“let no man belong to another that can belong to himself.” Paracelsus

Letztes

Wearing Hats on Long Train Rides

Wearing Hats on Long Train Rides

Wearing Hats on Long Train Rides: It is often the case, whilst girating to & fro on exceptionally unendurably lengthy, and excruciatingly trying rides on great metallic insects otherwise known as „trains“ (& on occasion, whilst riding long trains for short periods of time: when preparing proper hat wearing procedures, on trains, one should consider the length of the train in question conversely with the the length of time spent on the train, a formula in regards to which will be designated in a later chapter (see Chapter XIV), careful attention — a matter of _utmost_ import to the sustained dignity of the hat-wearing individual (quite friendly-like, in all or quite seldom not most)– should be paid to the continually recurring task of _ensuring non-slippage of hat into browspace_, in the absence of carrying out of which, the world — as the 5,609 year Mayan calendar suggests anyway — would cease to turn & all hell would, in fact, break loose everywhere; fire would rain down from the heavens in superfluity, the oceans would swell to their brim, and winged pigs would carry large-set heavy-weight bald men across dark, teeming forests (presumably hell-bound).

Januar 29, 2012 | Kategorien: Uncategorized | Schreibe einen Kommentar »

On Wearing Entirely *Too Much* Cologne

A brief aside: on wearing entirely too much cologne! It has often enough, that is – not seldomly – occurred to the author that while promenading the streets with a fellow accomplice, or also while standing in a crowded elevator, a certain overwhelmingly pungeant odor has intruded the olifactory cavities, and created a most distasteful disturbance in relation to said glands, on the part of the author. Now, it is not the belief of the author that individuals – of any vocation (take, for instance, a cobbler) – do in fact find benefit (greatly, or meekly) from an hour’s bath in a tub full of perfumed synthetic hydrocarbons and petroleum byproduct of the cosmetic sort, when the simple application on the chin or neck, or even forearm – or (heaven forbid!) the thigh – of the wearer will do! Whoever then believes it fitting and meet to put others through such excruciating trials as – and tests of human endurance – should, in fact,  consider themselves a bad individual, whose indidious cursed state (to live in sin) permeates their meager constituing elements; their rank bones, their turgid and disgustingly  jaundiced personality, which in orer to hide its sheer vileness must be cloaked in masses of petrocarbon by-product, because they are obsviously horrible people, an should in fact go jump over a bridge somewhere, for lack of a soul. They are in fact so bad and miserable that to ascribe to them even a disparaged or unclean soul would be to do them an immense injustice, because they are so awful, terrible and rank; their stench, alike unto the most horrid heretofore imaginable; like rotting pulp, as the worst industrial waste and worst and most diseased cowpastures, where cows fall over from disease and lack of souls; their personages, when present (which is rare indeed) should always be avoided by crossing the street and, when not available, shunning.

Januar 28, 2012 | Kategorien: Uncategorized | Schreibe einen Kommentar »

Haberdasher Philosophy

There may be an nearly unlimited history of hat-wearing, and crown-adorning in human agency: we have always worn hats, and will always continue to do so: the more readily we accept this proposition, the sooner we can progress to the ulterior and significant matter of clarifying proper hat wearing methods, and useful convention viz a viz the wearing of hats. Now, considering hat wearing is a nearly – if not ultimately – universal phenomenon, which cannot be avoided whatsoever by anyone anywhere at any point in time, then we may begin not by delineating the history of the wearing of hats, which is itself innocuous, and may be troublesome, for the author’s hat-wearing may itself play a discriminant role: the hat itself may have a view on this, which, for the sake of time and timeliness, we may here exclude (though we may consider to the book an addendum, in which the opinions on hat wearing of the author’s crown cap are considered). Pity! Onwards, however!

