A Theoradical Thought On Wealth in NZ

By Moss Bioletti The return of the Aristocrat and their semi-charmed kind of life top 1% own 20% off wealth in NZ, explains a lot. Also 50% of all Kiwi wealthy is tied up in property now thats a big bubble or perhaps we will just see a return of the colonial phrase "landed gentry". To think Maori owned all the land at one stage in Aotearoa, makes an utter mockery of treaty settlements that some people are so quick to grumble over. Funny thing is the 1% wealth holdings will rapidly grow over time conveying the true farce of a neo-liberal open market, a mere mind game created by laws and monies of the rich. All forms of work will serve only the singular purpose of staying alive and semi-sustaining ourselves and families. The wider the gap between classes the larger the scale of civil dis-obedience, just as you see Max Key and his other fellows creating clubs with very few members, on the flipside will be the poor and former middle class congregating in much larger groups demanding social change. It will be interesting to see who proves victorious the elite or the masses as society becomes more polarized. What i find interesting is the fact that aristocrats number 34,000 in NZ (a populatoon nearing 5 million) who almost all belong to long lines of entrenched prosperous families and are themselves adults. So the question remains why do we feel the need to collectively previllege the rich on simply inbred birthlines void of any grounds of virtue or social incentive. Well as a good divided long-standing UK Tory said recently "the social contract is broken" and with such a problem like many over time only the true expense is realized after it is far to late, the french revolution springs to mind! Source: http://m.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=11541769

The Million Mask March London 2015

An election isnt a protest its a well orchestrated con to fool people into believing they're free while in reality being completely indoctrinated. The Million mask march is a glimmer of the real, there is only one struggle and its for the collective and oppressive control of human potential. The overlords or who ever determines the game of life seem to want people to suffer. Lifes unavoidable tragedies are painful enough. Why do they deny the young a free chance in life no one wants to fight but we are driven to it because they seek to deny us everything hence the opposite is inevitable in a Hegelian sense, the negative and postive are linked and reinforce the other.

The Middle East Conflict - Why We Shouldn't Use Nuclear Bombs

I just wanted to post a comment I wrote to a person I know 

who is getting frustrated with the conflict in the middle east.

He asked why we shouldn't just bomb the middle east to 

complete oblivion with nuclear bombs? 

Well here is my reply to his extreme idea and why we

 shouldn't "throw the baby out with the bathwater"

 when dealing with terrorism so to speak!  

"I don't think Nukes are the answer  

- even though the terrorists are doing bad things it doesn't

 mean we should blow up all the woman and children in the

 middle east too who are innocent. People coming to NZ as 

refugees are running away from the conflict to save there 

lives. Just picture yourself and your family running from a 

warzone with no money food and water. A scary idea but its a 

reality for them!! If we Nuke the middleast to smithereens we 

become terrorists ourselves blowing up things killing people

 we need to concentrate on saving lives not taking them the

 conflict will only end when both sides give up there weapons 

pay the price for their heinous crimes and move forward

 together without hate in their hearts :) thats just my opinion 

though!

Moss 

Did Kurt Cobain Cheat His Way to Enlightenment?

"The event which takes place when we fully assume the results of brain sciences is the event of Enlightenment, the attainment of Nirvana, which liberates us from the constraints of our self as as an autonomous substantial agent. But does this solution work?" Slavoj Zizek from his book Event

Is their a dark brooding irony that Kurt Cobain's band was called Nirvana. By Zizeks' reading Buddhist enlightenment once attained renders an individual free from the concept of the self. So when Kurt Cobain died in a way he made the choice to rid himself of individual consciousness and enter into the state of Nirvana free from his pain in the world. Or instead should we read Cobain's death as an occurrence generated by historically specific life narrative that chained him to the wheel of suffering, the very thing Buddhism emphasizes one must break free from before becoming enlightened.

The secondary reading begs the question whether one can you go from a suffering individual to free from suffering by eliminating the self in one fateful step. Did Kurt Cobain cheat his way to enlightenment? or instead succumb to the earthly misery with roots in his traumatic childhood, what was by most accounts a very unhappy time for him taking on the role as a sullen and ostracized outcast abandoned even by his blood relatives.

A useful source of commentary on death and enlightenment is Ickheartol a new age self-help guru who talks about the split running down the consciousness of every human being who has two selves enclosed inside one body. On one side, much like old cartoons is the healthy happy angel sitting on our shoulder side that we usually are. However, in tough circumstance horrible circumstances the 'pain body' or devil side of our mental selves comes to the for, typified by the emotional scars amassed over a lifetime from mean and hurtful comments.

Despite the prima-facie beneficial arrangement of the angelic and demonic selves inside us, problems rapidly arise when we lose control of the 'pain body',that has the ability to derail our lives sabotaging every good thing that happens in our lives inherited by the actions of the happy side of our psyche mental self. An out of control pain body occurs when someone is triggered who has has undergone to much trauma in a single lifetime usually occurring in childhood were 'issues repressed come back into our lives with double the original ferocity'(zizek).  

