Quora ignores the bigotry against religion
(Print version: http://www.ueliraz.ch/blogarchiv-ueli-raz-2016-17.pdf)
There is an infinitely finely graduated scale of ways in which the individual “fails”, in which he “decides” on a different course of events than initially planned: you put on a different jacket and different shoes than you are used to does not go on the right but on the left side of the street as in the last few weeks, you allow yourself more time than usual to do something or, conversely, have too little of it, you speak in a raised voice instead of calmly, as is usually the case, you take less cash from your bank account than usually etc. In this everyday, unmanageable heap of moments of the unplanned or the unforeseen, very few take on the character of a noticeable failure or failure. Normally, you are dealing with ordinary peculiarities that occur individually or in groups as small intrusions into the familiar, and they can also appear as a system, as it were, almost unnoticed. The events can happen to the individual in his isolation or happen in a smaller or larger social context, as moments of inadequacy in relation to the requirements of the ego ideal, as not achieved educational certificates or other kinds of qualifications or as unfulfilled expectations In sexual or other personal relationships, in which, as an addition to the mishap, the question worries you - one layer deeper - what happened first, the failure of the relationship or the loss of trust and whether one is not after all about an original loss of trust that is always threatening existence to speak - because if that were the case, failure in all relationships could be foreseen. And in a succinct way it can happen that only something vague gets in the way, possibly even just the bad mood that you have caused yourself. The manifest conditions in which the events happen can be democratic and free or authoritarian, but also precarious, i.e. in a state where life has to be mastered as bare survival. You have to see the whole thing that is in question as a global big data phenomenon that appears everywhere, in every accumulation and at every possible time - a phenomenon that can be predicted and thus recognized, but only if it is enormous many facts, expanded down to the smallest detail, are brought together.
An accumulation of infinitely many moments of disappointment, which in themselves are neutral and without any further effect, can lead into a state of experience in which the subject slips imperceptibly and experiences a failure that has now been transformed; this failure forces it into a gloomy passivity, where there is no calm, but a destructive behavior in unexpected, wild despair - as if one were standing alone on a platform, and the ladder with the finely adjusted steps down to the real, which one is as always still had in mind would have pushed away if one was convinced that a real, nameable and addressable other had done this. The failure or lack of recognition in the instances of both education and work does not necessarily lead to a feeling or impression of failure, even if this sense of self uniformly and systematically shapes the character of a whole series of moments of bad expectation (the bad Self-esteem and the bad expectation are only almost identical). Nevertheless, the phenomenon is best known from elementary school, then from the later, also from the so-called higher schools: the steadily received bad grades lead the individual into a distress in which they stop wanting to continue to cope with everyday demands, even then, if they are small and the individual would have no problems with his abilities to keep up with them. After a certain time he speaks in a language that alienates his surroundings, because he also speaks badly of those events in which nothing negative could be identified and which would previously have seemed indifferent or positive to him without further consideration. After a further accumulation of moments of failure, trust erodes, and even later, after an equally indeterminate, unpredictable transformation, self-confidence is reduced to the minimum, as everyday life still requires in order to cope with it physically, ultimately to a spatial minuteness and one Behavior type that makes self-abandonment a reality, like getting stuck in the mud like a cart. One would do well to keep the claims to knowledge low in relation to this transformation process in two stages, on the one hand in the deterioration of language, on the other hand in the deterioration of self-confidence; Even the concept of the process is too rationalistic, with the intention of making the sequence as a general model reconstructable - loudmouthed. This zone of limbo, in which all contacts with good reality are still there, must be left to rest in the vague and nebulous. Both in everyday events and in the exertion of knowledge, reason looks, but no longer really stirs itself in dull astonishment. Not only on the colloquial level, but also on the abstract conceptual level, it would be wrong to want to give the social type of appearance a name.
Although failure follows life at every turn and is necessarily part of the good life, it sometimes leads to self-abandonment and, within this narrow framework, then to the catastrophe of the individual: to a downright disintegration after exhaustion. Once self-abandonment has become a program, it changes the individual radically - hardly the faster, in one fell swoop and irreversibly, but steadily and the more definitely, as if everything that happens around the individual from now on is determined by this program and is constantly being challenged anew. One is inclined to brush against the grain of old Leibniz and to speak of the ontological event of a negative monad that will shape the ideas of the subject in the future and put them in correspondence with a reality that looms threateningly on the horizon. The image of exhaustion, in which the individual shows himself given up, is anything but clearly outlined, actually blurred and foggy, because self-surrender must be seen as a transformation that has no end. Anyone who has gotten on the trail of self-abandonment is always potentially on the way back to their home, and this individual person we are talking about must never be confused with the type of ideologically fixated or authoritarian character (if nor is he in any decisive measure more harmless than she). At the moment of slackening, the will is no longer of importance, not even that of wanting to give up, but a mere addition: what the individual wants from then on does not really belong to his original horizon and cannot be held up against him.