Now, dangerous would be to consider hat wearing in exclusion to other phenomena in social paradigms galore: to view the eating of grapes in exclusion to the spitting of seeds, or the plucking of grapes from vines in vineyards, or from grocery store shelves, or from fruit carts on he Aegean, would be to undermine the argument there is more to grape-eating than entails the simple popping of a grape into the oral orifice: likewise, to view the wearing of hats in absense of hat customs, hat wear, and hat trade would obfuscate the inherently edifying (not to mention practical) nature of hat wearing: for, in times of heat and extreme desolation, do we not reach for a hat? In times of great rains and monsoon winds, which tear and twist at the rafters in our homes and shake us to our very foundations, is not a cap the first thing we consider when setting out for great adventures? When crossed with virulent and dangerous straits, and presented with irremediable crises an contradictions in all aspects of our life, is a hat not a savior by the way of shielding the sight of persons high up (in blimps and aeroplanes, for instance), and the angular nature of hat-wearing not a critical issue in regards to this circumstance, as the angle of swim is derived from the dive, to begin with, ex nihilo, ipso facto, and so forth (we may add as a brief note that the “best of times” are often the “worest of times” and “all’s well that ends well” and such said idioms, without the least hope that their utterance have any effect on the significane of the argument of the need for a book on proper hat wearing ettiquette, which the author is herein undertaking!)? 

Januar 26, 2012 | Kategorien: sociology | Tags: , | Schreibe einen Kommentar »

On the Wearing of Hats in Nature

On the wearing of hats in nature: when in nature, in general, one usually is left to one’s own devices, and therefore – as opposed to being – in the case of being in culture – in little interchange and direct interaction with the remainders of the social whole (save for those convenient milkshake stands in the middle of the forest); the customs associated therefore to such an environment, and persons finding themselves in such are decidedly different than those of the fast-paced nature of city life. The custom of hat-wearing is no different. Therefore, if one wishes to avoid being jeered at by all of that portion of the community which may witness such spontaneously generated acts of unusual hat wearing and hat wearing techniques, some general methods to the wearing of hats in general (and wearing wearing hats in the wilderness in practicular) should be sought!

On the wearing of hats on boats:  While travelling on sea-faring vessels, one should be attentive to – among others – phenomena readily occurent in such situations, and quite dangerous to sustained wearing of hats, such as wind & breaking surf, which may remove the hat from its natural perch, on the crown, and leave the hat-wearer quite – and seemingly irremediably – hatless. So, watch your hat (lest you lose him [or her, in the case your hat takes on a female persona15])! It has often been the case that a travelling wayfarer, engaged in what those on the Isles may call “light banter” (that is, pleasant & comfortable conversation), when – suddenly – unbeknownst to him, a swell should rise up, or a gull overcome the equilibrium of the sustained & continual positioning of his hat wear (without which it is arguable that man is in fact incomplete).

If you wish to avoid the embarrassment of your fellow traveller, a bit of restraint, and a bit of caution are equally advised!

Januar 26, 2012 | Kategorien: Uncategorized | Schreibe einen Kommentar »

On the Wearing of Hats in Museums of Natural History

On the wearing of hats in museums of natural history: on a cloud- and wind-swept day, when the downpour rushes onward (or downward, rather), and one, in wishing to escape for a few moments’ respite, does dash into the local old ghostly manor which discreetly hides the fact of the manor’s being a museum of natural history, and chooses to  view specimins of various carbon-based minerals and old dinosaur bones, appropriate hat-wearing techniques should be employed as to avoid embarrassment.

Now, if inclined to excessively, proper bracheasaurus skeletal remains viewing may be inhibited by brim of hat; therefore, a certain balance of incline to brow – hat to hait, and hat to scalp should be sought, as best to view the skeletal remains. It would certainly be rather difficult, nay arduous to enjoyably view beetle and wasp exhibits (not to mention ant or cicada exhibits, as well – equally important insect specimins), with the brow covered in hat brim, and also with hat sweat obfuscating proper viewing of the bugs. A kerchief may prove useful in such instances, and one should not hesitate to make use ofsaid kerchief to wipe the brow, as to allow for proper viewing of insect exhibits in museum of natural history. Those who would forget to bring a kerchief with which to wipe the brow as to allow for proper enjoyment of insect exhibits of the museum of natural history sort obviously suffer a degenerating moral sickness which emburdens their horrible souls, and should be avoided and/or shunned at any cost, for their stench is likely to upset  the good person’s sensitive olifactory glands. It is furthermore apparent that individuals forgetting – or refraining – for causes, from proper hat wear, and by extension, brow manintenance, by the way of application of sweat kerchief are morally vacuous beings, soul-less lemmings, and very bad people on the whole, and one should, when encountering such horribly offensive and smelly, soulless individuals – like unto the plague –cross onto the other side of the street and immediately proceed to shun them, which in the case this is not done, their putri stench and awful soulless qualities may infect your person! This is why the author believes it meet and vital, furthermore, to derive proper hat-wearing and also scalp maintannce methods, as to avoid the embarrassment (and also social ostracism) of the individual hat wearer, and his exclusion from scoiety..

