Temporal anomoly paper as time

Here is the next step in my paper on time, it contains posts from the entire year including the Kojeve, some of it i will excise from the final paper, it is like lego, you can change the position of the paragraphs.
it was written in time, to achieve temporal perfection I offer it to you at this time, how do you think it should be finally constructed, what does it mean to you?

Time takes time to understand even in its formal temporal timeless nature. To teach time one must like Rancier promote a disposition of equality amongst those one is teaching. Equality is a politised ideal that allots people equal opportunity in time to be considered equal till graded based on their effort and capacity to understand the ideas presented within that time of the lesson. Time cannot be taught using only theory, the concept of time goes beyond the confines of the theory referring to it. Time is a universal lesson that is understood by ones understanding of time both in a collective and individual level. The form of time though timeless only exists as the referendum of related ideas realised with a conscious observer capable of extrapolating a theoretic ideal of time. The form of time that is actualized with the consciousness is indicative of the taught theory understood within the frame work of the concepts they consciousness aware of it understands and knows it to be as such. Even ideas that are timeless and beyond the self, what seem unsayable and incomprehensible are referred to in timeless ideas made concrete as relatives within a frame work of space and time delineated into multiple referendums based on conceptual conceptions of said ideals.

In Chapter 5 of his book Introduction to the reading of Hegel Alexandre Kojeve engages in a lengthy explication of the idea of time, eternity and concept. He examines the differences in postulations made by Plato, Aristotle and Kant concerning these ideas (Kojeve pp.101-106): He determines that each philosopher conceives a different theory concerning these ideas. Plato refers to the eternal outside of time creating the form of the temporal within time. Both time and the eternal are perfect forms outside of time; Time for Plato means the eternal form of time. Concept is outside time and time relies on Concept for the creation of its temporal form or measurement. Furthermore, the eternal Eternal lies outside time as temporality is ephemeral and fleeting and not eternal; The eternal Eternal is an idea(form) of its Idea(perfect form). Temoprality is only eternal as Concept, or the perfect form of Temporality (Kojeve pp 102-104103)

Kant posits that Concept is outside of time yet it is effected by time. For Kant the eternal is a product of the concept of being and being is in time. It is the concept that becomes eternal outside of the time it was created in(Kojeve pp.102-103). Aristotle places the eternal within time and concept within the eternal. For Aristotle, Concept is bound to the realm of being that allows it to exist and that realm is time (Kojeve pp.102-103). The difference between Kant and Aristotle is where they situate Time and Eternity in respect to the being(time) it is derived from. It is a matter of semantics where one places eternity metaphysically if it functions in the same way in regards to time. Hence, Aristotle and Kant are saying the same thing.

Plato refers to Concept as being greater than the sum of the forms it is derived from (which is also what Hegel believes Time and Concept to be) (Kojeve pp. 102-104). For Plato as the concept is eternal the potential for actuality of any form makes that potential actual as concept that lies outside the time it was created. Kojeve notes that time for Plato is effected by being but remains unchanging (Kojeve pp 103-104). A hammer is a hammer even before we made the first hammer and named it by the various terms we use to signify it. The potential for anything to be called a hammer, or be referred to as a hammer, is the perfect form that encompasses every potential, or actual, hammer; this includes all concepts attributed to the signification and meaning pertaining to a hammer and any family resemblances categorised as such, which extends the Concept of the hammer as a concept but was potentially possible as actualisable ideas drawn from that which allowed the hammer to come into existence in what ever temporal form it took, include ideas and metaphors.

For Hegel Concept is the phenomena of the self consciousness of being. It is “there” because we have conceived it as concept. It needs humanity to exist because humanity created the concept by which time is measured and understood as such. (Kojeve p101) It is empirical because it can be measured objectively based on the concept humans use to measure it. It is eternal because although ‘time ticks away into the future’, it is eternally referred to as such, by any term or means of signification, no matter the point in time one refers to it. Time is a synthetic product that is a concept and concept means something conceived or given birth to. Thus, it is the human that gives birth to Time(Kojeve p100). For Plato even the extinction of humanity does not negate the potential for time or the fact that humans had measured it. The potential of a form of time to be derived by another specious exists Eternally. For Hegel, time exists only as the temporal form in which it is measured, or observed, by a conscious being. For Kant the concept of time is eternal yet exists because its potential and form exists in time and allows for its conceptual apprehension. For Aristotle Time exists within time because its potential and being exists because of time.

Is Kojeve correct to believe that each of the above mentioned philosophers believes in different irreconcilable concepts of time and eternity, or are all these philosophers all explaining the same idea differently, yet each is explaining the same Eternal metaphysics of Concept and Time? Does it matter if one metaphysically refers to eternity as being within time or outside of time based on it being eternal? Does each philosopher’s explanation lend itself to a fuller understanding of the explication of Time, Concept and Eternity, or do they conflict and confuse each other’s clarity on the subject? Is absolute knowledge the apprehension of Concept as Eternal? Since absolute knowledge pertains to the ideas of Concept, Eternity and Time, is there as Kojeve says a congruency in the ideas pertaining to all theories of absolute knowledge? Do all theories of absolute knowledge lead to the metaphysics that is called theological and refers to the Eternal Concept as the divine or God (Kojeve p.112)?

GWF Hegel in The Phenomenology of Spirit posits that self consciousness leads to a metaphysics that includes the universal Ideas of the divine and Time: These Concepts are the synthetic product of the consciousness of self consciousness of that which is the anti thesis to that which one becomes aware of as the Concept of Time. Time in its timeless form as Time is more than anything that can be measured as time. This immeasurability makes the synthetic product Time Divine. Thus Divinity is accorded to the metaphysical quality of the extra that becomes manifest in the consciousness of the human being conscious about it(Hegel 107-109, 118-119, Kojeve pp. 113-130, 176-180). In the same manner Beauty is divine. The Awe Emmanuel Kant spoke of in his work the critique of Judgement that is felt in the face of the consciousness of a greater nature is divine (Kant 281-288, 296-298, 300-301, and 333-334) This Awe is often deified into a divine force. For example, the Awe one feels in the face of the conceptual awareness of the consciousness of the whole of nature is realized as greater than the whole of nature and in some religions this is the basis of the concept of divinity connected to nature. Absolute knowledge of absolutes imparts the essence of the consciousness of the awareness of what we call the divine (Kant 333-334, Hegel 107-109)). Hence, theories of absolute knowledge lead to explanations that lend themselves to ideas of divinity and theology.

