Now, actually this is a combination of two topics. Either of those I'd like to cover separately; But somehow
they make sense together. What that makes is a little bit fuzzy to me, but ... so, in case they don't come
together that's ... maybe because they're still separate matters.
Now, the first issue and practical name-giver is about what I thus far called "the No-Norm theorem"; And perhaps
I may come around to coining a better term for it. The second is concerning an Author, Hannah Arendth, who may
have produced the most relevant conclusion to the second World War - herein in simplicity referred to as "the
Banality of Evil". In that regard I have watched
this
Video as a practical first impression. In case I might be missing something, that's probably because her work
is more extensive than what it covers.
Technically the two topics can be covered in Brief. Hannah Ahrendt's work would or should stand on its own -
more so the less confused we are about the state of the world. As for the No-Norm thing, the simple crux of the
matter is this: When constructing things based on our desires, we tend to ignore the desires we don't have
because their satisfaction is woven into our lived experience. And that's how we get into first world problems.
To the average person living in your average "advanced" civilization of today isn't concerned about survival.
I'm sure we can make an exception for some considerable percentage of Americans - but paying any further
consideration to that anomaly would definitely be a matter on its own. Though I guess we can say that the USA
aren't average.
Still they should be able to relate.
And so, to someone who has to be mindful of survival, we do live a life of luxury. In their eyes we might not
even deserve to be as well off as we are as we don't know how to cheris this or that. I encountered a perhaps
simpler example some time ago now; Which I'll slightly alter because a) I don't exactly recall the details and
b) to not potentially incriminate anyone. Say you're in a clinic where all sorts of mental health issues are
being treated; Most of which would be depressions. Yet there would be one who has more severe problems, let's
say they can't walk. So during group therapy we would discuss our depressions - matters that would to that one
person appear to be banalities. And eventually they might get upset because the rest of us doesn't actually
have 'real' problems.
And sure I think that this is for once a weight on intercultural relations.
If say some Americans take pride in providing for themselves while existing in a world that still very much
requires 'survival instinct' - they would possibly come to develop an ethos around that. To that ethos,
people of a different civilization that provides for its citizens might come accross as weak. Cuddled. Whatever
that ethos might hold.
And when talking of what's possible versus what shouldn't be done - well - we get a little closer to what Ahrendt
was writing about.
In short, what she sais is effectively that the Holocaust is a quasi implicit consequence of Capitalism; And that
she therefore worries - given her observations - that one day something even worse could happen. Not talking of
nuclear annihilation.
It might sound weird; And so it helps where she was coming from. She was witnessing a trial - I forgot the name
but apparently the dude was in charge of Ausschwitz - and was shocked by the 'banality' of what she witnessed.
That she didn't behold what one would describe as an out of their mind, sadistic monster, but a very average,
duty-minded person. A beaurocrat.
And as her curiosity drove her into further thoughts on the matter - I must assume - she realized that the logistics
of the Holocaust were really just that. Logistics. Except instead of ordering beef patties or managing a startup,
people were figuring out how to kill as many jews as possible in the shortest amount of time.
A layer can be added to this when speaking further of Capitalism. Or so: When the capacity of production exceeds
what can can effectively be consumed, the need for accumulation (as driven by capital) turns towards destruction
to further maintain the modus operandi. Part of which is the accumulation of capital which, as the drivin factor,
would keep looking for more. And yea, this can be seen when thinking of 'planned obsolence' - or bullshit jobs.
And yes, the Nazis did utilize a very socialist rhetoric to get to where they got. Prior to having gotten got.
I was surprised to hear, that the abolition of money was on their agenda; Though, not so surprised to learn that
money was basically a stand-in for Jew. So, abolishing money meant to eradicate Jews - which made the Holocaust
a very fitting expression, though bizarre and maccabre, for a "socialist workers" party.
And so - Ahrendt's work was maybe not heeded because it was certainly asking for an abolition of capitalism; In a
time where capitalism was pretty much the only way of getting things "back on track". The communists certainly
didn't have much of a thing going headed that way.
