Blooming Politics: On Topical Differences
I’m the real, no mistake
It’s funky up on this side
Shit I’m really in this motherfucking field, man. Ask about me
And I be on positive vibes, man, the humble lord, but I’m on shit
- Flee Lord
From the previous thought experiment, I walked around the room blooming bloom. This experiment does two things:
- Attempts to replace mental labels with the generic word “bloom.” — This was the initial intention (ie, drape intention in a generic term to experience consciousness with minimal word interference)
- When I replaced everything with bloom I had this funny experience where I sensed the blooms differently. I think this was in itself two things, my mind processing the word. But also my mind trying to associate the word with everything that was happening around me. Like implications. It felt like the “bloom” I said birthed other smaller blooms. A blooming bloom. But I didn’t experience as “smaller” blooms. Rather when I said “bloom,” the experience of that bloom was distinctly distinct from other blooms.
Compare this to discourse and rhetorics. How we interpret discourse and rhetorics.
I had written how I experienced a dampening. This was both emotional but also regarding deep thought. I think I was regarding the deep thought when I said things looked flat. By deep thoughts I mean I couldn’t build on the words or construct any strong understanding via word association. I was still aware of the object but it lacked a certain participation.
The experiment was surprisingly interesting. It has a lot different implications. I was thinking of politics and having just read some second sourced Hegel, this is a quasi-Marxist-like definitely Nietzsche-hipster reaction to the possible epistemology within a struggling discourse.
So what happens when we live in a society where we can’t talk to each other? I mean a lot of times we talk bad to each other but mostly because of the solvable disagreements we have that we can’t seem to constructively talk about. Thus, the question is not about not talking to one another but accepting our own reaction to what we hear. When we argue soberly about serious matters, we’re not breaking through to the other person because we don’t know how to react.
However, we can learn. And the answers are possibly infinite. The answer or answers that are pragmatically put into effect are because they’re possible within the frame they’re used and a Will/Desire calls for it. How is that Will/Desire presented? We don’t know. It’s a mystery and it’s important to remember this. Dogma tries to dampen it. The frame is maybe what Hegel called given. The frame is made by the Desire in its attempt to realize itself; satisfy its hunger.
What are you doing when constructively talking about something? You’re struggling with another person in finding positivity or stuff we agree with. Nowadays, it’s common to always be positive and just be happy as a goal in itself. I write this is America where discourse is very broken but also very privileged. We start with the premise that every you look at is an equal to you, which can’t really be done in America’s political atmosphere. But America is a metric (it’s a reference by which we can relativize our ideas and come to an accepted understanding). As a metric, America is an action. However, no metric outside of action makes the being in front of you any more or any less than you. Equal by default but in the worthless sense. When we introduce various metrics to measure other people, we’re using society’s or our community’s defined social standards. The social standards are like God: — All Seeing/Knowing — even if the eye doesn’t know what the object it look is, the eye never knows. Just gathers the information and comes to a concluding remark. You just need a couple axioms to be able to do this — All Powerful — The social standards justify themselves. Not written in book but etched into your psychology. We can notice it by our reaction. In the moment of uncertainty in a social situation we feel awkward/powerless or trying to find the cause of it. The laws/powers fail and we just experience the moment with nothing looking at us.
How an argument is taken includes how we react to it which has to be analyzed as part of the argument.
Poker Face — How does putting on a poker face affect how we take the world in. It’s a dampening. Maybe allows people to focus more on other mental efforts. Or maybe spend too much effort putting on the face to think of anything else.
Also, without being able to input my own thoughts into the occasion in the experiment, I couldn’t really form hypothesis or theories. Which was calming and meditative. However, it also highlighted how much pretense factors into mental states of being.
The opposite — Someone that is aware of this effect — they’re always concerned how other people may interpret the data and what the misinterpretation may incur. This could easily be taken to the extreme. Something the Absolute Misinterpretation helps.
While I was examining the object and thinking “bloom” at the same time, I was taking the object in. But I wasn’t mentally feeding off of all the implications in my head. Like the object is a black cylinder object with ridges around it ( not exactly like this but to give an idea). In some way, I knew about the object but in other ways I didn’t. For example, I just tried the experiment again and I tried to (in my head) compare the image I just posted with the object I’m looking at. I can feel my attempt to compare them but all I can think of is “bloom.” I can’t even picture the image I posted in my head while looking at the original object and thinking “bloom.”
Another thing I noticed is the Hegel’s “already there.” When you’re thinking the word “bloom” over and over again, you can notice a lot of things within your consciousness that you didn’t necessarily consciously think or rather you realize that you’re aware of a lot of things that are just kinda there.
Take away is that treating discourse like something that needs to be clean is bullshit, dumb as fuck thinking. We don’t even know what’s inside ourselves. You can’t have an honest discourse if you’re not ready to deal with the messy stuff and you rather be a little bitch to dogma. Obviously a platform should be established that allows for consolation to anyone that may need it to have an equal opportunity for participation and that participation must be capable of being free of dogma. As long as the dignity of humanity is maintained. Also sometimes you sneak ambiguous comments to just end the whole thing.