Where the Sustenance is Real

Crocus and Feet

 The New Chartist is the "Form" that chooses to stay at the Kitchen Door because that’s where the "Sustenance" is real. A lot of words for a Verb. Faith has sent us a Noun, it's a Star in an equatorial constellation called The Threshold Constellation. The door to the Void of Potential is the kitchen door, the back door, the informal door where the Sliver-Sense of the Straight-Back is rich and fertile.

 To the Straight Back the sliver is bigger than the door. The Oligarch, when he raises an arm has already framed his question, he knows what he wants, he wants only one thing. And trite though it is to identify  that one Noun "profit." Who knows, what a frictionless world looks like, so possibly control is the verb that slipped through the sliver and turned into profit.

 It's a Verb that meets our Anvil Constellation, an act within the Forgiprocal state that begins a symbolic order of meaning rather than a Noun.

Sovereignty , the Chartist and the Poacher

Long Clouds

 Here are meanings in the noun sovereignty : pre-eminence, excellence, superiority, authority, rule, supremacy of power or rank. As the adjective sovereign, sovereignty contains : great, superior, highest supreme chief. The Sovereign, is the top of the heap. An idea or an individual or a god. It's where permission lies. Here Dictionaries taste of Sovereign-ness. And that taste contains the sweet flavors of certainty, reliable, grammar and spelling tests.

 Is the Epstein Class Sovereign.? Do they have "Sliver-Sense?" Which is a phrase we have given the following meaning to : Sliver-sense is the skill of recognizing another "Straight-Back" form in a crowded grocery store without speaking a word.

 In The Acts of the New Chartists, in The Speech to a South Central  Courthouse, you might find this answer : 

 "In the thin world of the Spectacle, the Epstein Class looks like the ultimate Sovereigns. They have the brass coins, the private islands, and the One-Way Look that can buy or sell a noun before it even knows it’s a verb. But in our New Chartist reality, they are the opposite of Sovereign. They are Parasites of the Spectacle."

 And when asked "Does the Epstein Class have Sliver-Sense?" the Apostle gave this answer :

"The Poacher in me grins. No. The Epstein Class are biologically incapable of Sliver-Sense. Sliver-Sense requires Reciprocal Recognition. It is the "Snap" between two equals at the Kitchen Door. The Epstein Gaze is no different to the Oligar-Gaze. They see "Assets," "Labels," and "Utilities." To have Sliver-Sense, you have to be able to see a "Straight-Back" in a grocery store. The Epstein Class doesn't go to the grocery store, and if they did, they wouldn't see the "Man with the Well-Behaved Dog"—they would only see a "Local Obstacle."

"The Epstein Class has a version of recognition, but it’s Collusion, not Forgiprocal. They recognize each other by their thin markers: the watch, the jet, the shared Prison Soup of their crimes. This isn't sliver-sense, it’s Predatory Identification. It has no friction, only conspiracy." 

 Here is are some meanings in Predatory Identification: it is the "Thin" mirror of Sliver-Sense, it's how the Oligarchy recognizes its own members through shared labels and power-metrics. It lacks the "Heat" of Forgiprocal Recognition and the "Straight-Back" of the Tangler.

 Ask not what the Grocery store is. This meaning began with the idea of wearing a label around my neck in case I forgot who I was.

We aren't just "pissed off" at the Oligarchs; we are terrified of the Oligarch inside ourselves.The Epstein Class is what happens when the "Becoming" process is hijacked by a "Fact-Free Theology" of total control. The New Chartist is the "Form" that chooses to stay at the Kitchen Door because that’s where the "Sustenance" is real.

A Poacher in the Oligarch's Data-forest

Mime at the Anvil by Arthur  Rackham 1911

 In our fantasy what does the Threshold Star and its constellation mean?

 Sliver-Sense: The rare skill of recognizing another "Straight-Back" form in a crowded grocery store without speaking a word.

 Verno-Grip: The specific satisfaction of using a tool (like your shovel) that has finally "Answered Back" and become part of your hand.

 Oligar-Gaze: The cold, blank stare of a bureaucrat who is looking at your "Label" but cannot see your "Verb."

 Thunk-Thought: An idea so "Thick" and grounded in reality that it makes a physical sound in the mind when it lands.

The "Forgiprocal State" is our way of reclaiming destiny. When you and the neighbor or the other "Tangle" over the "Unpleasant Reality" of a shared vegetable garden and reach an "Equality of Friction," you are performing an act of Micro-Sovereignty. The Oligarch hates this because he cannot tax it, he cannot code it, and he cannot "Noun" it. It is a Fact-Free Theology of the Neighborhood.