Many theories of absolute knowledge are used as doctrines to ways of thinking. In many cases a teacher or cleric indoctrinates people to a way of thinking based on their way of thinking and interpretation of the texts that their absolute theory of knowledge is sourced from. Said doctrines do not always coincide with the original metaphysical explanations found in the source texts. This is why as Ranciere in his book The Ignorant Schoolmaster states that allowing students to read and learn on their own emancipates them from the indoctrination used to control them (Ranciere pp. 12-19). One finds that the idea of Time is metaphysically the same in its Absolute sense in all doctrines postulated by theorist such as Plato, Aristotle, Hegel and Kant. The particularity of the placement of the metaphysics does not change the divine quality of the consciousness of said metaphysics (Kojeve 112-113). When a student reads these texts on their own they are able to conceptualise time in various metaphysical orientations and placements while appreciating the totality of the absoluteness of the metaphysical quality accorded them. One is emancipated to the consciousness of that metaphysics without having the indoctrination of subservience imparted by a teacher or preacher in a manner meant to maintain a position of their authority and reinforce the political regime of the day.


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Kant claims that the only master we need is the idea of equality codified and enforced equality as a stipulation of its codification as governing law. However Kant believes even the master creating an egalitarian state must be governed by the same master that by necessity is needed to govern everyone and maintain the society and the general will. The constitution that maintains the rule of the general will is enforced based on its egalitarian make up and the rules set for its enforcement. For Kant it must be enforced for everyone, including the master founders, to have it work and thus keep society from the whim of everyone’s self will

political theorist like Hobbes agree and draw the conclusion that a state religion as necessary. Hegel draws from this the idea of a state constitution that is organic, mystical and the governor of the state as that which represents all the divine power ever needed to maintain that state and appease everyone; atheist and theist a like.
It is not that a state is simply founded on the idea of the authority of God or as a divine authority in itself, rather that the idea of religion, esp. religious tolerance of all religions including atheism is necessary for the health of any regime. In history anti religious states crumble from within due to the dissidence religious adherents are willing to extol to avoid the damnation they believe in for not believing in their God(s). The religion of atheism believes in the idea that life ends at death so do what it takes, without being thrown in prison, to succeed cause that success is all you get. Thus you see why anti religious states suffer more dissidence than anti atheist states.
The success of nationalism is founded in religion. “For God queen… for God country and so on”. Anti religious state patriotism shriveled into nothing more than the appearance of being so, political correctness Comrade.
Thus patriotism failed to replace God without the inclusion of a divine mysticism that represented God in whatever fashion. Look at the US, look at Canada. To be founded with the idea of God in our constitutional divine world is to be founded with religious tolerance. No state will ever survive without such tolerance. There has been of yet no internal revolt or revolution that has occurred in a religiously tolerating state.
Socrates actually was considered a God by his followers, ‘for God’s wear no shoes and Socrates wears no shoes’( Protagoras) The meaning of life said Socrates while in prison his student is to learn as much wisdom about this world as you can so when you die you can go stand with the God(s) {in Heaven] Thus you are correct the idea of the importance of religion and the need to appease it politically to maintain a healthy state is an idea handed down from Socrates.

Socrates actually promoted the divinity of wisdom and knowledge. In fact the city of philosopher kings is a divinely moral city without rulers; it resembles sacred cities like New Jerusalem
The bible does not tell us to accept slavery but it does tell us not to be violent, such doctrines when understood properly suggest peaceful revolutions versus violent ones.
Now a days everyone is a slave to the system, no matter what system it is, thus you can be happy as a slave and make the system so profitable that everyone is a ruler or philosopher king, or you can be miserable all the time its up to you, to quote Freud’ I can cure you of your deep miseries but not the malaise of every day.” So the bible tells you to go beyond misery and not accept what you can change politically by peaceful means. Asimov is the brain washed nightmare of the USSR though 'Do robots dream of electric sheep' is as good as 'I robot'. Sci fi yes, social politics nah.

Religion is fading? I heard that one before, actually religious fervor is growing in scientific circles and in high end theoretical science. Such studies discover God and not one theoretical scientist remains an atheist, the brilliance of their discipline negates it, just look at the Russian scientists who were quire religious, often in secret, but often seemly atheist. “I want to prove God does not exists comrade, oops this study proved the opposite, sorry comrade”

I do agree with your final summation that tolerance of both religious and atheist piousness is important for a healthy state, by healthy one means a state that functional, consented to by the populace and prosperous for all. Maimonedes, like all religious scientists, promotes atheist like suspension of belief when trying to understand science or examining phenomena. One only includes religious ideas after one realises as much as one can concerning the empirical value of ones study. Truly neither religion nor atheism will fade and it is better to seek peaceful ways to have both exist in states as we have been.

All insurance companies have succeeded in doing is assisting those who can afford the coverage to reduce their hospital expenses, expenses that are greater than the coverage , but only profitable if one is in a situation meritting hospital care. In fact, courts, lawsuits and insurance investigations have forced hospitals to cover themselves to avoid being sued or discovered to be liable for malpractice or the likes. One might posit that at least the hospital is taking measures to avoid openly making mistakes. Everyone from nurses to doctors have learned to lie to avoid being discovered for any misgivings. In a social system based on a command economy, such as those of eastern block countries pre-callapse, the worker, in the manner of nurses and doctors, learned how to lie to avoid trouble with the governing boards that monitored their production and functioning. Technology and monitoring based on surveillance is the only remedy for such malfeasance and less that antiquate behaviour in all facets of business and institutional endeavours. In the USSR workers covered their inadequacy till the system of production collapsed.



