The Ground of All Grounds...

The arguments of cause and effect are as old as history and philosophy herself, and probably best divided by those who classed the arguments within or without the self__those grounding or non-grounding their results within themselves, or without. The trouble is, few if any of these well known thinkers and philosophers ever tried to align both sources, and the mechanics involved to arrive at a full, proper and true answer, except C.S. Peirce, and this is the main reason I so strongly keep recommending him as our source of interpretations of history's/philosophy's true ideas as pertaining to cause and effect, and supply and demand__For I don't think one can reach the bottom of this deep well, otherwise...

Tis only by deep reflections into our own mental mechanics, we can truly see how the world works, by discovering how our own reflective validity, joins our own stored memories, and our direct objective perceptions. If we choose only one or two of these three processes, we will never reach the truth, as the truth only works the way nature designed us to work__allowing us full discovery, if we but pay attention to the complete mechanical processes at work__The first and foremost, work of nature__the second of how we deal with our direct perceptions of the real object world__and, the third of how we purposely organize the use of our deep reflective memories into systems' understanding organizations. We have choices of whether to just view the world superficially, with direct observations, comtemplate slightly what we choose to commit to memory, and later hap-hazardly retrieve, or use our full analytic capacity to rework what we and nature store in our memories__into viable and fully workable conceptions of reality. Most choose either to use just one or two steps of the process__as did most every thinker alive, or to use two, but most never use all three processes effectively. Going the distance of the triadic process, and following it through to completion, as only a very few philosophers accomplished through the millennia__Plato, Aristotle, Ibn Sina, Kant and Peirce, etc.__is the only possible way to see the world's true causes and effects, within the supply and demand house of horrors__to some__and simply the lack of thorough investigation to others...

I tend to see the above as no more than a very simple house of 'Monopoly Contract Mechanics', which if seen as a single piece of paper__known capable of being simply bet up and down at will__globally__by the 'Tac-Head Elite Grinches'__at will__while the 'Pin-Head Un-Educated Liberal Fluff-Balls', are unknowingly manipulated, by this fully known 'Capitalism Game', by the 'Grinches...' Most haven't the intellectual resources to see how this simple 'Monopoly Game' fully works, but it's all governed by the simplest of foreign exchange mathematics__no more complicated than first grade maths. No matter the 'Pin-Head Liberals' desires, the 'Grinches' are 30 years ahead of them, by locking every needing family into home and vehicle contracts, small business contracts and the social dynamic laws and contracts to keep the civil order for the 'Grinch's Game of Monopoly-Capitalism'__Monopoly, by the constitutionally guaranteed corporate contracts, article 1, all the way from the Nation's founding fathers. It isn't the point there's no way to escape this monopolistic madness__The point is the 'Pin-Head Liberals' aren't smart enough to know the exit__which is also in the Constitution under Article 1, section 8, #5...

First though, the 'Pin-Head Liberals' have to learn how to do first grade math, to figure out how exchange rates over-tax the poor and middle-class liberals and de-tax the 'Tac-Head Grinches.' Look at the single global contract system like this__Divide everything up into three sectors, as many of my past Pythagorean graphs have illustrated__Gov. in one section box__Corporations in a second section box__and, the Liberals in the third box. Let Gov. equal the laws__The Corporations the Money__and the Liberals the Labor and Resources... Now, say labor tries to raise wages through union activity or such other means__There's not only Gov. to block the path with laws, there's the Corps. with access to the International Markets of Global Finance and Trade__where they have a choice of much cheaper labor and resource markets to buy in, and still are left with much higher demand price markets to sell in__All due to what the 'Pin-Head Liberals' are completely blind to__The 'Global Exchange Rates of Corp. Contract Finance and Trades...' Were the 'Liberal Pin-Heads' ever to awake to first grade maths, maybe we could get to the bottom of 'Cause and Effect'__as it's no more complex than China 10, America 1__ Europe 2__as to simple example 'Exchange Rates.' Though these aren't the exact numbers, for ease of explanation, they'll work...

