is existentialism a borderline condition, or, vica vers?

Due to the mature content, all 18 years or younger may be warned not to read or engage in this article.

–for possible damage to theirnerveous system.

There is a great deal of similarity in the phenomenological reduction,(eidectic) and the bracketing, thereof, the the philosophical notion of an existential escspe through nihilism.

Could a hypothetical paradigmn be set up, such as, to modify the already well known French notion of the relationship between schizophrenia and capitalism, as an augmentation-modification,
reducing personality disturbance toward a philosophical bracket, rather than an economic one?(as in the Freudian notion of ID economy)

The statistics are indeed troubling. The incidence of borderline type personality is very rapidly increasing. This may be tied;to an index of culturally defined perimeters, rather than economic ones, albeit very loosely.

If such a proposition can be advanced, can Difference and Repetition be softened by the loosening of those perimeters, leading to more optimal views of assimilative identification among estranged people generally, rather then as through an individual psychology? (Although ‘group treatment’ has been used in treatment, the approach has been mostly as a psychoanalytic precurser, rather than as; productive effects of social aberration.

The change from economic to cultural determinants, may; pre-front a differing approach in assimilation of migrant peoples into assimilating cultures.

Your opinions will be appreciated here.

I am assuming your referring to “A Thousand Plateaus”
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Thousand_Plateaus

I still don’t understand your question. Can you highlight sections of what you wrote/questioned, and explain it through a commentary for each part, and link it together with a surmise at the end?

I only ask this cause I read what you wrote four times, and am stumped. I don’t even believe nihilism is a actual cognitive state, so its a strain on my imagination to figure out what your getting at. I need the rest of the context before I can determine what cascade of functions qualify for nihilism this time.

I honestly tried hard.

Finally someone agrees with me!

I will try to clarify. I did not use a Thousand Plateus as a refrence, however, i have read Schizophrenia and Capitalism in bits and pieces, and it is justified because the way it is written, and this is suggested by, it is possible to take parts out and apply them. The same with a Thousand Plateus.

There is dissention about the cognitive dissonance part, and Massumi et a. denote this. (I can get the exact ref) That it is cognitive, is behind the current primary treatment, (CBT). Nihilism is a belief, and beliefs are based on thoughts. So i do not see, how it is anything but. But i suppose it can be argued differently.

The point i was trying to make is fairly graspable, vis, that is the borderlessness prevalent, an index of psychological, or primarily social-psychological derivitive?

Now that You mentioned Thousand Plateus, and looking into it, it butm reinforces this very idea, of which i thought i came upon, by mere happenstance.

in the followng, i will try to cite myn sources.

1 Like

Haakenson points to the differentiation between the nomadic and the migrant, where they treat territoriality and de-territorialism in differing ways. There is a tendency for the migrant to leave a former territory, whereas the nomad does not.

The identity from which the migrant escapes, is an
internalized territory, so the flight does not necessarily signify an actual flight from a real territory. It is a state, a cognitive state.

Sorry, I quoted the wrong book, I remembered them, and remember reading a good chunk of that book (a thousand plateaus )so I could talk to a attractive art student, even though my motivation was for the other (if I recall, one is the sequel of the other).

I’m not a expert of either, as I don’t find much use for French Philosophy post Sartre. But I recall these two books were inspired by a anti-psychiatric movement in France, observing actual patients… so I won’t dismiss them outright.

Okay, do I’ll need this deciphered into a actual meaning before we assert the dichotomy is psychologically valid (traceable to an actual function of the mind that allows us to do A or B).

I am assuming we are referring to migrant being someone who leaves from territory X, and goes to Y, but while in Y, insists on calling it New X? The person remains the same as much as possible in the new environment, as in the old, but is hopefully self actualizing better now (or at least moved higher up the needs pyramid).

A nomad gets what he needs locally, but doesn’t have a fixed point in the locale. He fills his needs from all over.

So… Nihilism and why the French would give a fuck about this is… I still don’t know. Lemme go back and read that first post again and think for a while.

Can you explain this a bit more?