(*You are right about the first point. Regarding your second point, I initially thought about that before framing the discussion, but I think that view suffers the same criticism. He states that the totality of history can be understood only at the end of history and that a particular historical world can be understood only after its end or death in history. These are two distinct statements. The former statement concerns all history (totality) and the latter concerns, for example, a particular culture that is extinct now – this is what you seem to be indicating is his view. And you are right, it is part of his view. Both statements refer to the Human Spirit (p. 138).
On p. 133, in his reading of Hegel, Kojeve states that Time is History – “human existence, speaking existence.” Kojeve says that the totality of (human) history can be understood only at the end of (human) history. But since human history concerns “human existence, human speaking,” it seems impossible to understand everything (totality) about human history (human existence, human speaking) when human history (human existence, human speaking) has ended. So, can human history ever reach its goal–Absolute Knowledge of self when its existence has ended?*)

The end of history? If one calls someone, or an event, the end of history does history end or is it a referential point to which one can do a broad stroke historical examination from the dawn of time( or a reference point determining what one will call the beginning of history) to said end reference point? Hegel called Napoleon the end of history and the Annals school claims history is different after the French revolution and Napoleon. The annals School uses said revolution as a reference point to examine history using broad stroke analytical methods. Thus one can pick any point(s) as an end (and beginning) of a historical examination and designate it as an epoch. One can claim what lies before (prehistory for some analysis) and what lies after different types of history. Such analysis can use several points to delineate an epoch of examination from any point to any other point including the present. Hegel used a present day character to represent this culmination and end of history, though recall he also said absolute spirit is moving from Prussia (and France, Europe) to the USA (or Americas) and hence Hegel’s end of history can be nothing more that a reference point for analysis as some type of history persists into the future beyond this end and prehistory lies beyond its beginning referential point, or for Hegel written history.. For Marx this end begins the history of the emancipated proletariat, history does not end, only the tyranny of oppression written by the winners as accepted history, a history evoked to maintain the borzois’ tyranny. Oppression and positions of power, ends.

Schmitt points out that a political entity, such as a state, needs the recognition of other states to exist as an antonymous political entity. Thus states politicise the 'us' versus 'them' and that politicisation causes the other, or the 'them', to become the enemy, or the competition of same, for the sake of political autonomy. A state that does not recognise this group theory division is destroyed by the states that do. Schmitt also posits that there is always a need for, and existence of, enemies and in a future when globalisation leads to the apolitical union of all states, the only enemies that remain are the outlaws, or criminals, of society, and humanity, in general. The government of such a global state(s) turns its eyes inwards as no outside 'other' exists to be made enemy. Thus, the enemy of said apolitical state(s) is the criminals everyone equally finds an enemy and threat to peace. For example, the war on terrorism is not a battle against a political enemy outside any state; rather it is a conflict against criminals that threaten all peoples (states) transnational, equally and apolitically, whether or not the motives for such crimes are justified by the outlaws based on politics. Afghanistan is not a political enemy of the Coalition and the police action within its boarders is aimed at individual outlaws of society on a whole and not the nation or its people as a whole. This apolitical future must be embraced by all states if it is to succeed without being destroyed by other states not included in the apolitical union. To be apolitical means having no politicised enemies and thus no states that are other to the apolitical union can exist. This union must include all states to successfully turn from political enemies to the outlaws that are enemies of humanity and peace in general.



Schmitt points out that a political entity, such as a state, needs the recognition of other states to exist as an antonymous political entity. Thus states politicise the 'us' versus 'them' and that politicisation causes the other, or the 'them', to become the enemy, or the competition of same, for the sake of political autonomy. A state that does not recognise this group theory division is destroyed by the states that do. Schmitt also posits that there is always a need for, and existence of, enemies and in a future when globalisation leads to the apolitical union of all states, the only enemies that remain are the outlaws, or criminals, of society, and humanity, in general. The government of such a global state(s) turns its eyes inwards as no outside 'other' exists to be made enemy. Thus, the enemy of said apolitical state(s) is the criminals everyone equally finds an enemy and threat to peace. For example, the war on terrorism is not a battle against a political enemy outside any state; rather it is a conflict against criminals that threaten all peoples (states) transnational, equally and apolitically, whether or not the motives for such crimes are justified by the outlaws based on politics. Afghanistan is not a political enemy of the Coalition and the police action within its boarders is aimed at individual outlaws of society on a whole and not the nation or its people as a whole. This apolitical future must be embraced by all states if it is to succeed without being destroyed by other states not included in the apolitical union. To be apolitical means having no politicised enemies and thus no states that are other to the apolitical union can exist. This union must include all states to successfully turn from political enemies to the outlaws that are enemies of humanity and peace in general.

The fear of violence has several more contemporary meanings than Sorel anticipated. Nowadays, those who cause the fear of violence are called terrorists and there is a war against them. The proletariat agrees that said terrorists must be apprehended and eliminated, be they rocket launchers or those who throw acid into the faces of beautiful intelligent women trying to go to school to better themselves and their nations. Such monsters are hated by the general populations of thier own nations let alone those in other countries. The fear of violence is now a crime and a stigmatised idea, sorry Sorel. In Sorel's time it was an acceptable idea of change. However the fear of a general strike still holds merit, though it must be peaceful , and its use in European countries , for instance, has caused the people in said European countries to get thier way with their governments in situations ranging from everything concerning wage and benefit hicks to stopping a new tax law. Does capitalism cause violence? Do guns kill people or do people kill people? If one does not have a gun does violence stop or does one use a house hold appliance (we of course are enlightened and beyond needless violence)? Capitalism is no cause of violence as is no system a cause of same, instead it is the people in any system that can misuse that system and cause violence. In fact, the best economical systems in history are capitalist countries with strong socialist policies, policies that create strong social nets, and communist countries that have strong capitalist policies, policies that promote healthy commerce for the strong social netted communist system. This suggests that the best systems take the best from both worlds and those systems on the fringes, be they lassie fare or staunch communist, fail based on lacking what they deem is only the mainstay of the opposite system. Both capitalism and communism can benefit from ideas the opposite system promotes without loosing and/or undermining their ideologies.
I agree that this quote from Ranciere is indicative of his post-modern conception of Time. He is claiming that Time is not an entity on its own: Time is not in itself a progressive productive force. Time is a human concept and relies on humanity, it does not exist independently of the humans( intelligent beings ) that conceive it. However, I will add that the potential that allows for time to be derived exists independently of human beings. Whether or not humans exist, mountains erode over a period of rotations of the earth. Ranciere is attacking idealistic concepts of anthropomorphised or animist ideas of Time Many, such as neo-Hegelians, are unable to understand Hegel and believe that Time was a progressive absolute spirit separate from the human observer that named it as such. Time itsdelf caused progress and not the beings that conceive it and materially actualised said progress. Such people, like neo Hegelians, justify such ideas using misreadings of theorists such as Hegel. It is beings that are productive, or not, and not the period they delineate for this productivity. Beings, not Time, are productivity. Beings can be non-productive for the same period and thus Time in and for itself is not progressive or productive; Time needs beings to be productive, or at least, delineate what they think is productive in time.
Does social change not accorded to Time? Is Ranciere saying that Time causes change rather than human agency seen as a timeless being? Is time changing humans, or being in time? Is being simply being par excellence not being in itself as being for the sake of change in time? Does humanity change based on something about the way humanity is now, rather than thinking humans change society by acting it it for the sake of change? Does simply existing in our contemporary humanity cause social change based on the ideas that humanity holds? Is it Time that causes the change or our contemporary nature that does so? Even acting to cause change is part of that humanity. Change takes time. Time is the duration it takes for change, but it is humans living out their lives in time, being in time, that causes the changes. Thus Time's content is filled with the humans who act within its framework to change society without claiming their timeless actions caused this material change. Time does not cause progress, humans cause progress as humanity in its entirety. No single human or single act on its own causes progress, progress is the everyday existence of all humanity living and changing as time passes as Time.
Progress is traditionally considered the opposite of regress. However progress also entails change into the future. It is the progress of life, which entails living, loving, giving birth and progressing from generation to generation at bare minimal. Progress does not need a goal except living and Ranciere steers one away from such notions. For Ranciere regress is impossible as it a temporal unreality, you cannot go backwards in time. Productivity entails the progress of labour actualised into the product, this process is progress. Progress means persistence in Time as a product of the necessity of life. It is redundant to pursue an idea you know is utopian, by definition utopian means unatanable, esp. if you do not try to make it practical and actualisable.