The disintegration after exhaustion is the first and constantly renewed impulse for mimicry to the environment, for pleasure in rioting in hordes that have renounced positive, critical construction. In this sociotope the idea is sacrificed that the world could be better - only one's own existence, not even one's own life, is what should be better, while eliminating the horizon of others in the narrow and broad context of life. The reflexes to good criticism, which make one react positively to the hardships of life, are as well extinguished as the impulses to goodwill, which guarantee a constant drive. A general communication breakdown becomes a breeding ground on which the empty formulas of the horde leaders testify. In the tinyness and inconspicuousness of self-abandonment in everyday life, nothing else happens than the transition from a progressive, forward-looking worldview to a right one with a gloomy view of a unified past, away from the world in which the voice of each individual is taken equally seriously becomes infernal, where only a few sublime ones think they know what the others should think. Far from having anything to do with traditional values, the conservatism of the political right is sufficient in the selfish refusal to give to others something of the wealth of goods that one has never acquired but "otherwise" appropriated. In a melancholy joke it could be said that, conversely, if you fail you can also achieve mastery without having to give in to the tendency to drift towards the authoritarian, the destructive. Just as the Führer is more willing to destroy himself and thus to ignore his followers than to give up his power, there are artists in failure who remain free from the tendency to sell their souls to the devil.
Like a ring around the planet Saturn, there is a chain of irrationality around the earth, starting in close proximity with the Swiss Blocher in the east and Freysinger in the west of the Valais, through Erdogan and Orban to Le Pen- and Trumputin. The statistical global event of fascism today is unlikely to go back, even if the names of the shameless change. Giving up on yourself doesn't mean falling into shamelessness, but, and that's no less, playing with it. It always revolves around the game of seduction, seduction and being seduced with pleasure. In everyday life, individual exponents from the right still behave like sensible people and hardly ever let themselves go - but their statements all say that they would like to be a shepherd and a shepherdess to those who have lost shame. With their goals they want the opposite of liberation, namely disinhibition that serves destruction. The right-wing leaders make their speeches in front of the ideological allies and in front of the heap of authoritarian characters. They don't really do much to seduce the unsuccessful. But if you only insult people sufficiently, ideally indirectly, by making the assertion that they must be insulted, it is easy to turn them into followers of authoritarian groups without being ascribed an authoritarian character or a pathological regression would have to be assumed for their behavior.
One might think that nothing could be done about it, that one has to accept it when in societies around the world 25% are acute and a further 25% are in latency mode, and only that is what we are talking about here, homage to destructive leaders - either because of the mass phenomena take their course with a stochastic consistency or because the whole thing is at the end of the Enlightenment anyway, at the end of discursive reason, where one would have to wait for an external event to change the objective conditions. On the contrary! The realization that one must never stop talking, not even if there is no historical subject left to whom a speech could address, is imposed. The casual compulsion to act in solidarity with the buddies at the workplaces has long since disappeared, and those who sit in front of the screen to earn a living only know system questions that ultimately always find a solution through him or her themselves, i.e. single-handedly. In such a world the big talk counts for nothing - nothing less has the incessant talking an important place. Addressing and speaking, also in the unbounded forms of the pictures, form a way to protect the individual from regression into the destructive fantasy. However, the toned norm and idea must be kept in mind that the flow of text or speech must not be carried by an isolated, generally applicable norm, by any teaching: like conventional enlightenment speech, which at its core spurs large groups to take action must be careful not to want to transfer a teaching, speaking to the individual must also be free from any teaching, especially any moral-political. In other words: just as the theory can no longer address a general subject and - because of historical experience - must not culminate in any doctrine, speaking to the destructive individual must not contain unmediated demands. Nevertheless, in a naive volte one can repeatedly ask the individual whether he really believes all the nonsense that the seducers spread on the world stage of the screen media, or whether he is wallowing in this broth because he is too lazy has become to look over the edge to reality: is your Führer on your side and he represents you when he claims that there is too little money in the state treasury for what is currently demanded by society, but that he is one of the richest 2 % of the country is owned and his cause, besides the folkloric hobby topics, is only about his money? - You can see that two social character types are equated and identified with one another, which are empirically different, the one who gives up on himself through existential experiences and the one who gradually orientates himself only on the commodity form of the goods of the culture industry, so that As with the first type, his self appears to him as if he had given it up in an independent act (as long as someone senses something while consuming and differentiates between the goods offered with pleasure, this is not the case).