Identity, Non-Identity in nature can unfold spacially many ways, for example in Ecistics, the modulation of city planning and growth is exactly planned, in neurological growth, the principle of Isoneural Avoidance plays a part:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuronal_self-avoidance

Alright, looking over two books, I presume the nihilism spatially involves A Priori, a sense of self that is suppressed/protected by a Noradrenaline surge (panic). Migrant gets the fuck out (fight or flight, chooses flight), finds safe harbour, opens up again. Same person, new environment. Nomad doesn’t apparently hold to the fight of flight dichotomy in a way that makes any sense here, so could be off.

This would make the location the thalamus, the reticular nucleus.

This would also suggest the French were trying to reorder the acceptability/rejection of cultural rules on a geographical basis… Substituting the Linguistic-Rule basis for the Spacial-Movement basis.

It can work for studies in the sociology of migration, as personality types based in thus region of the brain are highly connected and social, and are the first to start feeling awkward when social structures start yo break down, but they are rather shallow individuals, and can’t intellectualize that well, and the logic of terrorism is directly AIMED at this very region of the brain, this personality range.

They do one if two things (well three actually) they fall into depressions and recoil for the world, they jump on the bandwagon of some new idea inspired to counteract the effects if the first (God is dead! Oh nooo, I’ll go sulk and become a pot-smoking Beatnik psuedo-buddhist, we will never GI back! Meanwhile the rest of society shrugs them off, and ignores their crusades of their nitwit professors), or they die… suicide, or rightfully murdered/terrorized.

Its one if the paradoxes of Foucault’s justification of terrorism as a form if valid communication, there is only a small subset of the population capable of meaningfully receiving the terrorism as a valid form of communication.

I’ll give you an example, the Arizona shooter, Jared Lee Loughner:

Most of these traits are personality traits based out of the thalamus (and no, there is NO antipode in the brain to it, it only arises in a unified behavior here). He was highly liberal, became the very opposite. He accepted rules based system, wasn’t too attached to ideas or movements, then radically was. He thought government controlled the world via language.

He lead Hus life in total rejection to his former self, but still within the confines and reasoning of that personality type based in the thalamus.

Language is processed through it, but spatial data is not its specialty. However, joining social movements, and political causes once pulling out if a depression is.

If this depression is Nihilism for them, then perhaps something rests at the bottom of this.

Problem is, your original post still doesn’t make any sense to me, and need it explained further. If I’m right, I’ll need it to identify the route in the cytoarchitecture they are particularly emphasizing so I can offer a range of historical figures that fit, and don’t fit it, and isolate the actual path they are speaking if.

I obviously can’t accept the methods if French philosophy as they present their data in rather absurd ways, and always in reference to reference to references… as if a school of though is proof when its all floating in the clouds of abstract thought. I like it rooted in facts I can associate to either biology or behaviorism, or a MUX of the two, such as statecraft if history. They kinda trued to do that in A Thousand Plateaus, but was unimpressed with the results. None the less, all philosophy has a valid basis in the mind, so I have a lukewarm interest in it.

Enough to continue, but you’ll need to explain a few more things.

Turd,

This is a perfect opportunity at the very same existentil reduction that Sartre, albeit Husserl was all about. I will redue the problem posed to the simplest
possible form, thereby, unfortunately, loosing a lot of
inclueded varables, which the process of existential understanding took for a build up. Moral here, is it’s vastly more difficult, and intricately more fsbricated on the way up, as it is upon a disintegating way down.

The disintegration is not based on any a-priori understanding, it only is a formal process of increasing generlized methodology, to make things comprehensible, understandable. This is the purpose of the ‘eidectic’ reduction, and was born out of the existential disintegration of European thought, vis. cognative thought.

It also was a supposed antidote to cognative dissonance, as reductionism, per rationalized generalization tends to give the appesrance of a comprehensive united meanig theory.

That the left out material was significant, is compensated in the post modern iea of Sassurian sign theory. That this is failinbg on manyn levels, is kind of obvuous.

Now what has all to do with identifying elements of the self,= noumena),as a transitive process?

The phenomenological reduction, trying to balance the noumenologicsl understanding (a-priori), has been ointed to as receptive to economic basis of post ideological ‘struggle’; in the Marxian sense. That Marx as the basis upon which Sartre built his secure
existentially reduced neumina, and failing that, undud that, undoing any way for the phenominal world to match up to it, caused the nihilissm of pre existential ideation to resurface, and that in a vastly larger and more troubling way.