Slave labour we call jobs are not slavery, as slaves have not even the lip service of rights they can use for their benefit.

There are two types of winners in life the little winners, or what Benjamin calls the weak messianic force and, according to Socrates, the big winners who learn as much as they can from life to go stand next to the God(s) after they leave this life. In revelations a winner is someone who becomes immortal as well as receives other gifts: " to the winner I grant the right to eat from the tree of life and live forever" (Rev:2:6-8). Each church spirit represents one of the seven spirits or modes of accessing God(s). Thus for Christianity there are winners in life. So according to you technology is trying to make us all winners by this account.

Finally tribal life seen as some do is as utopian as the noble savage, where you imagine life being unlike life else where. Indigenous peoples change and progress as much as all peoples, though that change sometimes is at a slower pace. For example, people's image of pastoral native American life pre colonialism is not reflective of the struggles and innovations said people experienced as the progress of their lives and life in general.

(*Benjamin explains that legal violence is a threatening violence because it is fatalistic, a self-fulfilling prophecy that is both law-founding and law-preserving. He writes that “the law’s interest in a monopoly of violence vis-à-vis individuals is not explained by the intention of preserving legal ends but, rather, by that of preserving the law itself” (p. 281.) Capital punishment is one example: its critics are not simply targeting a law; they are targeting law in its origin, its principle. Why? Because “in the exercise of violence over life and death more than in any other legal act, law reaffirms itself” (p. 286.) Another example is police violence, which “is violence for legal ends, but with the simultaneous authority to decide these ends itself within wide limits” (p. 286.)

Benjamin explains that this fatalistic violence will never cease as long as there is a legal contract. Thus, “the pacifists are confronted by the Bolsheviks and Syndicalists” (p. 288.) The Bolsheviks gained power over the multitude of rivaling parties due to their unique use of arms. Thus, the transformation of one state to another is not enough; it simply transfers the monopoly of violence between states. What is necessary to break the cycle of a ghostly, ever-present violence, put crudely, is the abolition of law. Although organized labour is alone, apart from the state, able to exercise violence (by means of extortion,) this is tolerated by the state in order to avoid even more violence that would result if the strike were not permitted. However, it is tolerated only on a small level, as “the state retains the right to declare that a simultaneous use of strike in all industries is illegal… in this difference of interpretation is expressed the objective contradiction in the legal situation, whereby the state acknowledges a violence whose ends, as natural ends, it sometimes regards with indifference, but in a crisis (the revolutionary general strike) confronts inimically” (p. 282.) This use of the “state of emergency” by the government to counter a general strike was used in France in 1968 and succeeded. As defined by Sorel, the general strike can be political, seeking to replace the existing state with another, or proletarian, seeking to abolish the state completely. The former is lawmaking and violent, the latter is anarchistic yet nonviolent, “for it takes place not in readiness to resume work following external concessions and this or that modification to working conditions, but in the determination to resume only a wholly transformed work, no longer enforced by the state, an upheaval that this kind of strike not so much causes as consummates” (p. 291.) As Derrida will later clarify, “what Benjamin seems to be dreaming of is an order of non-violence that withholds from the order of droit… not only private relations but even certain public relations as in the general proletarian strike that Sorel speaks about, which is a strike that would not attempt to re-found a state and a new droit” (p. 49 of “Force of Law.”)*)
How can people be law abiding if there are no laws? Is Benjamin saying that laws written as covenants and maintained by states induce violence? How does one abolish violence to create peace? What are the prerequisites to taking away the governments need to maintain and enforce laws? Is divine violence the answer? Is this violence to all without bloodshed or physical violence? Is this the violence of the philosopher that Nietzsche calls the danger all things are in when a philosopher is present? If so do we all need to be philosophers to achieve peaceful anarchy? Only if we all become philosopher kings as Plato prescribes and thus be able to enforce the law for ourselves can such peaceful lawlessness be achieved? When we all learn to be divinely violent, which entails being pacifists, and not justify physical violence using a false claim to the divine that allows the incomprehensible ungraspable illogical lawlessness of revolutions and the likes to be sanctioned as acceptable madness, said anarchist peace can be achieved. Moreover, when the past ungraspible moments realised as pure lawless insanity that counters its own intended purpose of creating laws while fighting those that, at least in part, equally prohibit the same violence, and both said law systems are being broken to create lawfulness as the new law system, though criminal lawlessness is used to actualise the future lawfulness, and the past ungraspible violence is justified as mythical violence , or the recognition of the ungraspable violence of the past justified as being God's will from the top down or as its reasons from the beginning, said anarchist peace is possible. Such peace is possible when said mythical violence is no longer used to justify the misuse of laws to sanction the monopoly on violence and what Benjamin calls human violence. Truly we can abolish laws, the blood shed and criminal lawlessness that necessitates good laws and good people, people who hereto are checked by said laws to maintain their lawfulness, and thus achieve a peaceful world that breaks the cycle of both revolutionary and state sanctioned violence.
(*Heidegger states that, "man in the technological age is, in a particularly striking way, challenged forth into revealing. That revealing concerns nature[...]and entraps nature as a calculable coherence of forces[...]sets nature up to exhibit itself as a coherence of forces calculable in advance." pg 21 *)

