Paradox of the times; the efficacy of Horoscorpio and De Democracy
It would under normal circumstance seem problematic to propose radical restructuring of our social life. Karl Marx's works on Communism to this effect have succeeded to vastly effect the global communities, an impact he knew little of by his end of days, but surely indeed bore a deeper self-awareness at the time. Similarly the very notion that a systematic framework of planetology be prioritised for integral social purposes, is reckoned also of communal purpose I would impose, after all little attentions go toward the structural amalgamations, where political and commercial standards are currently enmeshed early in the 21st Century. In this paradoxical time, we may readily find correlations of Christ Nature actually implemented intrinsically, and foundational, yet in according my doctrines to this effect; awry. The stated case is best understood within the corporate governance scenario as branding and representative means of alternative dimensions. A case well and truly present in the alchemy book series, where no remedial interpretations granted, or applied, and as commonly assumed inferred only for 'positional integrity', but let me infer hereby nonetheless:
As a conundrum to some, where one's position, or an organisational position is referred to for objective classification, and concerning one person's efforts to describe and pertain to another person and that of their 'character'. It's the end of reasoning and logic, that we can actually know anything about another as individual's based on standard senses of course, where the dimensions of spacetime are interwoven implicitly in reality and are more complex, not less, and so upon prescribing terms of reference, terms are held and maintained sure and appropriate for interpretation for consecutive moments and by any other individual. The written and spoken word act in this method to universalise content, and in applications of meaning. However a problematic process it is, it's temporary acuteness of terms, neologisms and pejoratives that cause less standardisation of meaning in the immediate duration, but greater in the long term. So where does the necessity for capturing a concaving redefinition and thus purposes manifest? It's in the need for change, the desperate and longing for purpose, that purposes awry, but abundantly present, so maybe adopted and assumed naturally. This is a long and difficult process, like making a stranger into a lover, or shedding a successful profession, to retrain, and assume similar or perhaps superior standards in another. The very foundational advances described are created out of the similar disempowerment, where established traditions, purpose and advance is halted, dumbed down, or corrupted.
Looking over the social media landscape you don't need to go far to see the radical adoption of the 'social attack', that is the attack on character, or heavy handed criticism determined to change and shape perceived injustice, moral uncertainty, or worry in the least part; as charactership. It's a reward for the immediate lack of progressive development in the communal standard, where individuals can usher in adaptive techniques, impede and disrupt awry advances, and install and promote further progress as deemed appropriate to their individual means and interpretation of justice, harmony or fulfilment. The point I am making in doing such in an expanded effort on my concise and determined literatures on scientific and religious natures, is the objective/subjective divide and the breach of psychology over philosophy, one painstakingly discerned long ago in the historical narrative at Socrates's sentencing. I've produced a great academic work to this effect, and the immortality of Socratic Thought, but differ on an important mark in the modern climate. What Socrates referred to in the Gadfly analogy, as the necessary adaption of a failing natural standard, is in the light of Marxist Thought, the very typified accordance of an objective/subjective distinction, evident as a superiority complex. A foundational problem in psychology is such, and how can one be objective truly when they have needs and desires as a person which can only be delayed but never circumvented. Hence the example is branding and the derision of corporate governance at a root.
When describing a business we use a name, too which we must commit to memory as a shadow on the wall. Microsoft is one, a popular brand and associated with computers and software in the minds of most every technocrat. Competing with Apple and others more nominally, the structure of global business generally is in avoidance of monopolisation which counters a methodology of 'most excellence', (and evidence in autocracy pervades hereby), a ideal which isn't immune to the problems of the ages, rather expounds them. Not regarding these companies or the employees actually, but the nature of the services and products in the market, and so applicable to any business be it Coca Cola, Macdonalds, Honda, or BMW, the list goes on. This platonic divide is such that purpose is temporarily disengendered for equity of merit in competition frameworks, and the primary description of a product or service is artificially creatively imposed as a label/brand, where the immediate description of the product is inferred on a secondary basis. Due to expanding and ever-complex provisional standard, this seems a model which is primitive and necessarily bound for restructuring. The branding of new technology products iterates this, and the ridiculous environment of markets with the nearly endless list of obscure and awkward words and half-words enmeshed or twisted with new and weird spelling.
The Horoscorpio and De Democracy brands confer an alternative juxtapositional advance, in that one confers the direct measure of validation in brand, whereby one is strictly indirect, that's Horoscorpio. The De Democracy brand is directly a description of the service primary or natural, something difficult to achieve in traditional branding, where we've not had one 'computer' brand, and actually the dominant provider was cut-up as a monopoly (Microsoft). Two products of De Democracy, by two corporations doing different things, all but applying democracy still, would in competition, arguably be fully de-constructive, due to the standard of provision. Whereby a service or provision can be done once, essentially and properly, in communal endeavor, there is certainly no need for competing frameworks, though and arguably if a methodology can achieve only one and one true method of service or product provision, no alternative is plausible. De Democracy is designed so (arguably Horoscorpio too), but haven't warranted interests to date paradoxically, so it can't be a product of necessity right? Or as my efforts are found irrevocably associated as a dictatorship, the approach deemed an attempt to monopolise essential services. The complex embarkation of course isn't standardised and structuring a truly community based production (communism) as proceeded, requires purpose filled deeds and commitment to community, but by wanton individuals, who have little to surmount for valor, or excitement but warranting amusement, particularly if they cannot use the product where/when it's designed for application (and need to be engineering it's availability).