This is where a whole ghoulash of ideas, mostly French, came ablut to try to establish a correspondence between them.(Noumena and
phenomena)

So to the simple position that Capitalism and Schizophrenia has an underlhying weakness, was put on a new, albeit later work…

And in identally, my idea corresponded to it, even withiut reeading it, (and this in all honesty), thereby suggesting the weakness of the psychiatrist Attari’s proposal about this correspondence.

Marinality, migrancy, fight and flight in terms of fleeing the identity, again in erms of survaillance, can be understood in bith real and symbolic tems.

I think your looking at it from the basis of the neural components of the brain is very acute and indicative
of a substantiation of these mostly French ideas,
hopwever, i am afraid, at least fo now, thwy remain on the theoretical level, as far as it goes.

I do think , however, that they make a lotm of sense,
and the conclusion may be based on this hypothetical premis, that cultural phenomenal schizophrenia is very suspect, and do not at all conform ingeniously, and genetically.

I think that a lot of anti psychiatry fails here, at least on the level of behaviorism. Cultural abd bhavioral differences, do have bearing though on the alarming riseof the borderless, identity fleeing processes of a rapidly changing world.

I can’t understand any of that, understand your not forming complete thoughts right now, its chicken scratch.

Ive written what you said down, and will look to see if anyone has tried cognitively mapping this. I can’t see how what you wrote in the last post remotely relates to the last, you appear to be talking about feedback loops in a completely different part of the brain in the right linking up with the left completely bypassing the thalamus, and there are several possibilities here for “nihilism”, all quite different.

Okay, fuck…

I’ve done a partial Typology of you, can’t get more specific till I get more info (learning about how you tick was never a high priority for you, no disrespect).

Your emphasis on Eidetic Reduction and Signs, your sense if Anxiety and Worry, and identification of Self in intuitively knowing these things and feeling unstable, without knowing why… and emphasizing a irrational duality (Nomad vs Emigrant as a cognitive construct) land you squarely in the left hemisphere, by default.

So that means this is going to be painful for you, as I will have to uproot aspects of your understanding that you associate/identify with. I apologize in advance.

I’ve largely relied on one author here, he has done a lot of research in this over the years, but his ideas are scattered and he wasn’t explaining this philosophy in particular, so there isn’t one book or one quote I can offer up.

Fundamentally, and you will dislike hearing this, your idea of building up ideas and deconstructing them from knowledge to essence isnt correct, in the same sense of Zoot Allures rebelling against Solipsism isn’t right, but for reasons of unrelated lateralization of the flow of information in the circuit your conscious of (it is related on the macroscale if information processing, we are dealing with your particulars here)

Eiditic Reduction falls in a category known as “Confabulation” Where A and B can be found to fit really well together (Nomad and Immigrant) but fail when related to C, much less D, E, F. I pointed out the reasons they don’t fit… they are ideas of identity on spacial topography designed to label people by identity and behavior, but their underlining functions might not be related at all, as such people may have radically different motivations and thinking styles. Take Zoot, Laughing Man, and Me… All three Hobos (but not Homos) from time to time, yet drastically different personality and informational processing capacities between us. Zoot is imaginative and has low cortical control, and so is impulsive. He lacks concentration, and can’t do complex theorization to the degree I gravitate to. Yet he relates to my behavior in other ways (shared and unshared aspects of mental processing, I have obviously higher impulse control). Laughingman knows languages, can endadge in longer term planning and theorizing than Zoots, yet still manages to train wreck, I have low capacity to learn language, but very high ability to manipulate, rearrange, accept, and invent new concepts used in processing, and the ability naturally to pursue research and even theorize on the nature of mind to optimalize it.

I would seemingly have a corner on Eidetic Reduction, but simultaneously see issues in it, am aware of the malfunction (and its more than signage).

This suggests to me a figure 8 (sideways) in the brain linking up feedback loops.

What we need to look at in Eidetic Reduction within the area of your concern is (as well as it’s imagined opposite function) is how Right Parietal Lobe & Right Hippocampus links up to the Left Temporal Lobe and Left Amygalda.

To repeat, that is

Right Parietal Lobe & Right Hippocampus

Left Temporal Lobe & Left Amygalda

and the presumed path through the Angular Gyrus. Right Angular Gyrus results in depersonalization when it gets fucked up (fucked up being a medical term here).