And today we face pretty much the same issue - or eventually what she was warning us from - not only due to the
rise of neo-fascism but also, and perhaps more importantly (generally, commonly), in regards to climate change.
So, our own stubborness - we might call it - that insists of remaining in this mindset of Capitalistic accumulation,
is what prevents us from making significant enough changes to face the most evident threat there is today.
And that how we kind of do come back to first world problems.
The basic problem ends up being, that by our individual "satisfaction profiles", we have differing ideas of what's
important. That, spanned accross the population of a civilization - which within itself has certain ... uhm ...
intergenerational "drifts" (as perhaps via a delayed "migration" from rural to urban ways of life), means that
concepts of reality are fundamentally different. Not all of that is unwarranted.
It's possibly also a categorically different matter.
Satisfaction is one thing; And what we must do to attain it is the other. So there is work, and what that work
allows us to attain is what it all comes down to. In a way.
Say there's a number of needs we have. Food and Water, Healthcare, Infrastructure ... such and such. Some more
important than others, but eventually all necessary. And depending on how many - and further to which extent -
those are covered, there's like a significance rating that can be attached to problems - and possibly an overall
average thereof. And that basically means that once that significance rating dips below a certain point, most
problems are: First world problems.
And so, yea, it goes without saying that people who complain about people having first world problems; Are in and
of themselves a first world problem. But, given the situation we're in - thinking of Ahrendt's concerns - there are
like ... first world problems that aren't just nonsense; Though they might appear that way. So, they wouldn't get
a high significance rating in regards to the "advancement scale" - and rather fall into the category of exceptions.
Emergencies perhaps, or ... well ... like ... literal First World Problems. Like ... pollution.
So, the ... maybe troubling ... question becomes how we deal with this. The primary obstacle being that of individualistic
differences. There so is no normal, or standard, I think, that can be determined. I would however argue that it somehow
just establishes itself as an average; And from there certain ways are simply maintained as that's what works for the
people involved. Though that too may in time be subject to the drifting of Chronos.
Or should it be: The fate of the titans?
But to not get too much caught up in that - I think another subject matter that's important is that of videogames. Or
what the matter entails to those that ... think them a machination of the devil - while not being a fan of the devil.
So, matters like "work-life" balance might pop up, in a negative way - as one more item on the list of observable odds
along these lines here. But also terms like "parasite".
And ... the thing is that if we think of what those concerns are based on ... that being: The maintenance of the
accumulation of capital ... and, well, what some of us believe we ought to do - if 'doing' is the right term
here - like, figuring out how to deal with climate change (which is by the way a logical process nobody can deny;
As much as that humanity certainly has contributed elements to the system such that what happens is most definitely
no longer 'natural' by any stretch of the corresponding imagination); There's some kind of implicit opposition.
Sorry my poor choice of word here.
So, the thing is that we want to go different ways, because by how we individually understand the world, different
things appear to be important. And some of us thereby start dreaming of fully automated gay space communism - while
others start cleaning their shotguns preparing for "making the tough decisions". In a language that may be understood,
we might just have to start imagining that the work we did would help kill the jews. We don't actually need to kill
any, we just have to imagine it. So, the figure that we have enough food to feed the planet - might seem irrelevant
because some would wonder who'd pay for it. Let's then just say that the jews did - that your work just and simply
helps killing them, as the admins will (not) make sure of.
That at least is a different way of looking at Ahrendt's words.
And sure, somewhere along those lines we may also have Sex-Slaves.
Well, sort-of at least.
I guess we can thereby summarize the issue as: An understanding of the why.
Why are you doing what you're doing? What are you doing it for? The thing with "parasites" for instance is, that they
get money from the state without being required to do anything. And people wonder what to do about them. Eventually
then people start to focus on someone like that as the prime example of what's wrong with this or that - although the
First World Problem Rating is 11. Assuming that 1 is the threshold - say, anything below one (0.0 - 0.99999~8) is not
a first world country - even if they only make up a minority. And trying to solve the problem by reducing the money
afforded them - or whatever - doesn't really give them an answer as to 'why'. Hence some argue that survival must be
the motivator - though I think we've established that that is backwards nonsense! Not reverse nonsense, just nonsense
... that is actively taking us the wrong way.