Januar 25, 2012 | Kategorien: Uncategorized | Schreibe einen Kommentar »

History of Western Civilization Preparation Guide

History of Western Civilization Preparation Guide

So, you are registered for a Western Civ course, after having executed the necessary motions and „dotted the T’s and crossed the I’s“ such that your tenure as studentdom has been achieved. What to bring, so as not to get up your expectations and die from lack of preparation and/or boredom? The following guide should prove useful for the sake of proper perparation for any decent, law-abiding student in a Western Civ course:Bring a pillow: the various lectures on the glories of Robespierre, and various biographical materials in relation to Hitler, and putsches, and also the Spanish Armada will entertain your growing desires for respite from tables, desks and chairs in general, in relation to which a soft fluffy pillow might offer itself a strong basis for a recuperative rest, from the late night chemistry lab the prior evening. In the case of extremely tiring lectures on the dictates of and between Zwingli, Calvin and Luther, Hus and Fox, a rolling pin may offer itself a useless aid, by which to knock one’s self senseless and therein get some needed rest from the trials of the Spanish oral examination of the prior morning. One should attempt to stock upwards ofr three rolling pins, in the case one’s neighbor in either direction (think cardinally) ight benefit from the application of a head bump induced rest period, which tends as the spectrum of boredom increases to accelerate in demand. A horrific yell and hoopla might aid one’s interest also, when in lack of rolling pins and pillows, and in the extreme instance a boring news day in the school newspaper, concerning itself with the ethics of soda pop dispensers in the faculty lounge, a plop on the cranium with a shoe might suffice. In the absense of shoes, in the case of Quakerism or otherwise Ludditic entalities, a squishy stressball might suffice, additionally

Januar 25, 2012 | Kategorien: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , | Schreibe einen Kommentar »

The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It

The introduction to jonathan Zittrain’s The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It:

On January 9, 2007, Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone to an eager audience crammed into San Francisco’s Moscone Center.1 A beautiful and brilliantly engineered device, the iPhone blended three products into one: an iPod, with the highest-quality screen Apple had ever produced; a phone, with cleverly integrated functionality, such as voicemail that came wrapped as separately accessible messages; and a device to access the Internet, with a smart and elegant browser, and with built-in map, weather, stock, and e-mail capabilities. It was a technical and design triumph for Jobs, bringing the company into a market with an extraordinary potential for growth, and pushing the industry to a new level of  competition in ways to connect us to each other and to the Web. This was not the first time Steve Jobs had launched a  revolution. Thirty years earlier, at the First West Coast Computer Faire in nearly the same spot, the twenty-one-year-old  Jobs, wearing his first suit, ex- hibited the Apple II personal computer to great buzz amidst “10,000 walking, talking  computer freaks.”

The Apple II was a machine for hobbyists who did not want to fuss with soldering irons: all the ingre  dients for a functioning PC were provided in a convenient molded plastic case. It looked clunky, yet it could be at home on  someone’s desk. Instead of puzzling over bits of hardware or typing up punch cards to feed into someone else’s main- frame,  Apple owners faced only the hurdle of a cryptic blinking cursor in the up- per left corner of the screen: the PC  awaited instructions. But the hurdle was not high. Some owners were inspired to program the machines themselves, but true beginners simply could load up software written and then shared or sold by their more skilled or inspired counterparts. The  Apple II was a blank slate, a bold departure from previous technology that had been developed and marketed to perform specific tasks from the first day of its sale to the last day of its use. The Apple II quickly became popular. And when  programmer and entrepreneur Dan Bricklin introduced the first killer application for the Apple II in 1979—VisiCalc, the  world’s first spreadsheet program—sales of the ungainly but very cool machine took off dramatically.3 An Apple running  VisiCalc helped to convince a skeptical world that there was a place for the PC at everyone’s desk and hence a market to  build many, and to build them very fast. Though these two inventions—iPhone and Apple II—were launched by the same man, the revolutions that they inaugurated are radically different.