Leaving us with the present predicament, and the question remains; when is a restructuring of common standards in society necessary, if ever, then who is obligated to act (or who not)?
As a conundrum to some, where one's position, or an organisational position is referred to for objective classification, and concerning one person's efforts to describe and pertain to another person and that of their 'character'. It's the end of reasoning and logic, that we can actually know anything about another as individual's based on standard senses of course, where the dimensions of spacetime are interwoven implicitly in reality and are more complex, not less, and so upon prescribing terms of reference, terms are held and maintained sure and appropriate for interpretation for consecutive moments and by any other individual. The written and spoken word act in this method to universalise content, and in applications of meaning. However a problematic process it is, it's temporary acuteness of terms, neologisms and pejoratives that cause less standardisation of meaning in the immediate duration, but greater in the long term. So where does the necessity for capturing a concaving redefinition and thus purposes manifest? It's in the need for change, the desperate and longing for purpose, that purposes awry, but abundantly present, so maybe adopted and assumed naturally. This is a long and difficult process, like making a stranger into a lover, or shedding a successful profession, to retrain, and assume similar or perhaps superior standards in another. The very foundational advances described are created out of the similar disempowerment, where established traditions, purpose and advance is halted, dumbed down, or corrupted.
Looking over the social media landscape you don't need to go far to see the radical adoption of the 'social attack', that is the attack on character, or heavy handed criticism determined to change and shape perceived injustice, moral uncertainty, or worry in the least part; as charactership. It's a reward for the immediate lack of progressive development in the communal standard, where individuals can usher in adaptive techniques, impede and disrupt awry advances, and install and promote further progress as deemed appropriate to their individual means and interpretation of justice, harmony or fulfilment. The point I am making in doing such in an expanded effort on my concise and determined literatures on scientific and religious natures, is the objective/subjective divide and the breach of psychology over philosophy, one painstakingly discerned long ago in the historical narrative at Socrates's sentencing. I've produced a great academic work to this effect, and the immortality of Socratic Thought, but differ on an important mark in the modern climate. What Socrates referred to in the Gadfly analogy, as the necessary adaption of a failing natural standard, is in the light of Marxist Thought, the very typified accordance of an objective/subjective distinction, evident as a superiority complex. A foundational problem in psychology is such, and how can one be objective truly when they have needs and desires as a person which can only be delayed but never circumvented. Hence the example is branding and the derision of corporate governance at a root.
When describing a business we use a name, too which we must commit to memory as a shadow on the wall. Microsoft is one, a popular brand and associated with computers and software in the minds of most every technocrat. Competing with Apple and others more nominally, the structure of global business generally is in avoidance of monopolisation which counters a methodology of 'most excellence', (and evidence in autocracy pervades hereby), a ideal which isn't immune to the problems of the ages, rather expounds them. Not regarding these companies or the employees actually, but the nature of the services and products in the market, and so applicable to any business be it Coca Cola, Macdonalds, Honda, or BMW, the list goes on. This platonic divide is such that purpose is temporarily disengendered for equity of merit in competition frameworks, and the primary description of a product or service is artificially creatively imposed as a label/brand, where the immediate description of the product is inferred on a secondary basis. Due to expanding and ever-complex provisional standard, this seems a model which is primitive and necessarily bound for restructuring. The branding of new technology products iterates this, and the ridiculous environment of markets with the nearly endless list of obscure and awkward words and half-words enmeshed or twisted with new and weird spelling.
The Horoscorpio and De Democracy brands confer an alternative juxtapositional advance, in that one confers the direct measure of validation in brand, whereby one is strictly indirect, that's Horoscorpio. The De Democracy brand is directly a description of the service primary or natural, something difficult to achieve in traditional branding, where we've not had one 'computer' brand, and actually the dominant provider was cut-up as a monopoly (Microsoft). Two products of De Democracy, by two corporations doing different things, all but applying democracy still, would in competition, arguably be fully de-constructive, due to the standard of provision. Whereby a service or provision can be done once, essentially and properly, in communal endeavor, there is certainly no need for competing frameworks, though and arguably if a methodology can achieve only one and one true method of service or product provision, no alternative is plausible. De Democracy is designed so (arguably Horoscorpio too), but haven't warranted interests to date paradoxically, so it can't be a product of necessity right? Or as my efforts are found irrevocably associated as a dictatorship, the approach deemed an attempt to monopolise essential services. The complex embarkation of course isn't standardised and structuring a truly community based production (communism) as proceeded, requires purpose filled deeds and commitment to community, but by wanton individuals, who have little to surmount for valor, or excitement but warranting amusement, particularly if they cannot use the product where/when it's designed for application (and need to be engineering it's availability).
Leaving us with the present predicament, and the question remains; when is a restructuring of common standards in society necessary, if ever, then who is obligated to act (or who not)?
Comments
Post a Comment