And yea. I think some people may find themselves looking around and seeing things they don't like. Homeless people,
Rainbow Flags, People of Color ... and then may associate that with other things they don't like ... like ... trash on
the streets. And then one may start to wonder: What do you do with things you don't like ... like trash?
That eventually creates a conflict. A conflict between one's 'aspiration' of why they work - and the insight of what
their work being done produces ... as by proxy. And we might find so and so many points of intersection. Like, yes!
Trash on the streets bad! Yes! A fulfilling labor day is awesome!
So ... the thing is that the difference between them working for FAGSPC or working for killing the Jews ... or
trannies (if it were as easy to identify them, and if there were enough to make it worth the hastle (and who knows,
maybe you can become a tranny too! (no homo))) - is that they don't feel like they're working 'for' someone who didn't
deserve it.
"Killing the Jews" is therefore a really easy 'why' ... . Putting all that energy into something more productive,
enlightened and good - would thereto be more complex because figuring out 'what' that entails is a part of the
process.
Eventually however it boils down to the same thing: Trust the Elite. However - the more crucial difference then is
how the Elite is being assembled. And based on what principles they're set to operate.
Because - if all that some people want or need is to be told what to do; And from there derive a sense of satisfaction
that doing so contributes to "the greater good" - whatever that may be - it should be easy for us to accommodate that.
However ... to get there, one important step is to understand 'the nature of our desires'.
And I think ... this makes for a round thing. I mean; I'm not sure if I can make much more out of this right now.
Anyhow ... as for the No-Norm thing; Obviously the issue is, that some people's desires construct an abstract reality
that does not take the cost of living into account. Though, there is a difference between those that can and those
that cannot realize them. Which takes us to the problem with wealth. Wealth that is experienced by but a few, though
technically it could be experienced by more.
It's also perplexing to me how on the one side people are concerned of over-population, while on the other side people
are saying that we aren't enough. Well, possibly because there aren't enough Slaves.
[By the way: Stargate SG1 - Season 5 Episode 18. There's a lot that can be said about wisdom and potential wisdom. What
it means to be strong, what it takes to be strong - what the value of immaterial things is ... . But if you don't have
divine wisdom, I'm not sure what you could be proud of! The thing is that we should hope that we're not required to
engage in armed conflict; And anyone who insists we do - perhaps by just starting a war - is essentially a traitor to
us as a species. There sure is another side, the war of witts or how to call it; And resources, money, power, that
kind of thing ... but that's also a reason why it's good that I'm here!]
The thing is that pleasures - the occasional or prolonged indulgence in things that don't necessarily matter - has always
been part of human culture. We would work until the work was done - be it that the known targets were met or all done that
could be done - and then turn towards whatever. And it seems as though we're about to lose that.
If we haven't already lost that.
And to some extent I'm not innocent in that. I certainly do share certain sentiments - but thus far haven't come to
express them. I must assume that that's God's aid speaking; Giving me a bad impression I might only vaguely understand,
but leaves enough of a bad taste to move my mind onto "the healthy stuff".
And what is that?
I mean - in a fantasy world we might say that the differences in wealth make a difference. It's a common theme how the
wealthy group A can afford to be idealistic, while the downthrodden group B must resort to "immoral stuff" to get by.
But what we find is that in a society where the poorest people can get by just fine - those problems don't stop to exist.
So ... [btw. Season 5 Episode 10 is another interesting one] ... and that's not necessarily because there are rich people
that want the rest to suffer; But because "why what matters" can be a perplexing question.
If we for instance stick to the moral high ground, being 'good' to not use words such as morality or ethics
(this
Video on Ahrendt's work has made me rethink the use of thse words), that's a 'what'. Now, 'why' it matters - can lead us
to different conclusions. That is ... layers and layers of potential, experienced and warranted causality ontop of each
other ... draw a differet picture of priorities. To "live what you're fighting for" would be my answer - "because it
leads to victory" would be a bad one.