For the technology that each inaugurated is radically different. The Apple II was quintessentially generative technology. It was a platform. It invited people to tinker with it. Hobbyists wrote programs. Businesses began to plan on selling software. Jobs (and Apple) had no clue how the machine would be used. They had their hunches, but, fortunately for them, nothing constrained the PC to the hunches of the founders. Apple did not even know that VisiCalc was on the market when it noticed sales of the Apple II skyrocketing. The Apple II was designed for surprises—some very good (VisiCalc), and some  not so good (the inevitable and frequent computer crashes). The iPhone is the opposite. It is sterile. Rather than a platform  that invites innovation, the iPhone comes preprogrammed. You are not allowed to add programs to the all-in-one device that Steve Jobs sells you. Its functionality is locked in, though Apple can change it through remote updates. Indeed, to  those who managed to tinker with the code to enable the iPhone to support more or different applications, Apple threatened (and then delivered on the threat) to transform the iPhone into an iBrick.5 The machine was not to be generative beyond the innovations that Apple (and its exclusive carrier, AT&T) wanted. Whereas the world would innovate for the Apple II, only Apple would innovate for the iPhone. (A promised software development kit may allow others to program the iPhone with
Apple’s permission.)

Jobs was not shy about these restrictions baked into the iPhone. As he said at its launch:

We define everything that is on the phone. . . . You don’t want your phone to be like
a PC. The last thing you want is to have loaded three apps on your phone and then
you go to make a call and it doesn’t work anymore. These are more like iPods than
they are like computers.

No doubt, for a significant number of us, Jobs was exactly right. For in the thirty years between the first flashing cursor on the Apple II and the gorgeous iconized touch menu of the iPhone, we have grown weary not with the unexpected cool stuff that the generative PC had produced, but instead with the unexpected very uncool stuff that came along with it. Viruses, spam, identity theft, crashes: all of these were the consequences of a certain freedom built into the generative PC. As these  problems grow worse, for many the promise of security is enough reason to give up that freedom.

* * *

In the arc from the Apple II to the iPhone, we learn something important about where the Internet has been, and something more important about where it is going. The PC revolution was launched with PCs that invited innovation by others. So too with the Internet. Both were generative: they were designed to accept any contribution that followed a basic set of rules  (either coded for a particular operating system, or respecting the protocols of the Internet). Both overwhelmed their  respective proprietary, non-generative competitors, such as the makers of stand-alone word processors and proprietary  online services like CompuServe and AOL. But the future unfolding right now is very different from this past. The future is not one of generative PCs attached to a generative network. It is instead one of sterile appliances tethered to a network of control.

These appliances take the innovations already created by Internet users and package them neatly and compellingly, which is good—but only if the Internet and PC can remain sufficiently central in the digital ecosystem to compete with locked-down appliances and facilitate the next round of innovations. The balance between the two spheres is precarious, and it is slipping toward the safer appliance. For example, Microsoft’s Xbox 360 video game console is a powerful computer, but, unlike Microsoft’s Windows operating system for PCs, it does not allow just anyone to write software that can run on it. Bill Gates sees the Xbox as at the center of the future digital ecosystem, rather than at its periphery: “It is a general purpose computer. . . . [W]e wouldn’t have done it if it was just a gaming device. We wouldn’t have gotten into the category at all. It was about strategically being in the living room. . . . [T]his is not some big secret. Sony says the same things.”

