latest

Book/DRAFT.md

@@ -3527,40 +3527,43 @@ That isn't to say that psychedelic compounds or meditation hold the key for solv
 
 In the midst of philosophically-supported drives towards collectivist liberation, it is ironic to find commonality in that we find independent means of claiming differences while using such claims to harvest collectively-designated resources. That is, modalities of self-conceived identity that are also a means to not miss out on appurtenances and provisions found within a social sphere.
 
-On the one hand, we claim our difference to maintain our distinction, but how to separate a distinction as a means of separation from its service as a means of buttressing oneself from potential exclusion -> TODO -> Research on social differentiation in a biological capacity: is it investigated in neuroscience?)
+On the one hand, we claim our difference to maintain our distinction, but how to separate a distinction as a means of separation from its service as a means of buttressing oneself from potential exclusion? 
+!TODO: Research on social differentiation in a biological capacity: is it investigated in neuroscience?
 
-The primary point is that every participant in a social environment will find reason to proclaim a difference in spite of seemingly conflicting rationales, and thus this calls into question any system of analysis presupposing an ascription of marginalization through categorical assignment of difference on the basis of normality / normalcy.
+The primary point is that every participant in a social environment will find reason to proclaim a difference in spite of seemingly conflicting rationales, and thus this calls into question any system of analysis presupposing an ascription of marginalization through categorical assignment of difference on the basis of normalcy.
 
-The distinction of normalcy and one's friction against it may very well become the proposal for a collective commitment to a declaration of allegiance to a new standard of equalization is not necessarily in the sense of equal affordance and acquisition of resources from the environment as it currently stands, but instead as a demand for a transformation of the environment.
+The distinction of normalcy and one's friction against it may very well become the proposal for a collective commitment to a declaration of allegiance to a new standard of equalization is not necessarily in the sense of equal affordance and acquisition of resources from the environment as it currently stands, but instead as a demand for a transformation of the environment. That is, to transform the environment such as to create the nature of its inhabitants, as though it were somehow something alien to them.
 
-When considering children and epistemic practices, there are universal and general requirements for development and these obviously derive from the generalized requirements to sustain life, and so the proposition that children have individual requirements stemming from unquantifiable (well, really) and unverifiable truths which bear relevance on themselves and society which are somehow evaluated on the basis of their material classification is an affront to reason and true justice. To compel children to place themselves in a moral hierarchy by luring them into supporting a political view in exchange for their ability to make themselves potential recipients of the benefits of society, or even to use language which is perfectly-suited for things for simply participating in society, speaking, and asking to follow along with others.
+When considering children and epistemic practices, there are universal and general requirements for development and these obviously derive from the generalized requirements to sustain life, and so the proposition that children have individual requirements stemming from often unquantifiable (in the sense that to collect data for a purpose is not the same thing as quantifying a phenomenon) and unverifiable truths which bear relevance on themselves and society which are somehow evaluated on the basis of their material classification is an affront to reason and true justice. To compel children to place themselves in a moral hierarchy by luring them into supporting a political view in exchange for their ability to make themselves potential recipients of the benefits of society, or even to use language which assumes such a hierarchy reasonably makes sense so they can fully participate in society, is to condition them as initiates in collectivist cult praxis.
 
-We are compelling children to accept a material classification to be able to participate in society:
-- The assumption is that some categories are killing and oppressing others by their existence
-- Some categories are afforded which classify one as being in service to the collective by virtue of the critical theory-derived model of history:
-  - Not being congruent to this means one is not on the path of evolution
-    - This replaces procreation, which is otherwise one's path to immortality
-    - At the very least, having the right ideological ascription allows you to be validated as having some to this point in an evolved state (you are the latest version/release)
-    - Since the goal of the ideology is world-making and the creation of man, anything which commits you to the goal insofar as being connected to this realization of its endpoint becomes the mechanism for your immortalization
-    - Since reality is actualized through social constructivism, the manner by which one commits themselves to the endpoint is by having the collective bear witness to your corrected identity
-      - Semantically, the commitment is by leading transformation to the conditions which make the endpoint possible, and this is through eliminating aspects of the world which are an expression of the conditions as they currently exist, which are the material aspects which maintain a distinction about reality (if even just a reified conception of reality, in the eyes of the critical theorist); this means that one's identity must be the negation of the current reality.
+We are compelling children to accept a material classification to be able to participate in society. The assumption is that some categories are killing and oppressing others by their very existence. Some categories are afforded which classify one as being in service of the collective by virtue of the critical theory-derived model of history. To not be in service, and thus in being incongruent to the collective which defines true humanity, one is not on the continued path of evolution. As such, this not only validates you as having come to this point in an evolved state, but this can be suspected and insinuated as replacing procreation, as it imputes one with reference to the process of human immortalization made manifest here in a material reality, which also suggests it can be confirmed as legitimate.
+
+Since the goal of collectivist ideologies, and especially Queer theory, is world-making and the creation of man, anything which commits you to the goal insofar as being connected to this realization of its endpoint becomes the mechanism of your immortalization. Since reality is actualized through social constructivism, the manner by which one commits themselves to the endpoint allows for it being bear witnessed by the collective as one's corrected identity. Semantically, the commitment is by leading transformation to the conditions which make the endpoint possible, and this is through eliminating aspects of the world which are an expression of the current conditions, which are the material aspects which maintain a distinction about reality. Such a distinction may even just be a reified conception of reality in and of itself, in the eyes of the Critical theorist, but this means that one's identity must be the negation of the current reality.
 