Though say ... God exists and He blesses those that follow Him - God's existence alone doesn't allow us, evidently, to
infer invulnerability from the elements and stuff. So, we wear clothes - partly because of shame but in a lot of places
mostly for protection against said elements. That is common sense - but why if God exists? Shouldn't we be able to just
walk into the arctic naked?
We can believe in God's protection - but He won't just give it to us because we say "Jesus Christ" a lot. We are given
the wisdom and the means to protect ourselves ... in a lot of cases ... and expanding on those means has always been a
matter of cooperation. It is then when we live a worthy life, that we 'deserve' to be protected. Because we're 'good seed'.
Whether that be hot or cold. Now however weeds - that are tolerated at least until the harvest.
Which is not for us to declare war, but for God to say "what the Harvest is about". Naturally. We grow crops for a purpose.
Weeds ... don't fit into that.
Unless they do but then only the terminology changes.
And that's what maybe makes us Gay. Or "weak". You know ... left cheek, right cheek. "Being Soft". But yet 'we' built this
civilization, while "the strong folks" ever only went on to burn it down. Or ... at least they tried!
Well - there's an exception though; As ... "His Chosen" ... receives like ... guaranteed support from God. Well, because ...
'duh'.
Still Gay tho. Sort of.
Which ... I suppose ... is a way of saying: Be yourself! Don't let anyone tell you who or what you have to be!
Well, unless that's what that entails. You know ... kinky stuff.
Or whatever.
So, what we want can be made clearer once we learn to work together - as in the Light of God. That's my conviction.
That I am entangled with death ... may confuse some people. But, we all get born into a world where we're fed to grow
up until we just begin to slowly die. Maybe you have me to thank for that, but ... it's more like one of those things
that we all can learn from. That we live in a cruel world is another such thing; But it may help to consider that from
working together we've made it a lot less cruel. For the most part the only cruel thing that remains are the systems
that serve our greed.
It has however confused me too - I'd say - that my entanglement with death is something I can't realize in this world.
I can feel it closely, it's home - but locked behind a door that I don't think we can open. And I've stopped wondering
whether we might. I guess I'm ever so often "tricked" into thinking that I should figure it out, but if the answer is
nope ... that's what it is.
It would be, in all simplicity, an attempt to force my fantasy into reality, regardless of what we'd really enjoy to
do. And maybe that's the note to leave this on.
[Now playing: Season 7 Episode 20]. The thing is that by focussing on "the economy" - we tend to forget that 'we' are
the economy. That 'our' ingenuity is what drives it forward. As I was trying to express earlier: Where some might ask
the pressing question of how we can afford "it" - whatever it is - I say that we have enough and that's that.
No need to actually kill any Jews over it.
We just need to find a way past the gatekeepers.
Those be people who love to ... that's my impression ... boil things down in a silly way. Whatever talking point they
adhere to at the time, probably. Like, I recently had some insight into some debate between Vaush and some other
dude who kept arguing that we need to make more babies. Eventually they got to the question of whether or not we have
enough food - even if it isn't a question, I believe - and the dude was seriously asking: If we have enough food, why
are birth rates not going up? As if everything on this planet were merely a function of how many babies we pop out.
Well - and just earlier they were agreeing that poor nations have higher birth rates.
I suppose they try to imply themselves in the democratic process; And I suppose they'll succeed in doing so for as long
as they have support. I think we should stress to learn how much of that is real, and how much of it is just money
talking.
So, I'd argue that people take a lot of things for granted - eventually supplemented by fairy tales that consolidate
those ideas regardless of what the actual facts imply.
And eventually that takes us to a very particular problem. We might consider it "their WinCon" (WinCon is gamer slang
for 'Winning Condition' - and describes a particular condition of the game state that is to be attained in order to
win). Hereby, the thing is that 'we' can be presumed to say certain things because those are the things we believe in.