All of these are undoubtedly idle sentences from a delirious man who intellectually stands in his own way. On a certain, threatening level one understood the monstrousness of the Balkan war and one understood the so-called Islamic State, not because there was an ideology that could be questioned and thus discussed, but because the general history has not been that of the people for so long , when arms production was counted and tolerated as part of the systematic economy and, in this negligent tolerance of civil society, brute force had to break out again and again, so to speak; What is no longer understandable, however, is that so many people hang on the lips of ruinous characters who, as they show in their own appearance, have never ever brought a good cause into the world in their life. You don't understand it - but at the same time you are able to understand that there are material relationships that exist in small, inconspicuous particles and affect everyone around the world. And from these tiny things in everyday life grows the shaky, ever further, the choices of horror when you casually face the small structures, just because in a moment of exhaustion you thought you had to give yourself up.
It is quite possible that an unspoken moratorium will be put to an end and that it will have to be said again that the greater part of the huge heap of products in the culture industry would be nothing but bad, that one could do without most of the publishing houses, concert halls, television and radio stations. Given the worldwide misjudgment of the Internet, however, it does not seem realistic that the other, smaller part should be publicly respected and discussed - too few are willing to want to engage in discursive activity outside the context of the commercial exploitation of the products in question. If only one could activate the gang, the allies in the new alliance of mercenaries against the devastation of the culture industry and be able to relieve them of their fear of the Internet! Obviously one would have to focus on the culture industry, but one must not, because it still seems to apply that they do not know what they are doing, both the actors and the consumers in the comprehensive, everyday context of the culture industry. But it is only a battle against windmills as long as the blows are directed against the culture industry as a whole; The usual discursive discussion is anchored in the seriousness of the individual structures, limited only by the lack of content, which aims to take away the wrong from the thoughts and to deprive the interpretive words of the power (the adequate form of a structure channels the wrong and guides it from). Because of the uniformity of the products of the culture industry, their form of goods, their "analysis methods" have to be similar to the statistical analysis of big data phenomena: they ingratiate themselves with journalism and make rankings of the individual items - and say encouraging words: in the 1970s there was a younger person Neighbors at my booze table at night before the pub closed and asked in all seriousness whether it was okay that he thought the Nazareth dance band was good, that would be possible, or - of course it works, asked here and now, even if the value judgment is in a different, more serious context should have turned out differently. One can always count on the fact that everyday people are driven by more understanding than they admit to themselves and than they want to show to the outside world. If the consumers allowed themselves to be moved even a little, the nationalists would have more trouble to carry out their misery on behalf of a clientele whose will they do not carry out, all the more vociferously pretend to carry out. Yet.The unhappy consciousness, which does not bring its own ideas into line with the givens of reality, can be lured with images that glorify the real rather than represent it. The unfortunate should not be dragged before a tribunal and not dragged into a dungeon and subjected to the compulsion to confess, but thanks to the seduction they should independently dare to take their first steps into the realm of the right to insight. The first hesitant steps towards the will of self-understanding will already be a guarantee that the view of the world, be it that of binding structures or those of the culture industry, can succeed and endure without any wild urge to destroy things.
Posted in theory | Comments Off on The general disintegration after the individual self-abandonment
- Who was the real Sgt Pepper
- Donald Trump cares what liberals think
- What is the smallest spotting scope
- How is that important to me
- Is there a varied cuisine in Buffalo US
- Can you believe in your strength
- What does tie mean in the US news
- Explain the steps to be taken in relation to litigation
- What are the requirements for fulfillment
- Would unconscious chicken breeding be more humane
- What is the scope for market research
- How do you define learning in order to learn
- What are the best ear plugs
- Why don't Mormons take multiple wives anymore
- Why is fog worse near water
- Has anyone survived a decapitation?
- Why are illustrations important in UX design
- What are some alternatives to OmniFocus
- What bad things did Toussaint Louverture do
- Are related to NLP data science
- When will USC football become prominent again?
- Why does bleach stain visible compounds white
- Is newspaper journalism a good career choice
- Which country has big Kashmir country