It is not easy to imagine the PC going extinct, and taking with it the possibility of allowing outside code to run—code that is the original source of so much of what we find useful about the Internet. But along with the rise of information appliances that package those useful activities without readily allowing new ones, there is the increasing lockdown of the PC itself. PCs may not be competing with information appliances so much as they are becoming them. The trend is starting in schools, libraries, cyber cafés, and offices, where the users of PCs are not their owners. The owners’ interests in maintaining stable computing environments are naturally aligned with technologies that tame the wildness of the Internet and PC, at the expense of valuable activities their users might otherwise discover.

The need for stability is growing. Today’s viruses and spyware are not merely annoyances to be ignored as one might tune out loud conversations at nearby tables in a restaurant. They will not be fixed by some new round of patches to bug-filled PC operating systems, or by abandoning now-ubiquitous Windows for Mac. Rather, they pose a fundamental dilemma: as long as people control the code that runs on their machines, they can make mistakes and be tricked into running dangerous code. As more people use PCs and make them more accessible to the outside world through broadband, the value of corrupting these users’ decisions is increasing. That value is derived from stealing people’s attention, PC processing cycles,  network bandwidth, or online preferences. And the fact that a Web page can be and often is rendered on the fly by drawing
upon hundreds of different sources scattered across the Net—a page may pull in content from its owner, advertisements from a syndicate, and links from various other feeds—means that bad code can infect huge swaths of the Web in a heartbeat.
If security problems worsen and fear spreads, rank-and-file users will not be far behind in preferring some form of lockdown—and regulators will speed the process along. In turn, that lockdown opens the door to new forms of regulatory surveillance and control. We have some hints of what that can look like. Enterprising law enforcement officers have been able to eavesdrop on occupants of motor vehicles equipped with the latest travel assistance systems by producing secret warrants and flicking a distant switch. They can turn a standard mobile phone into a roving microphone—whether or not it is being used for a call. As these opportunities arise in places under the rule of law—where some might welcome them—they also arise within technology-embracing authoritarian states, because the technology is exported.
A lockdown on PCs and a corresponding rise of tethered appliances will eliminate what today we take for granted: a world where mainstream technology can be influenced, even revolutionized, out of left field. Stopping this future depends on some wisely developed and implemented locks, along with new technologies and a community ethos that secures the keys to those locks among groups with shared norms and a sense of public purpose, rather than in the hands of a single gatekeeping entity, whether public or private. The iPhone is a product of both fashion and fear. It boasts an undeniably attractive aesthetic, and it bottles some of the best innovations from the PC and Internet in a stable, controlled form. The PC and Internet were the engines of those innovations, and if they can be saved, they will offer more. As time passes, the brand names on each side will change. But the core battle will remain. It will be fought through information appliances and Web 2.0 platforms like today’s Facebook apps and Google Maps mash-ups. These are not just products but also services, watched and updated according to the constant dictates of their makers and those who can pressure them.

November 10, 2011 | Kategorien: Counterculture, criticism, Politics | Tags: , , , , | Schreibe einen Kommentar »

The Font of All Knowledge: Wikipedia Dumps

Wikipedia and the MediaWiki community at large allow the downloading and preserving of weekly dumps of, among others, every current revision of every Wikipedia article in a number of lannguages, compressed for wide consumption, but also additionally uncompressed (also weekly) of the talk and discussion pages, and the revision history of every article as well, for the purely (or rationally, or otherwise) insane.

Currently, the dumps are text-only, though methods exist to fetch or retrieve images of the articles.

Other dumps of other arens of MediaWiki (and I’m sure a large number of other open-source, share-alike media and other good stuff: project Gutenberg comes to mind) are available free-of-use, theoretically. Now, you just have to become a Peruvian child and the rest will fall into place, ex nihilo.