"What is dangerous is not technology, There is no demonry of technology, but rather there is the mystery of its essence. the essence of technology, as a destining of revealing is the danger[...]the actual threat has already affected man in his essence. the rule of Enframing threatens man with the possibility that it could be denied to him to enter into a more original revealing and hence to experience the call of a more primal truth." pg 28

Heidegger later made known that, "The question concerning technology is the question concerning the constellation in which revealing and concealing, in which the coming to presence of truth comes to pass." pg 33
Philosophy is the love of the wisdom of knowing the world from the human perspective. Up till the time human's invented machines we only knew the world based on the limits of our perception. If the world was different philosophy would have been formulated to take this into account and thus would reflect the would based on said difference , which of course would be the norm as the world's state pf affair would be as such. If we use machines or technology to analyze the would we become aware of things we could not perceive, thus we are sure that the world is more than what we perceive.
The danger of technology is the assumed framework used as the paradigm to interpret the stars (or ideas discovered and made aware to humans) that are drawn into conceptual constellations based on what is assumed to be the essence called the truth. This framing gets designated as the essence of technology and the essence of humans that determine their place in nature by said technology. The revealing does not reveal the truth, but rather it reveals an interpreted truth based on the system by which that revealing occurs. Again it is not the things revealed but how what is revealed is interpreted based on a system of truth assumed to be the essence of truth that can be the problem if said system and its interpretations are believed to be the absolute truth. If one considers a system to be the Truth of what a particular technology discovers and said system is considered the basis of the discovering of all truths concerning humanity and nature, one ends up considering said system the Truth and essence of technology, which is the vehicle, nature, that which is being examined, and humanity, that which examines. However, if one considers all interpreted truths of any system to be relative and considers said truths not to be absolute, one is capable of going beyond the box, so to speak, and realise a primal truth that is beyond all relative truth interpreted from this primal Form of Truth. As Plato says the Form is beyond all forms it takes. The forms a Form takes allows us to realise the existence of this perfect or complete Form (complete as in encompassing all forms). The primal or perfect Form is realized as beyond what can be encapsulated concerning what is revealed by it. People think science and technology reveals only the truth, and has access to the real truth and thus this makes said people interpret what is discovered by technology as essentially the real Truth in its absolute way, people believe technology truly accesses the Truth of natural phenomena. Hence, such people fatalistically interpret nature within such frameworks as the essential elementary pieces that make up this nature. For example: We realize our eyes only see one part of the phenomena of what makes up colour based on the nature of our eyes and what is seen. The wave length of the light reflected and not absorbed by an object is seen, even technology that can detect the absorption, or other wave lengths, is restricted to the nature of its method or mode of detection, To interpret how colours work as an absolute based on the discoveries of nature is to restrict yourself to the nature of the way said technology detects the natural phenomena of colours and one must realise that what colours are in Truth is beyond both human and technological detection. You can never know the primal Truth, you just know of it. Thus no system derived from said ideas of a real Truth can determine the True elements of nature as its interpretations of Truth.


Does technology allow for the emancipation of peoples from disadvantaged situations across the world? Inasmuch as it reveals a standing reserve of being, or a pool of knowledge that is endless and incomplete, said reserve is attributed to the discipline it is attributed to and/or is part of, does this reserve play a role in freeing humanity from the misconceptions rational thinking could not impart? Does it help upgrade the disadvantaged? Is Benjamin saying that the puppet of history, in his essay on history, is controlled by materialism? Is this a concealing based on the framework of Benjamin's interpretations? Is the puppet of history playing chess against Heidegger who was a Nazi but not necessarily a fascist? Is Benjamin's truth free or restricted to the enframing that shakles humanity to formula interpretations that might emancipate humanity or is it trapped in its own short sightedness?
Marcuse says that liberalist society was "the sphere of free competition, the tangible achievements of the individual which made his products and performances a part of society's need, were the marks of his individuality" (140). He then says that big companies take over and "abolish the free economic subject" (141).
Liberalism is the product of Christian and western religious ideals seculurised into the social political ideas that govern liberal societies. Liberalism expanded its horizon to encompass other ways of thinking that included eastern religions and political ideals. The freedom to act in such a society is based on the liberties afforded by the aforementioned ideologies institutionalised as the political ideals that govern a particular society.
Freedom to act and produce creates a freedom set in the negative freedom of the precepts and rules of said societies. Diversity of production entails freedom of choice concerning behaviour in spheres such as commerce yet it does not entail the totality of freedom itself. Large companies can restrict the freedom of choice in a particular market but cannot eliminate the liberties of said society in regards to other forms of production and actions one engages with in that society. In fact, large companies that do not take the needs of the individual into consideration go bankrupt and no longer control the aforementioned market or the choices that might be made by any individual in said society. Individual freedom of the individual in any society based on production never existed beyond the base level concerning individual action within the limits of negative freedom.
Such Utopian ideals have no basis in history or contemporary society. No said individual liberty has ever existed for any society on a whole. Piece work, entrepreneurship, small companies to large ones depend on the demand for their products by those in their society. Thus the individual's need is needed by society and enterprise to subsist, no matter the size of the company that makes the products bought based on the desires deemed necessary by the individuals of that society.
Marcuse does not say that Liberalism leads to fascism as a natural result of its character, rather he says that a backlash based on a misunderstanding of liberalism is expressed in the form of fascism. It is a misnomer founded on a misread from Marcuse and said liberalism.
(*"Dromology is a shifting, restless logistics of differential governance transforming the raw material of the world and rendering it 'in a more appropriate form' (36)."