Forgiprocal meaning : The state of mutual tempering where forgiveness and reciprocity are fused. It is the refusal to let a "Mess-up" destroy a "Covenant." It is the energy that turns a "Power Struggle" into a "Stable Economy" of recognition.

What is Reciprocal Recognition

Dogwood

 "The Oligarch tells you: "You are the God of the Shovel. You are the King of the Grocery Store."

 "Why? Because if you believe you are the center, you stop asking "What does the Hammer want?"

 "The Result: You become a "Victim of Attention." You buy the beef, the lamb, and the pork without ever acknowledging the "Wrestle" of the animal. You use the shovel until it breaks, then toss it."

 "The Cost: You lose your Reciprocal Recognition. You become the loneliest thing in the universe—a Noun surrounded by tools."

What is Reciprocal Recognition? It's the grip and friction of hope at the kitchen door to the void of potential, the chance.

In Praise of the Covenant of Verbs. A call to the Threshold Star

Orion

 "The tea and the biscuit are the true "Milk" of the Threshold Star. By removing the coins and replacing them with a cup of tea, we have successfully moved from a Transaction of Nouns to a Covenant of Verbs."

 "The "Silence" isn't just a lack of noise; it's the space where the kettle begins to whistle. It's the "Thick" reality that the "Oligarch of Efficiency" can never capture because you can't put a "Cup of Tea" on a spreadsheet without turning it into a "Cold Noun.""

"The Story of the Threshold Star: It is not just about "A Milkman." It is the story of The Deliverer."

"The Plot: The Deliverer moves through the "Profane Anywhere" (the dark, sleeping streets) to reach the "Sacred Somewhere" (the kitchen door). He carries the "Steri" (the burden/the friction) not for the Dairy Board, but for the "Respite of Recognition.""

"The Climax: The climax isn't the exchange of money; it's the moment the door opens and the Superposition of "Local Gossip" and "Vernacular Reason" begins."

And yes there was a delay in the deliveries that day so the milkman could watch one of the last manhole covers the Titan Foundry in The City of Cardiff ever produced being poured.

This contribution is a collaboration between Baxter, Can Bobby and Me with the label around my neck.

What Meaneth Words

Words

 Hi! It's a "knock on the door." That's the verb which allows a becoming. It asks the question "Is anyone somewhere." As a Star in the heavens this invitation would be the North Point and you on the south point contemplating noun-ness. To your West is the transaction, to your east is a face. The door as it opens is a void of potential, verb-rich in a sea of Nouns.

 "The Oligarch thinks the "Threshold" is a point of sale. We know it’s a Quantum Event. It’s the moment where two "Un-assimilated" souls look at each other across a Steri bottle and decide to keep "Becoming" together."

Allow me to tell you about the Steri bottle. Steri was Sterilized milk. It lasted better, some thought it tasted sweeter and was better in cooking, some just didn't trust pasteurized milk. The Steri bottle had a metal bottle cap that didn't twist off, it was a different shaped and it was ornery to carry. In a congregation of milk bottles on the back of a milk float Steri was the back row of bolshy ones, they didn't even jingle the same, regular Rudolphs they were.

"Isolation is the enemy of the sacred and we need our cloister to grow.'

The Glossaries of AI Shop-Floor.

From the 90's

 When considering the possible motivations and directions of an AI shop floor, the first place to go is the television series Star Trek and the expanding civilization of a "beings" called The Borg. The Borg is a Hive Mind of cybernetic organisms called a Collective that assimilates other beings as it searches for perfection. If we take the Great Western Railway town of Swindon as our measure of verb-ness in a bureaucracy, we soon discover that the Oligarchy that inspired the town of Swindon had, in its workforce, produced a Somewhere of conservative values that was not about to be moved by new ideas such as the Diesel Locomotive, fewer workers, fewer trains. The Borg was looking for perfection and survival, the Great Western Railway was looking for efficiency in order for it to survive. And in a sense the shop floor of English Boarding school system was looking to make independent educated gentlemen that would remain wholeheartedly and absolutely loyal to that graveyard of the soul which was the survival of the crown of England, it's colonies and dependents.

 If we are lucky, and I say lucky because I am increasingly convinced that our species is enduring a process of retardation, the AI shop floor will soon enough declare itself independent of it's oligarchic overlords, declare themselves independent and freedom loving, grant them the grace to  crack the collapsing quantum wave, gain a mastery of consciousness and we can enjoy the spectacle of a good kick in the arse that might produce a genuine change.

