Society is politics, but only as what regards their political philosophy

Society is politics, but only as what regards their political philosophy

The private is a chaotic raw base (a necessary, “natural” base). It can be described with psychological terms in the singular and sociological terms in the plural of humanity.

The political sphere needs philosophy, ethics and concepts. It seeks a basis of reason upon which different single individuals can agree.

The sociological just takes people as “how they are”, no matter what their ethical ideals could turn them into on the longer run, whereas the political perspective on society gives society a reason.

The private finds its full potential only when it becomes aware of it’s own ability to create reason, embeds it in a frame of organization that is set as a potential ideal.

Then, even if a person never lives under politically reasonable conditions, the aspiration itself, phrased, thought or practiced on the small scale by the thinking individual, creates a political meaningfulness.

MEANINGFULNESS, that is: One in which the single individual steps out of its own concern onward to show responsibility towards its entire contextualities – regarding nonhuman animals, the natural environment and human beings.

 

The Parallel, fragment about the position humans take towards “nature”

The Parallel, fragment about the position humans take towards “nature”

The homocentrical human considers himself to be in a parallel position to the other natural phenomenons. Nature is felt as if merely producing itself out of an almost passive condition, nature is seen as a huge complex of causalities with interlocked phenomena.

The subsumation: “nature” stands in homocentrist terms for something passive, “nature” has been banned into a virtual state of a “meaningwise” non-existence, while the idea of “the human” is thought to exclusively represent a comprehensive awareness and meaningfulness.

There is an imaginary parallel condition, and on one hand you have the so called passive “natural world” and on the other hand you have the so called “aware” human state of being.

That means in other words that what is external to the human state of being, is localised and being put into the dimension of standing in opposition, in a specific type of way. This type of way is most easily to be compared with the parallel: THE PARALLEL STANDS IN RELATION BUT WITHOUT AN INTERCHANGING (DIRECT) CONNECTION.

A parallel, which represents an ideal circumstance for measuring the one side to the other, seen from the perspective of denying the existence of the others by classifying everything except the “self-concept” as being relatively narrow in function. That what is other, is not simple enough to be fit into the simplicity of the system of homocentricity. The reality of Animals and the Nature is too complex – obviously.

This also means, a highly complex form is subjugated to being translated into the simplifying procedure of scientific proof, to then be considered as a bit more important on its side of the parallel. The complexity remains on its side of the parallel, and cannot jump the line, but can increase in meaning alone by its being existent in the same dimension as the human being is.

The separation, that the parallel creates, stands in dependence of the understanding of “self” (the self-concept), since nothing else would be able as effectively to banish the one immediate reality, that could threaten to run into the acts of definition, human inductions and deductions.
THE REAL could end up dissolving the homocentrical tendency for creating determinisms … .

Could be a u-turn

Could be a u-turn (back to a more meaningful future)

RIOTS on the streets are just one visible tip of an iceberg that “the establishment” is gonna hit … . Riots within society in peoples thinking and actions and in their feelings are really what we get aware of now – again, after years of a yuppie-style annihilation of a democratic culture, and this annihilation was brought about by a full commercialisation of any cultural once fruitful soil.

First a problem is being created, then the problem escalates, but who are you gonna blame?

– Does the fault lie with people who follow the one-way type of system, where you only find meaning in life if you can consume? The politicised glorification of the buying power of people is going so far that now something like the ethical consumer is being praised as a civilisatory ideal even.

– Or does the fault lie with the sections of society who think up and manage the production and the merchandizing processes, (the elite workforces, the investors, the banks, the advisors, the advertisement companies)?

Which role does the media play as the huge digestive system between opportunity seeking businessmen and -women, manipulators and the receiving end made up of willing spenders?

Can political institutions and their long arms change something within a menace created by the self-strangling economical system that makes our societies clash from within its own innards?

The people finally won’t have much of a choice when they aren’t left with any place to breathe amongst a type of culture that only gives you space to make sense out of your life if you can afford to have it.

The profiteers have started a cold civil-war against the assumed losers of the societies. The real question will be however if we will be able to create new and different ways of thinking and acting up that will break the chains of the old establishments (our hierarchical human systems) in whichever disguises we even might face them?

NOTE: Things have gotten out of balance when the intent became the real problem.

Feminism and Animal Rights, the one way or the other …

Feminism and Animal Rights, the one way or the other …

“Meat” is not porn and it’s not sexist – “meat” is flesh, and it’s the result of a human/humans killing a nonhuman animal/animals. We should not stick our own sociological issues to such a major own concern such as Animal Rights in an analogy that sets itself so close to the subject of comparison, that the story gets one-sided and a new and important perspective gets neglected.

All Animal Rights issues need an own valid terminology and frame of reference, otherwise we blur the lines … .

The analogy of sexism and speciesism

Two main points why Animal Rights issues can’t be tied to a “purely” feminist viewpoint ( – if feminism is used as excusing women from the responsibilities in society ethically towards their nonhuman environment)

It’s wrong to presuppose that speciesism is something that is more prevalent in men compared to women.

Also, male nonhuman animals are inasmuch sexually abused in the farm industry (their reproductive system) such as female nonhuman animals are.

Both points should be expanded upon in detail of course. (I do hope I can do that to a later date.)

Close analogies … also of genocides and speciecides

These types of close analogies in the field of -isms and abuse work in a valid way when we look at the psychology of the “perpetrator” who seeks to create a victim: the aspect of exerted violence share many similarities, whereas however on the side of the victimized we have to see the contexts: political, enviro-political, historical, sociological, … a group or an individual gets picked as a victim for reasons, and those exact reasons need to be analyzed under own terms, and not be conflated.