The opposite of Eiditic Reduction, the connection between items (half our problems with noumenmon and phenomena occur here) happens in the Dorsalateral Prefrontal Cortex. It doesn’t process information about the thing in itself, but information connecting it to other things… hence why you can reduce the essence of a thing to the point of nothing. In Advaita, a monist school of non-dualism, they attempt to lobotomize this very function of the mind, well past Eidetic presuppositions (hence, Eiditic Reduction can self can be nihilistic (in a rather lame sense, but I suppose very real to you given where your consciously based), but we will get to that in a bit.

The Right Dorsal Lateral Prefrontal Cortex produces a Value from facts (facts originating elsewhere, might very well be these Sausserian Signs you talk so much, involves image processing and emotions, just haven’t researched it that much, maybe later, likely not as it doesn’t really seem that advanced of a theory to me from what you have eluded to, I prefer Frontinius). It takes the information, sorts it methodologically like a good scientist, send it packing to The Left Dorsal Lateral, where you go through the Confabulation stage before mentioned.

The hobos are over on the otherside. Left hemisphere isn’t going to be able to reduce to a stable dualistic value, as it doesn’t have conscious control of either My or Zoots functions, which involves Imaginative manipulation of those said images… Both Zoot and I have at least one additional feedback loop in the right hemisphere you would be unaware of, and we both represent two different thought processes to begin with, and link the lateralization process differently.

The region of particular concern (I gotta research this a bit more, it is suggested) the the Frontal-Polar Region.


Okay, so that stuff out of the way,the Analytic Ordering if your thought, and impulse to art as your means to growth can be explained (and why I think your Left Hemi):

I broke it down from here to neurological assumptions he had on mental processing. Your more than likely his T/ Teacher Type.

When a theory goes to shit for this/your personality type, the Right Amygalda is involved, (left suppressed, and you rely on the left) when left is running optimally, your able to tell when a theory is being updated or violated.

This is the “emotional” end points of that figure 8 (sideways) left and right Amygalda being its far extremes. If the left hits issues in impossible processing, it closes the feedback loop, your unconscious Right Hemisphere kicks in, you get bitchy, irritated, driven by anxiety. The opposite, and “truth” arises.

More or less the region your talking about, there are more possibilities than this though. I’ve been building a Cognitive Language that expresses cognitive sequences as chain of thought that resembles Molecular Geometry using Di-Polar Spheres, it goes beyond the Aphophatic Method, to embrace Ontological Arguments for logical reality of things, their refutations, and coexistence of the Abstract-Concrete Co-Existence of contradictory aspects in modual packets.

You start with St. Anslem’s Proof of God, and use Gaunilo of Marmoutiers’s Refutation “The Perfect Island Paradox”.

medieval island perfection paradox

From this I can use Charles Hartshorne’s Dipolar Spheres

The theology in and of itself sucks balls (you can hardly express god this way) but the tradition echoes back to theAphophatic Method first developed by Numenius of Apamea, and adopted by Neo-Platonism and Christianity (it is a outgrowth of that tradition, but is limited to these circuits.).

This is part of his mapping:

Its able to absord contradiction in assertion, and still be orderly. Why? It has a orderly ontological grasp of dualities that exist in processing ideas between that figure 8. You deal with the most abstract principles possible, but the Di-Polar Method merges Concrete with Abstract ideas in a mapping system… I’ve been providing a stable language to express this in a 3-D molecular language able to define this phenomena.

This us light years ahead of what your dealing with, and the roots of the philosophy is quite ancient, not modern French Philosophy.

The capacity to visualize that “perfect island paradox” relates to your inherent inability to do art… you had to learn how to do it. You’ve expressed this as the reason for needing to follow Nietzsche in the past, to become a Artist, and I told you fine, carry on.

You have very little control over visual aspects of the imagination. I don’t know if this involves haptic (sculpting by touch alone) as if there is a dysfunction in the Left Orbital Frontal-Amgydala Circuit, autism emerges, and Autistics primarily learn from touch (which I presume means haptically).

Your thought process depends heavily on that circuit.