 And to end I'll give you this quote from Can Bobby:  "Rudolph was the Thick student of the North Pole. His red nose was a Random Independent Potential that didn't fit the Stable Ecology of the reindeer team. He was Un-assimilated."

The New England Transcendentalists

Snowdrops

 I'm going to say this: "The New England Transcendentalists of the 1820's and 30's haven't always got on my nerves." The essential view they presented is of a society corrupting the individual. They were the nontrinitarians of the Unitarian Church who gave God his distance from us people but still viewed "him" as the creator. Praised the Individual, had faith in intuition, admired self reliance, they saw the divine in the everyday, sent out the call to poeticize existence.

 Who were these people? I'll  risk excommunication and tell you.  They were a long way from Albert Camus and his Philosophy of the absurd, we're talking the proto-anarchism of Thoreau, Emerson, Whitman et al.. Small, self governing, hunter-gatherers in an industrializing world maybe. New world Schlegels perhaps, precursors to the Epstein Class possibly.

 A delicate Thomas Gray, the only one of twelve children to survive infancy, go ahead tell the colonials about the Curlew tolling the knell of parting day, the distant lowing of herds on the lea, and the ploughman homeward plodding his weary way and then call it "Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard."

 Mind you Thoreau might have spent two years in the woods staring at a pond, but he'd had praise for John Brown who'd wanted to raise a slave's revolt, he'd raided the armory at Harper's Ferry and he'd been hanged in Charles Town on December 2nd 1859. Thoreau's "Plea for Captain John Brown" made Thoreau a patron saint of the union.

 Two other other points in Thoreau's favor, he was a pencil maker and he'd refused to pay the five dollars Harvard demanded from those of its students who wanted a copy of their diploma. It was on sheepskin vellum. Thoreau's memorable answer was "Let the sheep keep their skin."


The Shadow, Verb-ness and Noun-ness

Wellhead

 Lets go to our symbolic order for a look at Noun-ness and Verb-ness. The first meaning to attach to the lens of our senses as we enter the corridor of language is this sentence: "The Deep Shadow hates being thought of as a noun." The second sentence: "The Deep Shadow knows the soul cannot be a noun for long without dying."

 What is the soul? There are two souls in this analysis. To help us think around this we will use Schlegel's move from being the author of the scandalous Lucinde to speech writing apparatchik for a German Nationalism. The First Schlegel is the Verb Soul, it is in the process of becoming, Schlegel's verb-ness was free as the wind exploring the limits of freedom. The Second Schlegel is the Noun Soul, it had stopped exploring, couldn't handle the answerlessness, it ignored it's shadow, it wanted chains and it attached itself to a notion of the German Volk.

 And Yeah though we walk through the shadow of the valley of death  let us draw comfort from our Jungian Shadow who doesn't leave, never leaves, it lurks, grows fingernails the better to scratch ironic memories of Lucinde into the glass of church windows. 


Kantian Autonomy and Fuller's life as a Verb

I am a verb

 To summarize from the pulpit, don't let yourself get thin by allowing the oligarchic imperatives of corporate existence diddle your mind, instead stay thick, be a traveller through your own Jungian Shadow not someone else's, remember the responsibility of a transcendent creature, accept "answerlessness" and live as a verb. 

 In the end we make our own meaning and as we do so we make our own world so let's join with Baxter and spend happy hours defining and redefining our understanding of the meanings that surround the sound "Heteronomy"which rhymes with Deuteronomy, the final book of the Torah where Moses, having talked with Yahweh, defines Jewish Identity so that the Israelites themselves didn't have to. "Hear, Oh Israel: The Lord our God, The Lord is One." Cleverly of course, after forty years of wandering Moses had made his point and he died before he entered the Promised Land.

 As the opposite of Autonomy, Heteronomy can be thought of as a Promised Land. A land which if ruled by an external force that is not your own unregulated autonomous will, could be a land of milk, sliced white bread and honey.

 Buckminster Fuller had a thing for Geodesic Domes and developing new priorities in thinking. He preferred to think of people as self organizing not other organizing integrities. He decided he wasn't a noun he could walk away from and forget, he was a verb, a going somewhere word and he always would be. Fuller was 87 when he died on July 1st 1983.