April 28, 2011 | Kategorien: Uncategorized | Tags: | Schreibe einen Kommentar »

Neuer Kunst; Neue Welt

Aus welchem Grund entsteht in der modernen Welt die Möglichkeit die (gewiss beschrenkten) Grenzen der kunst, Dichterei und auch Literatur auf neue Weise zu richten; d.h., aus ihnen neue Ideen oder Ahnungen oder Prinzipien zu richten, aus denen sie (die Menschliche Ausdrückung, Darstellung, Unternehmungsgeist, usw.) sich auf solchen neuen Weisen (eine Kunst der Utopie?) richten können? Beziehungsweise, sind die Methoden des Dadaismus impotent diesen neuen Anfang einzurichten: dieses merkt man leicht, wenn man den Verhalt zwischen ihm [dem Dadaismus] und den einfachen Man on the Street, der sich von den Prinzipien des Dadaismus eher entfernt betrachtet: er bezeichnet seine Produckte eher als Kitsch — und mit Recht! Hat der einfache Arbeiter genügen Zeit und oder Freiheit um überhaupt den einfachsten Traum zu erleben? Es scheint, ohne sich von solchen Denkens und auch Unternehmungsarten wegzurichten, man sich wie ein Kind, das die Fanne seinen Vätern aufnimmt, und damit versucht zu kämpfen sich hält: d.h., mit verborgenen Werten, Prinzipien (des des individuellen Traumes, zB) und auch Denkens und Unternehmungsarten umgeht — das ähnelt sich an im Dunkeln zu wandern! Statt dieses, das sich eher vieles das den wahren Geist und menschlichen Verständnis vermeidet, müsste eine moderne Kunst, die sich auf neue Weisen und neue Ebenen richtet, und auch die neue Welt des bisher Unbekannten, bisher Unbetrachtbare (das Mysteriöse an der menschlichen Entwickelung) zu statt bringen (oder, zu mindest, die Erde aus der soclh eine Welt sich wachsen könnte vorbereiten, d.h., die Grundlagen solch einer Welt — und nicht die des inneren [eher unsinnigen, oder zu mindest subjektiven] Traumes); sich als Darstellungen, Bildnisse und auch Abbildungen gewisserweise verbundenen Prinzipien solch einer neuen Welt darstellen. D.h., sie sollten nicht nur authentisch, rein emotionell, und aus eher irrationallen (unlogischen) Quellen des innerlichen Geistes (der aber letztendlich auch der Kunst wichtig — als Ende und als Weise — ist) stammen, aber auch die Möglichkeit der Einführung solch einer Welt bezeichnen. D.h., die Kunst, Musik, und Literatur aus dem Rahmen des Verehrens (wo sie nur als bedingtes, d.h., vergegenständlichtes Wesen — bzw., als gegenstand erscheint) herauszuziehen, und sie (möglicherweise) innerhalb dem Bereich der politischen einzurichten. D.h., die moderne Kunst, Musik, & Literatur dadurch eher zum dialektischen Method(en) die Menschheit an Sich auf Prinzipien & Ideen des Fortschritts — d.h., die einer neu erstatteten (oder die Möglichkeit einer solchen zu begründen) Welt richten.

April 6, 2011 | Kategorien: "Kultur", Art, τέλος, Philosophy | Tags: , , | 1 Kommentar »

Langfristige Theorien, Theorien überhaupt

Die moderne gesellschäftlichen Lage stellt sich dar als eine der bedrohten Freiheit; d. h., der Mensch muss sich wegen sozialler Nötigkeit, d. h., Finanzen, Steuer, Zinsen, Gebüren, Miete, umso wie Nebenkosten usw. sich zu meist u. a. eigentlich ehrliche Unternehmung, so wie Spaß, Freude, Gesellschaft, das Beisein seiner Familie, u. a. a., die Musik, die Kunst, Literatur — alle Dinge (u. a. Menschen, Menschenverhältnisse) aus denen die menschliche Würde (die sich eigentlicund praktisch gegen Tragödie, wie auch Fluch u. a. Selbstmord darstellt) ensteht, verzichten. Daraus ensteht das heutzutägliche Gwölbe — der so zu sagen (SZS) sozialer Zwang.