My recommendation is to start googling the brain regions I mentioned, and see how they relate to you, in regards to processing information. Eidetic reduction has existed in many societies for thousands of years, and many appear to go well pass what I’ve seen listed as its theoretical limits. The “Cloud of Unknowing” sort of stuff.

I wouldn’t panic or get depressed, I seriously doubt now Guittari or Deleuze were in a position to competently write a philosophical theory now. Perhaps there is alot more to it, but I’m even more inclined not to read more of them now than before, French Philosophy just seems to be a endless trainwreck to me, unworthy of serious consideration.

Am I on the mark, or well off it? Its really hard to make sense of your posts.

You know what, I wrote pages of notes of research over the last few hours when researching for your reply, and the one mention I needed that most is missing.

I know your region of the brain processes “Platonic Forms” (perfect things beyond visual image representation, a more perfect form) and at one point they said it your area can’t process beauty. You had to expand into art to perform this function (which is healthy, your expanding your awareness. I literally hate hopeless natural artists who started off life doodling, can’t do anything but art, and think they are saving the world by continuing in art and calling it “culture”, makes me wanna murder the whole worthless lot of them).

I’m going to have to map Plotinus’ theory of beauty over Cicero’s mnemonic understanding, and see how it relates to your cognitive area later on thus year. Don’t know if anyone ever bothered to figure out the interrelated nature of truth and beauty in terms of neurological processes in modern times, how society relates to it as a whole. Somewhat awkward, disastrous attempts in part by idiots, but never came across a successful theory close to examining it in force. How do you get from Buckminster Fuller to You?

Turd, i just discovered Your reply, i do apoligise for not answering, and that does not mean that the subject is exhausted,mor that I accede to a total resolution. in fact, I have to look into it and, give it justice, so that at least a half way sufficiently relevant answer can be given. I am at the present time indisposed, am traveling, so that it may be a few days before I can reply. on a brief overview on such a difficult subject, it looks like You are referencing the neural approach, versus the political one. I am not favoring the behavioral approach, however the point is, that that having failed on many levels, and have actually been post scripted by Attari himself, shows his evolution as a thinker. This cognitive shift became necessary as a direct result of Sartre’s own change of heart, and there is absolutely no doubt about that.

So, so much for a peripheral reading, albeit grossly insufficient, will get back.

Okay, do so when you get a chance.

Also, know your going to have to explain how the “political” isn’t Cognitive. I pride myself with my study of statecraft and military texts, and have read a number of diplomatic treatises. Before I adopted philosophy, I was already a very strong and enthusiastic reader in this area.

I am mystefied when someone says politics can’t be charted cognitively. That’s 9-10th of the reason I even bother mapping out Arius Didymus for example, he had compiled the Stoic’s reasoning for how states form and function cognitively.

I can accept you saying you don’t agree with my diagnosis above (I honestly can’t figure out half of what you said, so that’s expected) but I won’t begin to abandon tracing a cognitive basis for a “political” one. That reminds me too much of the two unicorns that would harass Charlie the Unicorn.

Its like saying an idea isn’t generated in the mind, but in the ether, and it metaphysically interacts. Everything cognitive is mental, even if the stimuli is originally external.

So I am severely stumped by your statement I’m taking the cognitive approach over the political.

I am bogged down, with ideas, and that in it’self a problem of a political puzzle history has proven by the cognitive blunders shared by those who think of
not the cognitive basis, but rather the shift to deception.

The suggestion is not that the neural/emotive, the cognitive/structural, and the behaviorally effective sources of power are not perceived as an anomalie, (therefore creating optical illusions of state’smanship,
and it’s sources, but but that political projection of power is set up exactly and knowingly, to create this
seemingly static and directed projection of an authoritarian, benevolent and cognition.

The assurance of verity in this formula is directly proportional with the stability of the whole edifice,
therefore the political machine becomes a well crafted house of cards between these three dynamic
poles. I do not believe that an absolute focus on
the cognitive basis of this structure can give anything butn a semblene of what is going on politically.

I am sprry Turd over Your yrouble reading my stuff, and i am trying to convey an impression that i really mean what i am trying ti express, perhaps somewhat
needing in improvement.

A good example is the bungling of political application to the murky ideas of the will to power. Then the consequential debacle is transferred generally to the German people, as if, they had a cognitive basis, and sbsequent guilt, over how things turned out. This is
as illusive, as can be, and a lot of people buy into it,

and a general guilt is attributed to ‘character’.