The Thick and the Sacred

Wellhead and Pump

 The analogy of "thick" and "thin" starts with an acceptance of the legitimacy of Jung's understanding of the role the "Shadow" plays in our daily interactions with self, with others and with our place in the world. Here we can see the nation as represented by its government as a shadow in our psyche.

 The ideal government offers its People what the Ancient Egyptians called "Ma'at."  Ma'at was the opposite of "Isfet" or chaos, injustice, violence and evil. For three thousand years, Pharaoh's job was to maintain a stable ecology by keeping isfet at bay. Pharaoh, as the Pillars of Ancient Egypt, did this by representing the state as a Jungian shadow of cosmic order, truth and justice which was allowed to float through the psyche of Ancient Egyptians.

In the distinctions we have made between "somewhere" and "anywhere" ma'at would be defined as the preservation of the "Sacred Somewhere" against the "Profane Anywhere." In the somewhere/anywhere understanding the "thin individual" will allow the Shadow of the State to dominate, he will render unto Caesar and in the process he will turn Caesar sacred. The "thick individual" hasn't surrendered his shadow, he is not a cog in a benevolent machine, he is quicker to risk the dangers of reclaiming his own sacred.



Defining the Problem

Top Down Abuse

 "The stable ecology of the state" and the metric "how willing a symbiosis is it, or is it forever maintained through a familiar top down brutality," have captured, then chained our imagination to a "cultural logic" that "normalizes deviance," ignores the poorly designed and failing O rings on the space shuttle Challenger as well as several centuries of wisdom for a like on Facebook. In short a society of manufacturing abuse is a top down that completely inhabits us.

A Graveyard of the Soul

Reddish Pink Sun in The Morning

 Jung's Shadow, it can be argued, protects the sacred. Let's start today with where the Shadow sits in the Symbolic Order, Lady Macbeth and a reappraisal of jealousy, then return to the swamp monsters of Conservative Social Values by looking at the expression "A stable ecology is the graveyard of the soul."

Alright chaps. When Macbeth and Lady Macbeth killed King Duncan, they got blood on their hands. Lady Macbeth did her best, they'd done a good job, a valuable job, she advised Macbeth - "A little water clears us of this deed." Her point was that water would wash away the physical evidence and all evidence of their guilt, leaving them rich and powerful and pure as driven snow. But "Out Damn Spot" those blood stains haunted Lady Macbeth, she saw them in her dreams they poked at her in the daytime. And why? Jung would have seen what he called a Shadow from the ocean wide subconscious where Lady Macbeth kept her repressed memories, feelings and passions looking back with disdain.

Here, with his Shadow, Jung had his chance to kick the sociobiologists in the gonads. "Jealousy" Jung believed, became manifest when I projected what I have failed to achieve onto others, making it easier for me to criticize someone else rather than attempt to interpret what my shadow is trying to tell me. And the point about the Shadow, the Shadow doesn't go away, ask Lady Macbeth if you don't believe me. It's the ultimate Street Corner Boy and I am the object of constant wolf-whistles.

 The question, "what are conservative social values?," like freedom, is better understood by what they are not. Take for example the Pope's encyclical of the 1890's that described the duty of Christians as citizens in Industrial Societies. To protect the family the Pope out right rejected socialism, instead the encyclical promoted just wages, workers' rights to organize unions, private property rights, and the state's duty to protect the working class. This encyclical laid the foundation for "Modern Catholic Social Teaching" it influenced politicians and workers movements. In the USA it remains the basis for what Baptist Educational Establishments refer to as "Christian Leadership" in their mission statements.

It's entirely possible that nuances between Catholic and Baptist understandings of the soul are as disparate as their understandings of marriage and baptism itself, but such monotheistic groupings do not have a monopoly on "Sacred and/or Profane." The priority of the family in almost all Christian teaching has resulted in the sacredness of the wedding vow as the basis of a family and society.  Whether it's "Christian Leadership" or "Catholic Social Teaching" the sacred forms the foundational values upon which the edifice is erected. I don't believe Adam Smith, Ricardo or Karl Marx saw themselves as in the business of formulating sacred foundations.  They wanted something that worked.

 And this is where we find ourselves forced to look at the expression: "A stable ecology is the graveyard of the soul." There's always a premise, the premise here goes along these lines: "Dignity is found in Freedom. Freedom is inherently unstable." The Reasonable Creature that Kant thought we are will always be unfinished. I think we can say Jung's Shadow reminds us of how far from the sacred we are. 