They can be considered as 'guaranteed' because they're established on facts or otherwise matters that are pretty much
self-evident. So, it's highly unlikely for us to not defend those subsequent conclusions. Those would be things like
a high number of guns in circulation does not correlate with higher safety
supplementing the empoverished with money helps them get back on their feet
reducing the threat of survival ("the hustle" (for money)) reduces crime rates
and so what they'd try to do is to find the talking points that leave us perplexed - usually by requiring answers of
us that are following questions that weren't on our radar. The confusion that thereby emerges in us can effectively
be regarded an unpreparedness against being confronted with questions that make absolutely no sense. Like, we'd try
to make a case, present the facts - and that's it. To which they respond by just ignoring the facts and "what iffing"
their way into a situation we have a hard time responding to.
I have however seen people adapting to that. As the very same thing can be reversed - given that we can also say
with relative certainty what their talking points are going to be. Which are, for the most part, weird gotchas that
don't even have any substance.
In simpler terms, the issue is that compared to where the common sense is (kept) at (*caugh*led poisoning*caugh*, uhm,
sorry ... "chemtrails" ... a.k.a. ... Fox News per chance) - the problems we face can be quite complex. THinking of
Hannah Ahrendt's work - yea. At first they're not. It's a simple observation. But if you oppose that by merely implying
that Capitalism works - all of a sudden the issue maybe becomes one of refuting that, or constructing a better solution.
The latter becomes incredibly complex given that most of it would just be theory. Or would be drawn together from a lot
of different facts that exist but aren't credited accordingly "because Capitalism". So, ... the argument to be countered
is "because Capitalism" - and if we cannot make a convincing case against that, we're doomed. The problem now isn't to
make a convincing case because got that - more than one - the problem is to make people understand. Or see it.
As to produce momentum from that. Or ... motion.
Because momentum is just a misunderstood form of accelleration and inertia.
I mean, I suppose it is not to be understated just 'what' money can buy. In particular: 'clicks'. And with AI on the board
- and I suppose we can thank OpenAI to be really open about it - that also extends to engagement. To say, money can buy
publicity. It can kickstart careers because - to be honest - it doesn't always take a lot to catch our attention.
And that is motion. Raw ... and simple ... accelleration. We might easily have more reach - but not enough resources
to maintain that motion against the inert presence of "money" (this is not a Jew! I repeat: This is NOT a Jew!).
And here's another thing: The issue that conservatives have with hollywood is weird. Because - of all the wealthy folks
on this planets, those might be the only ones that people actually 'voted' for. At least they gave us ... reasonably
good entertainment. And now that "hollywood is out" "because woke" - well - and sure ... I mean ... Fascists and Woke-Scolds
are really just two sides of the same coin (regardless of how reasonable either side might make themselves see) - people
experience some kind of 'actual' unhappiness over what is being produced.
I mean, having this whole "anti woke" movement going really makes it hard to tell a "woke" story - and woke-scolds throwing
their few cents into the pot doesn't make it easier either! (And how is "oh so woke" Disney thinking that the story of a
White Samurai is like ... on Brand? Haven't we had enough of that and did anyone even care? Sorry, I just find it weird!
I mean, they're "supposed to be woke" ... right?)
Anyhow ...
To not leave this whole part on the Banality of Evil Dry - well. For once there's the idea that Evil is merely the absence
of Good. And I think that's accurate. Anti Woke is like that. It's like "logic and reason" over having a good heart. Or
'having a good heart' is reduced to a feeling that doesn't need actions behind it. Which I suppose one can also get from
killing Jews. Or ... Babies. Whatever.
I mean ... "Jewish Babies".
But because logic and reason in the end implies good ... that whole anti woke nonsense turns out to be utmost garbage.
If you just started to believe it, I'm sure you'll also start seeing it.
That is to say that 'doing Good' is a ... good motivator. If we can turn that into our driving force, we would sooner
rather than later learn that we need certain principles - just as a matter of fairness. To 'create' a proper playing ground
instead of turning it into a warzone.
And from there we can learn that we don't need capitalism. That capitalism is basically just a consequence of our inability
to exist with one another on good terms. And whence it has grown to a certain point, a point where most of us are mindless
drones that basically just function and - as one of those videos on Ahrendt implies - are entirely predictable, possibly
even unto death - all goodness is lost and what remains is the cold engine of evil.
And I think that's that. At least ... it's time. Also. Peace! Or ... "Live Long and Prosper!".