 It's particularly insidious that we are dealing with a small range of possible identity options for any child whose body does not immediately cause them to be classified as an oppressed status human, when evaluated at face value. With the intersectional lense, it's not enough that a white woman identify or come to be identified in the context of "patriarchy". For her critical perspective to be admissible, she must either perform praxis through her body, or her body should have been composed of different material altogether.
 
 # It's Not You, It's We
-People make like to grovel over whether their conception of the problem is being incorrectly labeled using their one flavour of collectivism that they hold onto and hold dear. That one theory which is no theory, but simply a honest look at reality, and which describes the real machinations of society and which puts forth an insightful understanding of just what limits have been placed on our lives, our happiness, and the thoughts that we may have. A helpful guide on how we can come to terms with what has been done and learn to imagine a way forward to a better future for everyone.
 
-And let's imagine for a moment, that we are going to do that based on what the laws themselves say. That we are going to look at what the current social structure is, what its legal stipulations happen to be, and discover that there are, indeed, hegemonic forces that are systemic and that necessarily affect the value of a person based on however it is that they are made knowable to the society at a general level. Could it even then finally become appropriate to use a structural critique of our relations and infer something about a type of person, now finally, because of the actual real proof of systemic forces which we know applies to everyone within the corresponding geographic locale?
+People like holding onto their permutation of collectivist cult ideology for the aesthetic, metaphysic and capacity to maintain delusion. With the metaphysic itself yielding an incomplete view of reality, each subset is itself an incomplete a further reduced view which limits representation of the world to the superficial particulars provided by its description while being forced to insist that that one theory is no theory but simply a honest look at reality describing its real machinations and bringing forth insight into what limits have been placed on our lives, thoughts and happiness.
 
-Well, no, because no matter how you slice it, people aren't groups and although we can say that the systemically applied laws are unfair and need to be removed, we can't ever understand how they affect people in the real world, and, far less knowable, that we can't assume to understand other humans based on how they are described with respect to these laws. Yes, we know things affect people, but we can't understand how they affect people. We also can't understand how it would affect all people who would be interpreted based o the current specification of unfairness.
+And let's imagine for a moment, that the descriptions are somehow correct, and that we wish to address the associated problems through approaching solutions to the word of the law. That we are going to look at what the current social structure is, what its legal stipulations happen to be, and discover that there are, indeed, hegemonic forces that are systemic and that necessarily affect the value of a person based on however it is that they are made knowable to the society. 
 
-We try to look at human history being a process of us becoming more reasonable and hence also a recipe by which we are never truly making the same mistakes that were made before. Why wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that things can get better, or that the ills of the world today don't indicate just what needs to be rectified or who might be (and not be) responsible?
+And, to dwell on that for a moment, how are we certain of the systemic forces?
+- Advanced biometric analysis
+- Perfectly honest admissions of guilt of specific actions of prejudice
 
-How else are we to imagine what the better world looks like without criticizing those things about it that we want to change?
+I'd love to also say that the laws of the respective jurisdiction were themselves also prejudice in how they're applied differently to different people, based on a group classification. Unfortunately, that would actually constitute a form of "systemic" prejudice and, at least as far as it pertains to western nations, the allegation of "systemic" prejudice, like "systemic racism", is only ever the mystical variety.
 
-Of course this brings about another paradox which has become a mainstay in western culture, and this again is only of interest to you if you care about contradictions and paradoxes, as those who have championed, forged and supported the thoughts this particular paradox are probably perfectly pleased to not only overlook the contradictions, but to smile upon them.
+Could it then finally become appropriate to use a structural critique of our relations and infer something about a type of person, now finally, because of the actual real proof of systemic forces which we know applies to everyone within the corresponding geographic locale?
+
+Well, no, because no matter how you slice it, people aren't groups and although we can say that the systemically applied laws are unfair and need to be removed, that should be done on the basis of the logic of the law, by its principle, and not on the basis that it would affect one group of people differently from another. If the law itself isn't composed and worded in a manner which declares its universal applicability to every human, then it shouldn't even be considered.
+
+We try to look at human history being a process of us becoming more reasonable and hence also a recipe by which we are never truly making the same mistakes that were made before. Why wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that things can get better, or that the ills of the world today don't indicate just what needs to be rectified or who might be (and not be) responsible?
+
+How are we to imagine what the better world looks like without criticizing those things about it that we want to change? Though we can identify and logically explain those things that should change, and in what ways, the most reliable changes you can make are the ones that you are tending to yourself.
 
 ## Concluding Overview
+
 - Paulo Freire
 - Paradox of not imagining the ended
 - Universities and "transformalism"