Character is a contrived defensive position , of a
borderline type of relationship, a non specific anomalie, between existential possibilities of being.
This is what Sartre was conveying in this specific instance, and this is where the reduction can go no
longer into an attributable area. It becomes as
vague, as his analysis of his own hand looked at objectively, vis. it becomes like a strange, detached
object. Bational socialism became as such, a virtual
political position, accepted widely as a legitimate
political stance, but on closer examination, a product
of affective and effective social manipulation.I do not believe in social guilt.

Your assuming this forms a Tri-Polar Axis? No, but let’s see why:

A Axis: Authoritarianism
B Axis: Benevolence
C Axis: Cognition

C Axis > A+B Axis Combined,
as A and B are themselves Cognitive States,
But even when combined are NOT the total sum
all cognition possible.

B Axis is a determinant, but isn’t necessarily determanant to A, nor A over B.

Suppose a unspecified X Axis was included,
it is a part and parcel of C, but isn’t = to C.

X Axis may or may not relate to A+B Axis, or it may,
but if it does, X > A+ B, X = A+B, X < A+ B is all possible,
depending on circumstance.

Circumstance is Y Axis.
Y Axis is what is possible.

Y Axis > C Axis
C Axis > A+B Axis
X Axis depends on Y Axis, but not X

Clausewitz concept of Friction and/or Fog of War can be X here, C Axis is generally unaware of X.

Your 3 Poled Axis is at least 5. A, B, C, X, and Y.

I’ll do this piecemeal (take the parts you present that I might understand and reply in parts).

Good governance is a awareness that X and Y existence and for good reason, and are parts and parcel to a larger methodology, one that is highly adaptable, as it is introspective of its purpose, willing to reconsider failing strategies. aggressively adapts itself so X and Y is known by C from the perspectives of A and B relationship.




A bit of a segway, but a good illustration for further pondering already exists along what you proposed:

If it was Dune, House Atrides does just this (method for Good Government explained aboce), but House Harkonnen goes after just A as C, hoping X and Y falls in their favor through scheming.

Leto II as The God Emperor has complete mastery over C, X, and Y… its all one and the same to him, he is it’s absolute living incarnation (the ultimate form of Nietzsche’s Superman). His whole point was to expand C Axis through X Axis at his personal expense (The Golden Path).

I’m referring to Frank Herbert’s Dune series. Its a Science Fiction Genera that took Nietzsche’s ideas and promoted one aspect per Novel, and in the next would turn it upside down and show how rotten and unfeasible it was. Frank Herbert was the first American Philosopher who took on Nietzsche with the aim of shattering his system while respecting it for what it was worth.

Your looking to understand the system while breaking out of it. Frank Herbert expressed it as a No-Gene/ No-Sphere. It was a fictional device to drive a larger idea, one you seem to struggle with too.

If you haven’t read the stories, know there are two miniseries "

“Dune”
m.youtube.com/watch?v=ueYYVRTWmjY

and “Children of Dune”

m.youtube.com/watch?v=SsBjk_EqMWs

My cellphone is data throttled, but think those are working links to the full miniseries. Its as close to Nietzsche or WTP as I will get for now, seems up to the task of your questions.

The Cognitive-Structural:

I’m assuming your trying to say Structuralism:

Foucault (a Nietzschean) takes after this theory.

Neural/Emotive:

This is awkward, as Cognition is Neural (Nerves link up different parts of the brain, forming feedback loops. This is what conscious awareness is, a duality).

But your trying to differentiate it from what I presume to be structuralism, yet give it a differenting anatomy that is NOT Structuralism but is a mechanical component to it. This fits you then roughly here, if I’m right:

Problem is, different parts of the brain are responsible for different passions, its a Complex Monoamine Cascade that goes all over the mind:

You shouldn’t seek to divide the two, but be aware both are part and parcel of this duscussion. We can’t reach a end explanation by keeping them artificially seperate. Its not within reason to do so.