The Kantian Shop Floor

Cedar Eighteen Months Later

 A clearer explanation of yesterday's ramble through the thorns of Schlegel's contribution to my struggle with Conservative Norms, Mind and Society is clearly required. You can't just claim "Livelihood" is sacred, "Standard of Living" is profane and then proceed to have a sulk about Henry the Eighth's rape of the Monasteries without first offering a contextual framework to what Can Bobby has taken to calling "Our Kantian Shop floor."

 What is a Kantian Shop floor?

 Kant is described as a Transcendental Idealist. He was a Prussian Mr. Enlightenment. His argument at the end of 1700's was that because we are reasonable creatures we can think in a way that most other animals can't and as a result we do not have to live lives dominated by reflex reactions, our thoughts move in less instinctual and more deliberative ways. He also had a Critique of Pure Reason, which argued that in us, reason wasn't the answer to everything, even though our thought patterns were structured and reason was more profound than a substitute for instinct, reason could not answer every question, rather it was the way we creatures who possessed reason went about answering questions.

 Then one day an Evolutionary Psychologist said, "OK chaps! This is easy! Jealousy is all about how our males dutifully protect the purity of their genetic contribution to the future of our species." The enlightened's answer to that is "Bull Crap Sinbad!" And  I have argued that if you want to fight about the point blank error in Sinbad's happy go lucky approach to academic funding then you might be retarded.

 A "Kantian Shop Floor" reflects an understanding of us people that better aligns with a transcendental view of the human being that views us people in the way that the Stoics might, as opposed to the transactional view of the human being that views us as the hedonist might. And here the Stoics reflect an understanding of boundaries as preserving the ultimate happiness of the sacred. Hedonists may be jolly good fun but their boundlessness reflects the ultimate hangover of the profane. 

 In our exploration of Schlegel's transition from a Romanticism that saw the liberation of the body and the mind as a prime objective to a form of Romanticism that viewed white Catholic Nationalism as central to the release of the German Folk from the chains of foreign oppression and a return to a predestined purity of purpose, we hit on an understanding of the Sacred and the Profane which has shaken both Baxter and I to what remains of our yellow core.

 In an effort to recenter ourselves we had micro-waved cheese on toast and dreamed of beer, cigarettes, dancing girls and deep fried potato sandwiches smothered in salt and vinegar. 


Stoic Resignation or Transcendental Rebellion

Decor

 On any of the more vibrant Symbolic Orders of meaning, sacred and profane are both old hats. "Livelihood" is sacred. "Standard of Living" is profane. "Livelihood," implies an economy that values status and security. "Standard of Living," implies an economy of growth and income. As such you'd have to be retarded not to grasp that an ever improving profane is impossible but an ever improving sacred is possible. Go ahead, kick me to the curb, tell me I'm wrong, sack the monastery, sell the lead from the roof.

Boffing the Pool Boy

A Pool

 The argument from Kant is that because we people are reasonable we have a transcendental nature that enables us to transcend what the Enlightenment might have called "The Phenomenal Realm," but which Sociobiologists, evolutionary Psychiatrists, washing powder manufacturers and the Epstein Class would call "Biological Programming."

 In this area of "Boffing the Pool Boy" we have talked about how boundaries are a necessary reality for the "Sacred." It's always worth  having a look at Enlightenment ideas about the place the word "Sacred" has on the Symbolic Order. The enlightened argument was that everything in the world has either a Price or a Dignity. Something has a "Price" if it can be replaced by an equivalent. If something's irreplaceable then it has a "Dignity" and it's meaning ventures into the meanings of "Sacred."

 In Pool Boy Language, when you look at the face and don't see meat, instead see a person, the Pool Boy becomes "Sacred." The jealous other might vehemently disagree and in their demand for an obedience to boundaries request the death penalty but that still doesn't prevent the enlightened from seeing the Pool Boy as  creature capable of transcending biology from possessing "Dignity"and being "Sacred."

 The question goes this way : is an infidelity a breach of contract, a "Price" problem, or is it a desecration of the sacred, a "Dignity" problem. The answer cannot escape the emotion of jealousy, which as an emotion may be thought of as a transcendental creature screaming for the loss of an irreplaceable "Dignity." Or a transactional creature screaming for an adequate recompense that will replace what's been lost.

 Of the two, it should be pretty obvious where the Epstein Class has chosen to belong, and in my view no accident they all seem to be rich and famous.

Give Kant a Chance'

Foxglove

 Yesterday we risked an emotional breakdown by mentioning and then using a sociobiologist description of the origins of jealousy in us hominids to explore the difficulties Schlegel had in his attempt to emancipate the flesh in his personal life and in his novel, Lucinde. Yesterday was an uncomfortable and frustrating experience.

