Skip to main content

Have staple, will travel

So let’s look at how to think about comprehensive problems by resolving a series of patterns through the context of the fundamental wage dispute.  There’s an interesting whistleblower* case where one guy in Utah has contacted the IRS and has a case.  He does, although he has the odds stacked against him because it’s one guy against massive corporations trying to expose corporate fraud.  I want to talk about the fact that wage disputation is a fundamental armament because it exposes the continuity between Oedipus and freedom and the actuality of a duality: that you have to build power to overcome the 20% lack of freedom we have in our daily lives to decide our own fate, moreover that power resides in private agreement that can be quickly changed but must be held to the path of attaining freedom.  But I wonder at the person who can say that everything belongs to some higher purpose, a synthesis of meaning across disciplines, willing to enforce a system of integral balance, and is not integrally capable of even coinciding with the idea that nothing is the best approach. He cannot even think this. It’s quite remarkable.  How can he compare two things with everything?  Transparently it is according to a rules based international order and a domestic civil society.  Furthermore it is buttressed by enormous wellsprings of faith in the goodness of humanity, which he cannot see.  It is things like you cannot cheat and you cannot steal and furthermore this is good.  Plainly all good things could be said about him, and are, and periodically with great excitement and verve.  He is willing to stand up.  Sometimes that is all that is said of a man.  Shall we make it not so?  Low light, a desk full of instruments. Let’s call it the subtle light of the screen shall we not?  When he knows, we’ll know.  It’s not like I am working on the media side of personality.  I think it coincides but it doesn’t overlap.  Sophistication might be in the eye of the beholder if all good things were not discernible.  


* https://www.reddit.com/r/BeAmazed/s/0deTHhcyOI

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

We wanted to you see this -- my copy of the Standard

To: Supreme Court, USA Care of: Sonia Sotomayor, A.J.  Attn: Elena Kagan, A.J., Ketanji Brown Jackson, A.J. LIMITED. From: .|Î|.  TrīangłeLāw.  .|Î|.   |. •        :::THE STANDARD::                — all the time; everything; everywhere.. Î.               ;::::::::*::::::================; ,;::*::::*::::*:===============;    the  ;:::::*::::*::::===============;  ;=======================;         Standard:  ;========the Standard..=====;  ;=======================;       å                 ;======================; newšmagåźîné  ı                               of commentary and analysis  ı         ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,...
Post a Comment
Read more

beyond necessary

  In the future, we must cleave to a principle of liberation and follow the right of self-determination wherever it might lead. The old saw of “every thing in its right place” has been shown to turn on subjective and not upon truthful measures - whose idea of what is the “right place” prevails, and for whom is it the “right place”? Are questions that after long experience always revealed strength and power, not reason nor rational government, have been behind the propagation of such a saying. The “right place of everything” comes from an ancient time when the mechanism for discovering the truth was still mistaken for the truth itself. It is assuredly not the case that if every “thing” has a “right place” it isn’t constituted in some transparent organizational scheme; and, although the evolution of knowledge may not be at its bitter end, it seems more likely that the proper “place” for every thing will fill space like the thousand points of light in the night sky of the visible univ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Situationalism v. dispositionism

  We must attain, interrogate, critique, and transform measures of attitude, perception, and belief, revealing conclusions about the nature of what someone knows. So I want to show you a modified Venn diagram — modified by me, so please be patient — and which describes two aspects of social psychology that influence policy, behavior, and belief through structures of law and the way we approach thinking about questions involving human disputes within institutional structures; so you can see that, roughly dividing this category of looking at people and their relationship to larger systems and how those systems in turn see people into two camps, you have situationalism, which means people‘s social context shapes choices, and you have dispositionism which basically pre-judges people on social characteristics leading to the notion that someone can be at fault for who they are. Of course, there’s some fuzzy areas in the middle. For instance, you can say that context and sense of self sha...
Post a Comment
Read more