The above quote presents an idea similar to Marx's conception of labour - the transformation of raw materials through human work - as the essential human characteristic, where humans seek to transform the world to be as they see fit.

"Dromocratic intelligence is not exercised against a more or less determined military adversary, but as a permanent assault on the world, and through it, on human nature. The disappearance of flora and fauna and the abrogration of natural economies are but the slow preparation for more brutal destruction" (page 86).*)

Dramology is the capacity any being has to form what Marcuse called the primal sense into a form fit to its understanding and perception. It is both of sense and of the framing of said sense into a framework or en framing paradigm. Said framework alters human perception, though the base perception alters said raw resources into fit forms. For example: eating alters said raw resources into a form fit for humanity as in the form capable of being digested and made into substance for the body.. Humanity interacts with the world making and altering it into things it can use and/or sees fit to alter, be it raw resources, sense perception, commodities, substance, thought or so on. Life is a never ending process that necessitates this type of interaction for life itself. To exist we must alter the raw recourses of the world into what is fit for us. This necessity governs this shift and the way it must be in the sense of what it entails, including altering raw resources so as to make them edible. This governance based on a changing and always needful abrogation of nature is logistical and the basis of the logos or intelligence by which it occurs and must occur. It consumes the world yet in itself does not encompass a plan for its subsistence to allow for the consumption and persistence of dromocraty into the future. It attacks both nature and through it the human that calls its nature dromology. It is a demos of Dromocratic governance that dictates the natural economy of the permanent need to change the world because one simply lives in it and due to the need to maintain what has already been form by dromology to control nature and the human. Thus, human nature is drawn as a raw resource that is shifted to be governed for the purpose of the persistence of said humanity in time.
It is an ecstasy of feeling as technology alters the mode of production and the very means of that production to further the dromocratic governance know as the dromology and its logistics. Verilio is not saying that dromology is anything more than the primal Id governing the primal ego. Said primal Id must be governed by a super ego that acts as its logos and must be tempered to avoid the greater destruction, said destruction being humanity; unless we control our drives to consume and alter the world , humanity can cause itself to die out due to the destruction of nature needed to allow for humanities subsistence in time. Ecology and environmentalism as well as ethical codes for public behaviour based on moral codes of private perfectibility, restless in its actuation, govern the base level of any people while necessitating each to structure its permanent drive in humanity into the wisdom needed for it to subsist by maintaining nature and humanity that needs said nature to exist. .
.
Marcusa claims that liberal society was at its best during a free economy, lessee fair, society. This is not a Marxist stand. In fact one might argue that Marcusa is a pure capitalist who believes fascism and communism are backlashes to the liberal project. Feuerbach is simply pointing out that all religion has a practical use. He is not advocating atheism as the only practical doctrine. Marx is advocating the primacy of practical religious ends and not what is said by such religions to be the otherworldly extension thereof. This does not relegate religion to the disempowered shell of faith concerning that which does not affect humanity, rather he is emphasizing that religion has an immanent result here and now. Thus religious empowerment should be focused on how religion affects humanity in life rather than simply in the after life.
Thus Marx agrees that religion must produce a practical empowerment or a product in this world. All religions do manifest a practical end in this life time and one can extrapolate such practicality to the mythical powers made practical through faith: One can manifest many religious powers and use them in practical ways.
The tracing of the individual through the evolution of thought to the outcome of technical liberal society promotes the idea of humanity in the field of progress that can enslave itself to preconceived notions enframed as reality. Technology leads humanity to more leisure time, but as Marcusa argues it leads to fascism or communism if one does not retain the spirit of the liberal, social society of a free market that recognizes the individual over the machine.
"Underlying Marcusa's argument is that beautifully naive Marxian aspiration toward a future wherein 'men would work in the morning, fish in the afternoon, and write poetry at night.'" It is mot that Marcusa is promoting Marxist's naivety but rather that Marxists idea of liberty is not as free as a capitalist system in which the individual is free to use technology to help him without losing himself to fascism and/or communism.

Is Virilio a Futurist? Not in the manner of Marineth who is a corpse , a soulless being who believes that the past must be abandoned. The race car needs to be fueled by the fossil fuels of the ancients and the past. Is Virilio a traditionalist? Not in the manner of Pound who fears the vortex of what is new while cling to the vortex of the old as progress. Deny the vortex of the past, as Pound refers to it, long enough to found what it represents as that which constitutes the new. The new beauty of art is the speed of newness given to the amalgamation of new and old. The new beauty is like a philosopher's cunning, making all things, as Nietzsche says, in danger. Said bueaty is explosive like the cunning the bible attributes to serpents. Time died as a concept in time based on it being referred to in temporal analogies that include the idea of time as the "yesterday". Virilio asks why look back since the past is omnipresent and part of the present as its future? Looking forward with the past as our present is an absolute that does not relegate itself to the past that is past, but rather embraces the past as the present that manifests itself in hand with what is new and placed in the future based on the destiny of said present. What was hypostatised as the art of humanity is now brought into the fold of humanity as its tool rather than its blind guild, as is the case with poetry. The absoluteness of being is understood as timeless as it encompasses the past as its present and the future as its present goal. It is beyond the centuries that give it birth every moment as the absolute. It is beyond the moment and is omnipresent always no matter the century it is refered to in.
No Virilio is neither a futurist nor a traditionalist and yet is both realised as a masterpiece of timeless realisation that speeds along at its top speed towards actualising what is old as new and what is new as the same new that encompasses the old; speeding along in the same absolute fashion it always did.
Time is money so I will be brief. Time ran out for eastern communism as said time fights oppression in all modes of production. Marx was not against capitalism or was he anti commodity and consumption. He simply felt capitalist in his time were oppressing the workers like sport team owners oppressed the players and record companies the artists The owners were rich and those doing the labour poor beyond subsistence. The worker had to earn enough to be happy for the labour he put into making the commodity. To enslave someone to work below subsistence is a crime of humanity that both capitalist and communists historically perpetrated. Time marchers on for no one, it is utilised because we utilize its concept as part of utilising nature and ourselves based on the necessity of being in nature and dealing with ourselves and all others.
Nature cannot be conquered and made a slave to your oppression. Time is utilised not fought and is also a free proletariat. One might say we try to change the results of time on things, like us aging, but unarmed time we fight not. You have to be quick to catch this thought as its speed might elude you. Are you from the east, no way, I treated your thought from a non bias universal perspective, but through your bias you thought you saw one in me. I know in the east you were bread to love communism, or at least it seems you do, but you are right it is me interpreting Marx to make sure you understand him without bias.