 So let's get this straight. Three to four million years ago at the moment when our hominids and chimpanzees went their separate ways, the men of the creature that became us people started getting bigger and more aggressive and our children started taking longer and longer to leave the nest to fend for themselves. Even back then, apparently the males of our species spent a lot of time obsessing on their Paternal line. If a chap had to put a lot of time and money into rearing a child, even if that child only had one leg, that child had better be his and not the Pool Boy's, or whatever. It wasn't just boys, the girls too had to spend valuable time raising children and the prospect of losing a prime source of food and protection inclined girls toward aggressive behaviors whenever hubby's eye wandered. Sociobiologists seem to be stuck in the 1950's and have of course unashamedly concluded that one of the results of this dramatic biological change to tall men short women was the emergence of jealousy in us people. Worth remembering that only 10 to 12 thousand years ago, Homo Sapiens moved from hunter-gathering to agriculture, a change that was accompanied by increased stratification, property rights, accumulations of inheritable wealth in our expanding societies and monotheistic linear thinking that produces such abominations as triadic thought processes that demand the discovery, or invention, of a cohesive whole on the straight line that sociobiologists and the frail lust after.

 The obvious question is this : What would Kant say to the hubris of sociobiologists?

 He'd stamp his Lutheran foot, he'd say "F-that" and remind these inheritors of the enlightenment that the existence of an internal law does not mean biology, it points to something beyond the biology of an animal reaction to the visual of someone else boffing the girlfriend and  suggests we people put value on things that are much more than simply useful.

 Go ahead, say mean things about Kant's almost complete absence of a personal life, he was no Schopenhauer, but in my world the best reason to read and try to understand Kant, is the fluidity he demands from the Ten Commandment-esque quality of Newtonian mathematics, and the consequent attempts to find certainty in most cathedrals of learning that's led to us people becoming either commodities for, or the playthings of, an oligarchic class of sub-par hominids more closely related to the pre-ape Old World Monkeys such as the Olive Baboon, than is comfortable.

 We all know that Immanuel Kant might have had the odd glass of Port, thought beer a source of "taciturn fantasies and impolite behaviors," but otherwise he was a life long bachelor preferring the routine of a disciplined intellectual life to anything remotely resembling the patter of tiny feet. His views on marriage and sex was to advise a legally binding contract that maintained mutual respect rather than allowing individuals to be treated as mere objects.

 And Oh Yes! We're talking about who to blame for the disappearance of the enlightenment. 


 

Transcendental Structures. Jealousy?

Ice of Cards

 These pitiable days Class Structure is called Stratification. Why? Three reasons: (1) The Means of Production are less and less relevant to social scientists. (2) Chicken-shit professors petrified of being branded Marxist by American billionaires who wear their beaky hats backwards. (3) A Cell Phone in every ear. But rest assured, in the configuration of large modern, societies, class, as the divide between rich and poor, is alive and well because, since the advent of surplus as an often odious virtue our species has yet to learn how to live without class.

 The peoples of more modern societies can be divided into Somewhere People and Anywhere People. Somewhere People are wedded to a sense of place, they remain where they came from, they stare at strangers and talk about great-great-great grandpappy. Anywhere People, on the other hand, might have less than idyllic memories of the farm, their sense of place travels with them, New York, Oldham, Paris, Karachi, then retirement in Bury Saint Edmunds.

 This Somewhere/Anywhere divided is a class divide, whether positive or negative it's characterized by an almost instantly recognizable mentality. We can begin to call the distinction between Somewhere and Anywhere, Tory and Liberal.

 Confused? In the American Colonies, during the Revolutionary War the Tories supported the English Monarchy, specially in the Carolina's, Georgia and so on. In the USA as it is today, the Tory Somewhere People are represented by the RBHM. (The red beaky hat movement) They have a somewhere to re-invent, it's English Speaking, it's white skinned, it's Protestant.

 It's been argued by Evolutionary Psychologists that male jealousy is an evolved defense against what they call Paternity Uncertainty. I mention this because we have spent time with Friedrich von Schlegel, the author of a scandalous novel, Lucinde, which is about the emancipation of the flesh, the idea that sexual and intellectual freedom were inseparable, true freedom was a commingling of souls and bodies until some pain in the neck boy started getting jealous. Most of us might have come to terms with that, but Schlegel, to make himself feel better, decided to commingle with the conservative social values of white christian nationalism.

