Tag Archives: philosophy

Local Reno Park Studies Uncategorized

Reno Park Update 091212A: Finding Activity

Okay, so I mentioned in the last post that neighborhoods, as conventionally defined, are not necessarily the best ways of measuring human activity, and so is the difficult concept of community. However I attempt to define such a thing, it’s going to be imprecise, subjective, and doubtful. But most people can recognize  community when they see it. Likewise, when you look a good space, you can tell because of the people there.

Last year, when I was but beginning my job as an apparatchik of the цarьchitect, I quoted Freddy N. in On The Geneology of Morals:

Only owing to the seduction of language (and the fundamental errors of reason petrified within it) which conceives all effects as conditioned by something that causes effects, by a “subject,” can it appear otherwise. For just as the popular mind separates the lighting from its flash and takes the latter for an action, for the operation of a subject called lightning, so popular morality also separates strength from expressions of strength, as if there were an neutral substratum behind the strong man, which was free to express strength or not to do so. But there is no such substratum, there is no being behind doing, effecting, becoming; “the doer” is merely the fiction added to the deed – the deed is everything.

Now, replace “strength” with “community.” Community is, in essence, an act. It is not merely your sheer propinquity to another human meatbag, nor crude ethnic similarities, it is the action to do like others, to help the person nearby, to talk to them, to smile at the man on the street when he says hello. Community, is an cooperative action between people, in the conscious and subconscious, of coming together and working for each other’s values. Why one might associate with one another, and care for them is a wholly different question. But it is relatively easy to see evidence of community, just as it is possible to see evidence of social activity.

read more »

Wikiglean

Wikiglean III

Better than what Pelagius came up with.

Are you concerned whether that lustful glance at your sister was a mortal sin, or just venal? Was it on Sunday? Did you look twice? Did you enjoy it? These are all difficult questions, ones that require serious thought. 

But some people don’t think they’re useful. They say it’s as meaningless as asking “How Many Angels Can Dance on the Head of a Pin?” But then the Salamanca School explained that interest wasn’t usury if you were a bank, so a lot of people stopped caring about the debates. They argued that capital can make value. Fairly advanced, perhaps, but they were a little lacking in the biology department. For example, they declared that the giant, fugly rodent called the Capybara was a fish for the purposes of eating it on Friday because it spent most of its time in water, like that fish called a Dolphin. 

Of course it was probably more because it was an easy excuse to stuff your face with delicious snub-nosed beaver. But at the end of the day it won’t matter too much – unless of course the rapture is before the return of Christ Triumphant, and not after. Then, all Catholics are screwed.

Other

A bolt from Friedrich N.

I have nothing to add to this:

Only owing to the seduction of language (and the fundamental errors of reason petrified within it, which conceives all effects as conditioned by something that causes effects, by a “subject,” can it appear otherwise. For just as the popular mind separates the lighting from its flash and takes the latter for an action, for the operation of a subject called lightning, so popular morality also separates strength from expressions of strength, as if there were an neutral substratum behind the strong man, which was free to express strength or not to do so. But there is no such substratum, there is no being behind doing, effecting, becoming; “the doer” is merely the fiction added to the deed – the deed is everything.

– from A Genealogy of Morals, first essay.