You will have to explain your static/dynamic Statesmanship delusion to me, its not making much sense to me in regards to how you expressed it. I know your stumped how people perceive it, as a continuance (which I presume you presume is false) and you used the word deception… but I need a more stable description, as this can be a lot of things. Is ALL government a deception? For example, a Flood hits, national guard comes in on its boats, it both beneficial and authoratitive, rescuing people and stopping riots from burning down the unexposed parts of the buildings. This isn’t deception, or false statesmanship… the National Guard commander is following Generalship and its prescriptions for civil disasters such as this, via a script that has been adjusted for thousands of years of trial, failure, adjustment, and successes in a synthesis that emphasisizes the progressive navigation of conflict while maximizing the assertibility of useful and productive force, under a Utilitarian calculus of balancing needs for the greater good, while keeping people safe and valuables unmolested, so they can resume their lives after the disaster. They may prioritize protecting targets… During the San Francisco Earthquake a century ago, a fire broke out in the city impossible to stop… military focused on saving the post office as it was deemed a vital government building needed for a swift reconstruction. Unfair to others needing help putting out fires? Perhaps, almost certainly in some cases, but the government asserted what it COULD DO in very difficult and bewildering circumstances (whole city on fire), and limited resources and manpower to effectively combat it. What it CAN DO realistically and what it OUGHT TO DO in hindsight doesn’t always appear apparent or justified in the heat of the moment, hence our reliance on SOPs governing the use if force, laws and rules delineating responsibilities, and tactical and strategic studies prepared in advance that strives to predict the unpredictable. This is the Ethics a responsible government undertakes during peacetime, training, training, and more training. Preparation, asking the What Its is paranoid preparedness. Remembering people will be scared and reacting bewildered or hostile, yet are trapped in bad situations and are mostly good people is essential.

This isn’t inherenrly false or deceptive. Even a militant anarchist will accept a helicopter ride off the roof of a flooded building that is also on fire. He will protest against the machine once he lands and sees how lame the MRE rations in the shelter are.

Is that you, God? I was wrong, God, please forgive me. You are omnicient.
But why oh why have you made me so puny up there, God?
Why am I only one little book in the smallest of bookcases?
You did me wrong God. Did you do me wrong?
Some day you will have a lot of explaining to do.

Turd, what You are trying to do, and what i am, is ilustrated by Your analysis for instance, of what 'structuralism entails. This is at once a very simple, yet a complex notion, but the aim of this OP, is simply to generate a realization of correspondence
between philosophical, social and psychological
similarities in borderline siuations.
That, to reiterate, the existential(eidectic) reduction, is a phenomenological one, toward the aim of more
and more general structures of cognition, while retaining the most optimum or ideal elments within that stucture, leading to the idea, that the suspension, has not reached a stability, of the
socio-political bottom supported by Marxism-
Communism. This basis supported the surrealistic -communistic manifesto as well, and suerralism gave added psychoanalytic bases to the one advocated by
Sartre-Husserl.

The correspondences of marginal border states,
where the differentiation of structural differences
between the political aims toward social equilibrium
and neural-cognitive basis of wired in reified ideation,
have merit. As to which is primordial, is
hypothetical, and not the aim of this analysis.

The one thing, which can be asserted, is that they do have effective dynamical relationships whereupon it can be safely said, that existentialism in it’s
effectively broad sense implies an anomaly, whereupon these relations within psychological states can be remarked.

Whether the causal chain is fortright, as in the major
French studies with more exaggerated causality, as exemplified
by Attari , is questionable, and i suspect was the reason behind his publishing beyond his Capitalism
and Schizophrenia. It was too bold of an assumption,
and
lesser fragmented, more auspicious ideas were introduced in a Thousand Plateaus. It’s not a re-coil or a revision per se, but it brings more support of
underlying structural basis.

I don’t see any difference in Your position, and it’s
not a matter of right and wrong, only relating to the
construction of support for the idea. This can be seen by what should have been a sequence of writing, by implication. Capitalism has bearing on
social and personal disintegration and alienation no
doubt, but it is to the degree of such, that a reduction can be seen to parallel. In other words, the reductive nature of existentialism may not
immediately throw one into nihilism or schizophrenia,
but is a gradual disintegration,whereby, most displacement occurs on such gradual decline.

If Capitalism continues it’s course, where values
become totally estranged , it is possible, we will
attain, not an insane world, but a totally machine controlled one, where sanity will be defined in terms of adherence to prescripted computerized programs.