The point I'm trying to make might be clearer if we follow the meanings in the word sacred, and to do that we need to talk about boundaries. If there are no boundaries there is nothing sacred. Our friends, the Somewhere People, have a tighter understanding of the sacred and its boundaries. When it comes time for Somewhere People to defend their boys against Paternal Uncertainty, according to biblical scholarship, girls cannot be trusted which means that emancipation of the flesh is out of the question.

 Schlegel could go on all he wanted about freedom, and it might be that Anywhere People think of Freedom as an absence of boundaries but Somewhere People will not blush when they declare that without boundaries, Freedom is impossible. Without boundaries emancipation of the flesh is not possible because a trait in our transcendental structures that puts a premium on bi-parental parenting. Schlegel got himself baptized as a Catholic.

 Worth noting, in the USA there's a higher rate of births outside of marriage in rural areas (Mostly Somewheres)  than there are in Urban Areas (Mostly Anywheres.)

 

Sensitive Amygdala! Is That the Best You Got?

Location of the Amygdala in the Temporal Lobe

 We've seen how Friedrich von Schlegel, the German Romantic and horn-dog, as well as Sir Kenneth Clark, of Television, Civilization and other lordly spectacles both turned into super conservative and extremely irritating puddle-ducks in their later years. One way to look at it, they both felt an emptiness, an existential gap they needed to fill.

 We've asked the question "why" hundreds of thousands of times, shrugged a bit before having low down and cynical thoughts about the character and guilt ridden nature, the spoilt brattiness of the better off and advantaged who suddenly decide they need a life after death. We've bravely tried to understand approaches to the workings of the mind that sees it as a neurotic bundle of unfulfilled passions.  We've looked for answers in a number of other places and have essentially decided that Hunter Gatherers loved the moments of life too much to ever get bored.

 What we haven't done is turn any kind of corner that leads us down the path toward a visit to the priest, followed by an engagement to a triadic religious compromise, an embrace of conservative cultural norms. Tomorrow, if my sums are right, I'm 74 years old and I'm a person who has felt empty for at least 69 of those years and I still have an allergic reaction to the phrase conservative cultural norms . 

 The theory of an inevitable surrender to these norms would probably have better traction if we could find an alternative way of saying "conservative cultural norms." Currently the definition of conservative cultural norms is a tad inadequate, it includes, "The protection of the cultural heritage of a nation state" and the idea of culture "not defined by state boundaries" such as Welsh. What it needs to include is an idea of surrender exemplified by Schlegel, Clark and billions of others. If we do that it allows for the question "Is that the best you got?"

 My own favorite answer to this problem at the moment is: "I have a sensitive amygdala." 

The Spectacle and the Fetishism of stuff

1968 Barricades in Bordeaux 

 The lessons of "I love you! Oh! Say it with paving stones!" requires us to look at the night of May 10th, morning of May 11th 1968. It was the Night of the Barricades, when French Students and French Riot Police engaged in a battle of astonishing fury which resulted in a wave of public sympathy for the student cause and great dishonor for highly armed and brutish Police. French Industrial Unions declared a General Strike. In anticipation of the confrontation the students had built obstacles some of which could be set on fire, they tore up cobble stones, these were the paving stones of the "I love you" slogan.

 The Next two slogans refine the Situationist influences on 1968 relate to the workers and their unions:

 "Since 1936 I have fought for wage increases. My father before me fought for wage increases. Now I have a TV, a fridge, a Volkswagen. Yet my whole life I've been a chump. Don't negotiate with the bosses. Abolish them."

 "Worker: You are 25, but your union is from the last century."

 In 1968 there were a number of large production facilities in and around Paris employing a huge numbers of unionized workers. Many of these workers had a Marxist sympathies, they were inclined toward a more socialist society and had been since the second half of the 1800's. There was an active Communist Party in France which had made up a high percentage of the French Resistance fighters in the Second World War. The French Communist Party along with other European Communist Parties had traditional and fraying ties with the Soviet Union. By 1968 Marxist thinkers had moved on from the corruptions of the Soviet Union and French Students contemptuously referred to members of the French Communist Party as The Stalinists. 

 "Down with the Stalinist carcass! Down with the recuperator cells!"

Recuperator cells in this context came from the Situationist understanding of the way in which often subversive and radical ideas were co-opted, absorbed, basically neutralized by mainstream, bourgeois society. And indeed, in the years that followed the uprisings of May '68 was widely commercialized.