Now, let's see what happens when we add market and trade dynamics of future contracts. Labor only has three year contracts__yet thirty year mortgages. Businesses(Big Corps.) have access to dynamic dated contracts. Government acts by the whims of money's power manipulations, usually by the Corp's. lobbyists__So this easily leaves the 'Pin-Head Liberal Workers' to be almost fully manipulated__but, the foolish 'Liberals' think this is the dynamics in play__Them, against the Corp's., and a Gov. Conspiracy in cahoots with them__It's not, as it doesn't have to be__The Corps. have the 'Foreign Exchange Market' to manipulate any move either Labor or Gov. make... If Labor wishes for higher wages, Corp's. outsource Labor and Resource demands to China, at a 10 to 1 advantage__Corp's. If Gov. wishes to move against Corp's., Corp's. domicile their taxable home charters in a foreign nation or 'Tax Haven' at another 10 to 1 advantage__Corp's. against Gov. and the People__Labor is taxed the difference. If Labor and Gov. both choose to move against the Corp's., Corp's have access to between $500 trillion and $600 trillion dollars worth of derivative contracts(global transactions turnover rates)__while the entire world only has $55 trillion of real GNP economies__so, they can actually threaten whole Gov.'s with__by simply moving these highly cost effectives__against gov. and people contracts__around the world at the speed of light, through the For-X', faster than the Gov. or people can even think about it__and the Corp.'s having dynamic contracts, and Gov. and People, being locked into fixed contracts__What do you think the outcome is going to be...??? The 'Corp's are going to win every time, until you learn how they manipulate and feed, at the trow of the 'For-X. Market__Currency X-Rates...'

This is why we need people educated to 'True Ground'__To fully understand, 'Supply and Demand'__'Cause and Effect'__Is a purposely 'Rigged Game'__As now 'Legally Constituted...'

TECHNOLOGY’S CHALLENGE TO DEMOCRACY: WHAT OF THE HUMAN?

TECHNOLOGY’S CHALLENGE TO DEMOCRACY: WHAT OF THE HUMAN? Nikolas Kompridis(Aussie...)

"We do not know what our nature permits us to be". J-J. Rousseau, Emile

PART I
Retrieving the normative significance of the question: What does it mean to be a human being?

To say, with Rousseau, that we do not know what our nature permits us to be, is to say that our status as natural beings underdetermines our status as normative beings—in other words, that "our nature" does not answer the question of what it means to be a human being, or dictate what it is that we should become. This is somewhat reassuring since it tells us that there is a domain of human freedom not dictated by our biological nature, but it is somewhat unnerving because it leaves uncomfortably open what kind of beings human beings could become. On the other hand, if the question of what it means to be human is unanswerable simply by an increase in knowledge, how is it to be answered? Put another way: What are we prepared to permit our nature to be? And on what basis should we give our permission?

One of the disturbing features of modern life is that we live in times in which it is no longer possible to know what to expect of the future based on what we now know of the past. All we can be sure of is that the future will not be much like the past we have known, and because historical time is constantly accelerating, it is a future that will arrive ever more quickly. The disorientation this causes, the disorientation that comes from living modernity’s form of life, can become so intense and perplexing that we find it hard to contain our anxieties. We panic.

Prompted by the successful mapping of the human genome, and the consequent risks posed by genetic interventions into the basis of human life, the late Jacques Derrida, a philosopher renowned for, among other things, his extremely skeptical attitude towards apocalyptic thinking, expressed the following decidedly apocalyptic worry:

"...the risk that is run at this unique moment in the history of humanity is the risk of new crimes being committed against humanity and not only… against millions of real human beings as was [previously] the case, but a crime such that a sorcerer’s apprentice who was very cunning, the author of potential genetic manipulations, might in the future commit or supply the means for committing… against man, against the very humanity of man, no longer against millions of representatives of real humanity but against the essence itself of humanity, against an idea, an essence, a figure of the human race, represented this time by a countless number of beings and generations to come."

A crime against the essence of humanity, irreversibly programmed to repeat itself over and over again from generation to generation, and so a crime against the very future of humanity? Now, that sounds pretty apocalyptic. What are we supposed to make of this? Should we say that Derrida panicked, unthinkingly reverting to an anthropocentric essentialism whose fierce critic he once was? Did the hyper-skeptical, hyper-critical master of deconstruction go soft in the end, revealing himself to be a sentimental "humanist," still attached to the hoary old question, perhaps, the oldest philosophical question—the question of what it is to be a human being? Or is it the case that Derrida, along with a number of other philosophers, social scientists, and public intellectuals have awakened to the power of the new technologies—the power of genetics, nanotechnology, robotics, and synthetic biology—to radically and permanently alter what it is to be a human being, and to make what it was to be human potentially unrecognizable as human?
(Continued...)