Time is utilised equally in differing particulars by all modes of production. This truth serves everyone well as clocks and schedules exist everywhere within the temporal field of this universe.

Nature cannot be conquered and made a slave to your oppression. Time is utilised not fought and is also a free proletariat. One might say we try to change the results of time on things, like us aging, but unarmed time we fight not. You have to be quick to catch this thought as its speed might elude you. Are you from the east, no way, I treated your thought from a non bias universal perspective, but through your bias you thought you saw one in me. I know in the east you were bread to love communism, or at least it seems you do, but you are right it is me interpreting Marx to make sure you understand him without bias.



Time is utilised equally in differing particulars by all modes of production. This truth serves everyone well as clocks and schedules exist everywhere within the temporal field of this universe.
Time keeps on ticking into the future. When the God called time is worshiped by the priestly engineer it is redeemed as the saving grace that tempers the speed of the the elations of technology. It is not the speed of technology, but the quickness of humanities reaction in saving humanity from the technologies said humanity uses that can cause it harm that is the saving grace of the priestly engineer. Has humanity tailored its progress to take this into account? Do we now recycle? Do we now try to examine to see what repercussions arise with a new technology before clearing it for public use? Have we restricted things like led filled paints on children toys? Have we created laws to protect our environment? Yes, so now the engineer says quickly catch up and realise that the speed of technology is safe as we temper it with the safe guards of divine prophylactic measures. In Virilio's time the idea of environmentalism was in its infant phase, but things have changed, have they not? Look have people's protests not changed the way things are? Does it get better? Does technology's speed not offer technologies to protect humanity from catastrophe? Is it not technology that helped us realise what needed to be saved and how to save it? If not for technology the simple flu would become an epidemic that could kill us. So the engineer creates both the technologies and safeguards to said technologies and thus deifies this reality for everyone safely; Said engineer saves us from humanities dromology while allowing it to exist.
(*The have something of which they are proud. What do they call that which makes them proud? Education they call it; it distinguishes them from the goatherds. That is why they do not like to hear the word ‘contempt’ applied to them. Let me then address their pride. Let me then speak to them of what is most contemptible: but that is the last man.” (p.16)
the child is innocence and forgetting, a new beginning, a game, a self-propelled wheel, a fires movement, a sacred “Yes.” For the game of creation, my brothers, a sacred “Yes.” is needed: the spirit now wills his own will, and he who had been lost to the world now conquers his own world. (p.27).
To what extend can a society function that is ideal in having a population capable of accepting and analyzing the widest variety of ideas, as compared to a society that only has the ideas required to function in the ways it does, and cannot accept or analyze new ideas (such as a theocracy as the most extreme example, or an industrial capitalist society as the most contemporary example)? Or is it simply best to let “the best shepherd who lead his sheep to the greenest pasture” (p.29) do his world?*)

God is dead as a concept says Nietzsche, but was this a right interpretation? No, thus they say he died of syphilis( the sheep disease-secret teaching). Recall Burke's moto: tradition founds all new things, otherwise said new structures fall like a deck of cards; 52 pickup please. Nietzsche is Zoroaster who prays to the sun as he comes down like a virgin( young person born again) from the mountain of his transcendence and revelations. Oh Antichrist( another of his books) did the old prophet not help you carry the burden of the world? Said prophet founds the foot of your mountain like a snake at the feet of a cabalist. Twilight becomes your prayers as you walk the tight rope of balance of old, new and idiolly much much more. Nietzsche invites Christ from the mount of olives to talk to him as his deified new universal christian, an overnan for sure. So did Nietzsche the God overman die? No, because he knew God could not die as much as Nietzsche knew he could not die. God cannot die as much as I Nietzsche who is Zoroaster renewed or the God Zarathustra, can Instead of Christ you anti-Christ(s), God(s) philosophers who make all statutes quo in danger, yes we are dangerous when wise, you are the grapes of the vineyard of secular divine universal Christianity or contemporary liberal societies that represent all virtuous and good people( Christ means virtuous and good one in ancient Greek). A Sheppard is made from the lamb beaten to a pulp by those who do not understand the revelations; let them spit. Hence said Sheppards learn to protect sheep with the wisdom of a herder because they learned from the hard knocks of being an innocent lamb. Ideally society functions at various levels. What if society was made up of sheep and herders who are both at the same time? Is our pasture not greener due to this thought?

“We stand on the backs of Giants" said Newton, so we must be able to reach higher than said giants. Does this not mean we should be able to be better than those we use to stand on? Can we not go fast if we became good first? If we become Virilo's divine engineer, or more aptly, if society gains the spirit to act and enactment regulations to guild the dromology by producing road rules for racing versus speeding at the limit then has one not made Virilio's lesson the dromocraty and a guiding force for dromocratic intelligence? Are such rules not dromocratic wisdom? Following such rules of conduct and control of neck breaking speeds by conforming society to the civil engineering of the divine dromology of environmental political and social ecology, ipso facto instilling a second nature of environmentally sound social consciousness as social instinct, have we not become good enough to be at the same if not better speed that is prescribed by vilio as the dromocratic intelligence of the divine engineer? Speed is the inducement of choice when it is engineered to opiate the masses while emancipating the dromology to the divine statues of post Virilian Dromological intelligence.
(*foucault suggests that we should not be so concerned with the different methods employed in the quest for truth, "In all these different exercises, what is at stake is not the disclosure of a secret which has been excavated from out of the depths of the soul. What is at stake is the relation of the self to truth" ( Pg. 165). Rather what are the sets of "truths" we live by, "if the truth of the self in these exercises is nothing other than the relation of the self to truth (pg165)" .....*)