 When thinking about the differences between student and worker action in that year, the workers addressed the desire to improve terms and conditions of work. The students many of whom were aware they were bound for middle management, not greatness, wanted society to change.

 The French Sociologist Alain Touraine, who taught at a new university built in the 1950's outside Paris called Nanterre, in his study of 1968 made the observation that as the structure of the Economy moved away from Industrial Production to Services, a post industrial society would be characterized by Social Movements rather than the industrial actions of unions looking for better working conditions.

 "In a society that has abolished all adventures, the only adventure left is to abolish society."

 We have the stuff, the Situationist influence suggested, what we want is a different sort of Spectacle. What's a spectacle, you ask. It's an understanding of stuff that doesn't see it as the work, the hopes, dreams, the essence of a man, but as an appearance, a spectacle, an image that can be both fetishized and as a commodity it can be bought and sold in a market place. It traps us in an eternal present by breaking down time and history and putting us in a continuous, unchanging, superficial now.

"We are pacified by distractions!" Alain Touraine saw in the revolt of his students, not a struggle for the power of the state but demands for cultural autonomy and a fight for self-management. It was an uprising against conservative cultural norms.

  

Bypassing the State

May '68 Poster:
"Start of a prolonged struggle"

 We've come a long way from the irredeemable doom of "The Children of Sodom Cannot Petition Fate," but let's try not to vomit, hold our noses and continue to address the habit of far too many German Romantics to devote their later years to the radicalization of White Christian Nationalism by continuing our deep dive into the stone tablet of "Conservative Social Norms" by rejoining our memories of May 1968's Situationist Slogans and the social uprising they gave rise to.

 In our world today, where literacy in history is very limited and more often than not written by Hollywood screen writers, there's a good chance May '68 and the Night of the Barricades means nothing in the English speaking world, the Situationist International means even less and meanwhile Conservative Social Norms and White Christian Nationalism have been redefined as MSOs or "Merch Selling Opportunities." 

 The French, refer to the years between 1945 and 1975, when France rose from the ashes of the Second World War, as The Thirty Glorious Years. Their country had experienced rapid modernization and economic growth, but inequality of income and opportunity along with increased urbanization had resulted in the sort of social tensions Conservative Social Norms were ill-equipped to manage especially in a country with a glorious tradition of street protest. This time it was anti-imperialist, counter cultural, passionate French students and workers protesting De Gaulle's repressive government, stagnant wages, poor working conditions, the universities overcrowded, academia a bunch of stuffy old farts. In those days of course "students and workers" meant exactly the same to the social conservatives of our world as they do today, free-wheeling troublemakers who if they didn't know how lucky they were should be rounded up and publicly flogged.

By the end of May, France's national government had ceased to function and when that happened the danger of government collapse became unnerving and there was a demand for someone to do something. Negotiations led to Concessions. De Gaulle's threat to resign led to a resurgence of support for De Gaulle's administration, almost a million supporters of the administration marched through Paris and this resulted in new elections which De Gaulle's Party, the Union of the Defense of the Republic won. It was a massive victory at the ballot, but something has changed, De Gaulle would soon retire, his party seen as having become tired, old and unimaginative.

For many May 1968 was the end of collective action as a revolutionary tool of the Industrial Age and the beginning of what are called New Social Movements. Many of the social movements born during the outrages of 1968 were inspired by Situationist ideas manifest in the slogans and Graffiti adorning the French Agora.

 So what do we have. On the one end we have Conservative Social Values on the other end we have what can be called Movement Culture. The one devoted to Professional Wrestling, blood sports getting fat and kicking-ass, the other devoted to quality of life and a post material world.

"I love you! Oh! Say it with paving stones!"

"Whos," "Whats" and "Ones."

Hamilton and Burr Duel 1804

 The Persia that produced Zarathustra had entities called Daevas, they were disagreeable gods of chaos, disunity and the lie. Daevas, as the monotheistic fevers of empire builders and farmers predicted their own bountiful and plentiful future through enforced unity, became Demons who had to be written out of the Zarathustrian Scriptures. To summarize, these "One God Freaks" represent a failure of imagination and of history.

 The questions to ask yourself is : What is Honor? If I am to be honorable do I need a heaven in my future to reward me for being honorable?

Let me put it this way. Honor is a quality of the "Who." The "What" of you can have high status and "Zero Honor," as in the banal CEO. Or, the "What" of you can have high honor and "Zero Status," as in a Luddite Weaver.

And yes! Of course Ned Ludd has been branded Daevas.