing the world' rather than integrating mind within being.
The first premise of the article - of integration to social organisms - is the result of an extended reach over an environment of explicated order via the structuring of identification in surrogate power—the power given to ideas, agreements and contracts, as distinct from indigenous power which is integral to being ot to mind as it DOES - not as it thinks or masks itself to be.
All the above represent an invocation and use of the mind to solve inner conflicts externally as an explicate representation of an inner or implicate order. The desire to make concrete as the setting of a will over life, nature—and others attempts the 'fixing' of a past framed by lack, deprivation, denial and treachery. Such a 'self' is then operating as a countermeasure to its own explicate projections. It is this sense of self-defence that operates invisibly as a convergence of controls set over and against the very life that remains the source of power, and thus operates progressive death as a fulfilment of 'historic progress'.
Pre modern thinking has no concept of 'progress', for it recognised and participated in the wholeness of cyclic, spiral and spiritual unfoldment.
The basis for wholeness or unified purposed can not be structured - but as a reset of a Humpty Dumpty syndrome. To put this another way, Mind is not a structure excepting it engages in such concept as its chosen or accepted identification or 'self-fulfilment'.
By living from internalised structure, we choose to not live from wholeness - which is of a living creative presence that cannot be controlled - because there is no 'other' to it. The prior nature of being to the artefacts of thought is as a timeless or implicate order to a process of reflective representations of time and place.
Our capacity for vested identifications with masking social order at cost of direct and shared appreciation for being is the addiction of a mind to its own thinking - such as to run a blind mechanism of masking manipulation as a private and personal self-gratification. It is these 'identities' that collectivise in death as 'salvation' from hated and feared life.
The wish to project and target hateful and painful conflict away from a sense of self-control is a reflex of persistence in patterns of evasion and delay, costs sacrifice of wholeness to save the mask — or idol of -a surrogate self.
That we release conflicts or die in them is the progressive pain of living a lie.
The living unfoldment and emergence runs beneath the radar of a control-mindset, that by its own self-definitions knows not what it does.
Sharing or agreement IS the power by which communication and exchange is both given and received as one in value - not in form. But the decision to share in the fruits of a lie given power, trust or acceptance as true - runs a counterfeit 'reality'.
It might be evident that apart from being, we are focussed in and responsive or subject to 'realities' of mostly internalised and invisible beliefs, running stealth or 'unconscious' for the purpose of protecting self-illusions seeking power, love, joy, peace, justice or fulfilment. That this runs a futile inversion is not an insight that an ongoing addiction wants to face, own or truly address. Better then the 'problems' by which to join in 'solutions' that maintain some face of control?
The truly moral dimension is truth - not accusation of sins to the 'othered'.
That what we be-live as our body our mind and our world, actually runs a form of 'dispossession' is easily lost to the attempt to save even the little that we hath.
The comprehensive exposures of systematic and circular reasoning in Escape Key's work is best applied to the recognition of the use to which we put the mind - and let run as if our own.
It is hard to question the experience of reality that we unconsciously make, but the experience of 'reality breaking down' or even 'reality as a vector of threat' ought to tell us that it is not reality in truth that is insane, but our mind or making of an experience of reality. The paradox here is that the recognition of this fact is the awakening of a light of sanity - from which a process of true re-integration with reality can be recognised and accepted - regardless the kicking and screaming of a 'resistance' to love's honesty - in this situation, in this place, in this relationship...
'The comprehensive exposures of systematic and circular reasoning in Escape Key's work is best applied to the recognition of the use to which we put the mind - and let run as if our own.'
I'll look into it. Thanks.
Spanner in the works is what...? All doom and gloom.... HNY 2026!