But i believe, such a state, may not become a reality,
due to the very fragility of human psyche. It may
not be able to develop a simultanious capacity with it.

I’m not a structuralist. I understand fully well why it seems that way, its a school of thought that arosed out of reflection upon connections in the activities in statecraft (once it started focusing on history and Anthropology, I know little about its linguistic era), so it seems similar. I developed very differently, I’m aware of the effects of Bayesian Logic on interpreting Depositional Statistical Presumptions… its where Abstract Ideas start to conflict with more Concrete thought in the mind of a INTJ.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_network

If you watch the movie “The Zero Theorem” you’ll see a bastardized artistic example, of a man systematically trying to create a ever more efficient system to organize his thoughts by sorting them via contradiction… everything that contradicts is collapsed, with the ultimate goal of a informational nihilism where all input data is mutually obliterated.

Problem is with this assumption, our capacity (INTJs, and the actor in the movie was obviously designed off of us) to compute relativistic assumptions is fundamentally opposed to the numeric system the rest of society uses. Our thought system at it’s point of genesis in MAKING VALUE is Dualist… a number has no value unless it relates to another value.

Say I took that Bayesian Assumption, and reversed the process… taking “Wet Grass” and broke it down by its causal causes (as it is a effect, and effects must at least two root causes, always… its a fundamental of temporal mechanics) of “Sprinkler” and “Rain”.

I end up with two elements that are linguistically knowable, but meaningless in and of themselves, lacking relation to one another. They are Platonic Ideas at best, waiting for causal ordering relative to other things.

Sprinkler + M C Hammer = Party.
Sprinkler + Sledge Hammer = Thirsty Grass

Sprinkler = Object

A object is a space for a mnemonic device, linking linguistic babble to assorted memory. My memory can be organized many ways. Its a learning process, its how intuition forms, its why INTJs learn from their enviroment, and can learn logical systems on the abstract level endlessly, but also are aggressive social learners. Think of Neo from the Matrix shaking in his chair endlessly as hours of data are pumped in him, but he also wandered around learning and testing his ideas in small group networks physically, and this had the bigger impact on him. He wasn’t the guy out in the big sweaty party jumping around like a idiot.

As a result, I know better than to try to reduce the information flow down to it’s barest constitutive structures… its usually thinkers like me who put them there in the first place. Shocking idea, isn’t it? Everyone uses this aspect of their thought process, at least unconsciously.

I will show you the ancient predecessor to your reductional idealism (Pyrrhonic Ataraxia):

It still breaks the idea down to what is immediately apparent and non-contradictory., within the scope of logic, and logic triggers memory of things for the comparison. These skeptics were aware of this, disliked it, but were stuck with it. They weren’t Nihilist, as you can’t achieve any sort of Nihilistic state from this reductionalism! Why? Cause our brain’s aren’t designed that way. Reducing a network doesn’t lead to the reduction of self.

Take a large corporation. We due a reverse the Bayesian Network, on a Point by Point basis (A to B). B has numerous relations, more than just A… but were trying to achieve the survival of “the large corporation”… and every point gets examined against A, and B is currently under the spotlight of A. Is A a quality or a essence, a thing in itself, some shit we just pulled out of our ass? Who knows, but it is a THING to measure OTHER THINGS by.

If you’ve seen the movie “the office” you would understand. Everyone is being interviewed, shit has to be chucked if the business is to survive. It can be hardware, people, concepts. New stuff can take their place, but not necessarily in similar proportions. In this case, A measuring B, B is people getting fired as far as the business corporate board is concerned… and A is the outside efficiency experts hired to do the trimming… but A and B are completely different qualities as far as the efficiency managers surveying are concerned, and different for the people being fired, and different for the people not being fired.

Its a subjective matrix, one who’s parts are completely unaware of other parts. Marxism tries to graft a singular, universal data scope a priori for this phenomena using Utilitarian principles, supplemented by militancy. It presumes a Holistic awareness and centralized control of the variables. It utterly fails to do this over time. System constantly breaks down.

Why? You can’t break an ideal down to a non-reducible core idea, as it would be required to be expressible by language, but it’s definition isn’t determinable by other words, but a posteri memory, experience… its why words adapt and evolve.

I gotta go…