Man sagt Mazzini schrieb über die Revolution, während Garibialdi sie unternahm — aber entstehen aus den generellen Aspekten der theoretischen Philosophie auch nicht gewisse nutzreiche, o. a sozial benötigte Aspekte o. a. Gestalte, o. a. Ansichten, o. a. Anschauungen? Man schaut auf 1848 — die „Revolution der Akademiker“ — und sieht das aus solchem (das es doch wohl gibt, überhaupt) gewisse Nachteile o. a. Mangel enstehen (weshalb, scheint daraus zu entstehen, das solche fortschrittliche Bewegungen sich immer von dem Grund der gesellschäftlichen Arbeiter und auch menschen generell sich trennen).

Man stellt sich Garrison vor, ohne dem es keine Tolstoi gäbe — und ohne dessen Existens die Möglichkeit allerdings entstehe, das z. B. Indien heutzutage noch Kolonie des Englischen Reiches wäre. Das heist eher, das die gewisse theoretischen Aspekte auch ihren Platz, so zu sagen, innerhalb der generellen Fortschrittsbewegunge haben, ohne dem diese Bewegungen sich schnell auf „Zückungen“, d. h., authoritärische Machtsverhältnisse (man stellt sich den Verfall der „Zückung“ der russichen Revolution vor) umstellen. Das heist nicht nichts machen, aber, das die gedankenslose Tat eher solchen Fortschritt eher langfristig — in dem Ablauf langer Zeit — eher vermindert (minimize).

Okay. Das heist dann, das wichtigste Teil o. a. Aspekt dem Fortschritt ehrliche Menschensverhältnisse sind, woran Marx – nicht Spengler — von sprach. So muss man eher „Judas-colored“ Folgen verdrängen und, weder im Offenen oder geheimlich — (wie gesagt, nicht nichts tun) — solche einfache o. a. natürliche Ideen (auch der Christentum, z. B. — auf mehreren Seiten — Gottesdienst, z. B. — eher „heterodox“: Augustinus-Luther-Münzer-Kierkegaard-Bonhoeffer, usw.) haben ihre (wenn auch nur sittliche) Vorteile, gegenüber einer geizigen (o. a. „sparsamen“) Lebensanschauung (man denkt an finanziellen und kommerziellen Luftschlössern aller Art) — auf denen man schließlich, o. a. eventuell feinere, o. a. andere (evolution, Wachstum der Idee) Aspekte steigert (man denkt an Kindern, Spielzeuge, Bau, Bahn, usw.) — als theoretischen Grundbasis anzusehen.

„Auch der Kapitalismus entsteht aus gewissen Grenzen“ — Das Problem der dogmatischen Ideologern ist, das solch ein Mensch — der weniger als Mensch angesehen werden kann, und eher als Bürokrat, überhaupt — weder Sozialist o. a. Monarchist, o. bürgerlich Würzeln (hier denkt man an Erziehung, gesellschäfftlichen Ethos, Kultur: die der Kapitalismus — wie Lenin vor vielen vielen Jahren schrieb — unterdrängt, o. a. zerstört — man denkt an den Englischen Spruch „to pull the rug out from under someone’s feet“, der etwas ausdrückt) außerhalb dem ehrlichen Grund (dem „etwas“, so wie, „es gab einmal ein man“) und dieser Mensch sieht den Menschen generell als „Fakt“, Statistik, usw. Dagegen muss sich solch eine Theorie (eine des menschlichen Geistes, der menschlichen Würd, o. a. natürliche Verhältnisse) kehren.

Aus was entsteht solch eine Theorie? Was sind ihre mehrseitigen Aspekten? Wie stellt sich der gesellschäftliche ethos (der grundsätzlich angeblich aus geschichtlichen Gründen entsteht) gegeüber? Solch eine Theorie, wenn sie sich als wahrlich, ehrlich realistische Theorie darstellt, muss aus langfristigen Prinyipien, die sich soclhe „Zückungen“ verzichten entstehen; die sich nur (wie Marx schrieb) aus ehrlichen Menschenverhältnisse, die sich auf langfristige (aber dann eventuell auch bestimmte) Ziele (Gerechtigkeit, Freiheit, Egalität, usw.) entstehen

März 25, 2011 | Kategorien: Activism, Capitalism, criticism, History, τέλος, Politics, sociology | Tags: , , , | Schreibe einen Kommentar »

« Ältere Einträge
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.