The truth we hold inside is a secret, like the tricks of a mage, one teaches the basic tricks one learned that convinces people one has power, power as a truth relative to the self, as the self defined relative to it, then based on this convincing one does the greater magic tricks that are a secret, or a mystery, as their source is unknowable and unsayable yet true and present. The self realises this truth as an exercise of unearthing, no matter the method of this archeology, that always existed inside each soul based on the truth that exists beyond the sayable that is reflected as the truth relative to the self. The self in relation to said truth says what it can concerning what it only observes as a deep dark secret that can only be said as a sayable reflective of the self defined relative to it. The truth is a secret understood and signified as a self realisation, but it is a secret that cannot be divulged in its entirety and thus remains an untellable secret that defines the self relative to it.
" you may will what you wish, but what you will will be judged and return as blessings for being good beyond evil+ good/evil= multicultural cappuccinos and the potions of the nectors of transcending particularism of xenophobic structural biases and manifesting as universal particularities of over standing, got it over
)men as:_ people.
Yes = will to power is unity yet difference, born not of stagnation but struggle of argument and debate based on equality, one peoples with many heads like rams fighting and rams are peaceful sheeple too?
result for hard wiring this idea is growth while being good and synthesising all extremes without losing sight of the difference that bind and enrich the sameness of the city( of God?)
struggle is good if peaceful is fighting the good war of competition for more that allows everyone to win with equal chance of success.
(*Behold, Zarathustra! The people, too, learn from you and acquire belief in your teaching: but for the people to believe you completely, one thing is still needed--you must frist convince even us cripples! [...] you can cure the blind and make the lame walk; [...] If one takes the hump away from the hunchback, one takes away his spirt--that is what the people teach." (p.159) While reading this section of the book I recalled the story of the Lepers in the Bible:
Because they were lepers, they were not allowed to stand near the road. From a distance they called out,"Jesus! Teacher! Have mercy on us!"They wore hoods over their heads and scarves across their faces. This was so no one would have to look at the awful sores which made them lepers.They begged Jesus to heal them. Jesus pointed hack to the town."Go and show yourselves to the priests." This was another way of telling the lepers they were healed!Only people who had been healed were supposed to go to the priests. The men did as Jesus told them. As they walked toward the temple to seethe priests, they felt a strange thing happening. Blood tingled through their arms and legs. A strange warmth went up and down their backs. One man pulled his sleeve up and saw the skin growing back healthy. He shouted, "Praise God! Praise the Lord God Almighty! I've been healed!I'm all better!" Luke 17.11-16
However I found it interesting that Zarathustra says "But he who makes the lame man walk does him the greatest harm: for no sooner can he walk than his vices run away with him" (p.159) *)
Go and dream it as reality and create as a building + plus you know you were already building = you are as you were reaching for a more perfect you, (perfect with its perfected imperfectionws) yet imperfect in its perfection.
Go beyond good and evil and become good ultimately without perfection. perrrfect.
the holy warmth was holy energy (spirit) the form of healing sent from cvhriist when faith fully opened the door way
code= key.
the doctor who heals without teaching the key does harm to the person not redeamed by the miracle of the healing, he closes the door fast again and sins without repentance.
Did he learn to avaooid the evil things he has not yet redeamed as the faith of his understanding. Meaning I thought masterbating was bad and thus caused something evil like abusing my mate and thus was afflicted.
I healed myself by ating grace and calling to redeamtion, did not abuse my wife and stroked my girl toy only slapping my female as a game with permission called the hard love of s and M,
In conclusion, the Differences espoused in metaphysical explanations of the consciousness of the absoluteness of Concepts do not change the metaphysical explanation of the Sameness of those metaphysics. This Sameness construed as the consciousness of Same is the Concept realized as the Divine. It is the extra that each metaphysics entails that is greater that the constituents of its parts. It is Time realized as an Infinite Eternity no matter its placement within the context of Eternity and time. The Awe of the realisation of this consciousness is the same absolute Concept of the Eternal and Time in each explanation of the same Ideas no matter whose absolute theory of knowledge it is (Hegel 108).
Political authority often uses absolute theories of knowledge to impart subservience as part of the indoctrination of ideas formed for the benefit of the imparter and the regime or institution they represent. A true teacher leads by allowing the students to learn on their own and partakes in the pedagogy as an equal. One important component to this is having students read the material on their own and teaches each others as equals (Ranciere pp.4-18, 89-91). This is the emancipation from the false doctrines of authority imparted by teachers indoctrinated in the ideas of their current regime (Ranciere pp4-18). In this freedom people realise the doctrines of Absolute knowledge with equal passion and gain a fuller metaphysical understanding of the same Ideas each imparts concerning the same absolute (Hegel 107-109, 118-119) Concepts that produce an Awe with the observer who becomes conscious to them consciously are considered metaphysically divine( Kant 281-288, 296-298, 300-301, 333-334). That Awe created from the consciousness of that metaphysics liberates one to the Truth of universal equality and the xenophobic self grandising, self motivated indoctrinations of the regime and the teachers used to represent and reinforce their authority (Ranciere 4-18 and 71-90. It is emancipation of thought and by extension political awareness and action.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Time is conceived as a concept by the conscious observer that determines it within the temporal reality that is the potential from which consciousness of phenomena relative to being self and other can be determined as time. Time is a constitution of time unanimously conceived to and regulated by the consciousness that is aware of its potential as actualized existence and persistence in being. As Hegel posits the divine essence of multiplicity determined within a restricted code similar to history is the recognition of self within the parameters of unified being as constituted by that recognition. Being as time is a synthetic product of Kant's awe of nature understood as patterns of regularity based on the larger image of the realisation of an encompassable entrapped with a concept that indicates the vastness of this being both noted and practical. Times theory goes beyond being yet it is theory the practice of its being is made actual. Said actuality is founded on the practical nature of the divine form of time or the perfect form made into form by its conception. This argument of coherently arising transgendered reality functions as a relative that necessitates co dependent yet independent realities unified in both practical and theoretical understandings. The timeless warp of reality understood with in the temporal reality of said being constituted into an entity of perfection that plays of both relatives as many with a framed understanding conceived relative to the observer truly regulates the relation of being for those who learn and conceive the reality of time for both practical and theoretical conclusions.


Alexandre Kojeve, Introduction to the Reading of Hegel, Cornell University Press. Ithaca, USA. 1969
G.W.F. Hegel Phenomenology of Spirit, Trans. A.V, Miller, Oxford university press; England. 1977/
Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgement, Basic writings Tran James C Meredith,