The guru Ickehardtol was himself almost a fatal victim of the pain body as he opened up to his audience in a lecture about the perils of the battle inside his unconscious in the shape of a war against himself motivated by self-hatred and self-disgust. He outlined how he nearly lost complete control over his body almost resulting in suicide. Thankfully things didn't turn pear shaped as he was able to distinguish the pain body from his true self the happy side that wrenched back control and saved his life. Tols own battle with the pain body made him highly motivated to educate others on the dangers of mentally distinct and split selves, when you hear a negative voice rolling around in your head that's the pain body the one listening is your other side the good side. Sadly for some people yes even the famous who have bad mental health the inner-mind dialogue comes to be completely dominated by the pain body, the idea of diminished responsibility seems to be appropriate as a person loses control

over their own actions.Like an insane person the pain body in a sense is the manifestation of an inability to function in a normal way due to a troubling situation or circumstance in the present, past or future. 

To draw a parallel back to Kurt Cobain after watching the latest documentary "Montage of Heck" executive produced by his daughter Francis Bean it seems strikingly obvious how the trauma and pain Cobain suffered as an unwanted child with no real family to depended on fractured his sense of self. The unimaginable pain of being rejected by loved ones caused him to constantly act out and become angry and very depressed as an adolescent which only further isolated him and re-inforced his families decision to reject him, which created the primordial pain and root cause of his bad behaviour. Cobain stated that all he ever truly wanted was a strong cohesive family unit. And for this very reason I believe Kurt Cobain and many other individuals in similar positions to him die unnecessarily at the hands of themselves due to an out of control pain body that consciously blocks any good thoughts from entering their mind when they preform their self-harming final act. The fight of the split psyche between the devil and angel at war inside Kurt and others causes far to many people to die when they have so much to live for, but in their last moments controlled by the pain body they have no way to realize the good, such a scenario really sounds like the opposite of enlightenment. 

The Subversive Nature of Children's Nursery Rhymes

Nursery Rhymes are antiestablishment and pure ideology at its most refined. At a time when it was punishable by death to question the royal monarchy and the vast masses were largely illiterate it was the power of potent melody and coded imagery that allowed the truth; social injustice to infiltrate the minds and thought of society anonymously. From the infamous Baa Baa Black Sheep about the injustice of paying 1/3 of wool to the feudal master,1/3 to the church only leaving  the farmer his family and young sheppards 1/3 to elk out an existence on.Or Ring a Ring o Rosies highlighted the horror of the bubonic plague to Ladybird Ladybird about Protestant priests burnt at the stake the list goes on, read for yourself. My particular favourite is Rock-a-Bye Baby about the doomed house of Stuart.   Moss

Content courtesy of BBC Britain – a new series focused on exploring this extraordinary island, one story at a time

“A lot of children's literature has a very dark origin,” explained Lerer to Today.com. “Nursery rhymes are part of long-standing traditions of parody and a popular political resistance to high culture and royalty.” Indeed, in a time when to caricature royalty or politicians was punishable by death, nursery rhymes proved a potent way to smuggle in coded or thinly veiled messages in the guise of children's entertainment. In largely illiterate societies, the catchy sing-song melodies helped people remember the stories and, crucially, pass them on to the next generation. Whatever else they may be, nursery rhymes are a triumph of the power of oral history. And the children merrily singing them to this day remain oblivious to the meanings contained within.

The stuff of nightmares

Baa Baa Black Sheep is about the medieval wool tax, imposed in the 13th Century by King Edward I. Under the new rules, a third of the cost of a sack of wool went to him, another went to the church and the last to the farmer. (In the original version, nothing was therefore left for the little shepherd boy who lives down the lane). Black sheep were also considered bad luck because their fleeces, unable to be dyed, were less lucrative for the farmer.

Ring a Ring o Roses, or Ring Around the Rosie, may be about the 1665 Great Plague of London: the “rosie” being the malodorous rash that developed on the skin of bubonic plague sufferers, the stench of which then needed concealing with a “pocket full of posies”. The bubonic plague killed 15% of Britain’s population, hence “atishoo, atishoo, we all fall down (dead).”

Rock-a-bye Baby refers to events preceding the Glorious Revolution. The baby in question is supposed to be the son of King James II of England, but was widely believed to be another man’s child, smuggled into the birthing room to ensure a Roman Catholic heir. The rhyme is laced with connotation: the “wind” may be the Protestant forces blowing in from the Netherlands; the doomed “cradle” the royal House of Stuart. The earliest recorded version of the words in print contained the ominous footnote: “This may serve as a warning to the Proud and Ambitious, who climb so high that they generally fall at last”.

Mary, Mary Quite Contrary may be about Bloody Mary, daughter of King Henry VIII and concerns the torture and murder of Protestants. Queen Mary was a staunch Catholic and her “garden” here is an allusion to the graveyards which were filling with Protestant martyrs. The “silver bells” were thumbscrews; while “cockleshells” are believed to be instruments of torture which were attached to male genitals.

Goosey Goosey Gander is another tale of religious persecution but from the other side: it reflects a time when Catholic priests would have to say their forbidden Latin-based prayers in secret – even in the privacy of their own home.

Ladybird, Ladybird is also about 16th Century Catholics in Protestant England and the priests who were burned at the stake for their beliefs.

Lucy Locket is about a famous spat between two legendary 18th Century prostitutes.

Here We Go Round the Mulberry Bush originated, according to historian RS Duncan, at Wakefield Prison in England, where female inmates had to exercise around a mulberry tree in the prison yard.

Oranges and Lemons follows a condemned man en route to his execution – “Here comes a chopper / To chop off your head!” – past a slew of famous London churches: St Clemens, St Martins, Old Bailey, Bow, Stepney, and Shoreditch.

Oranges and Lemons has inspired a children’s game in which kids try to avoid being caught by the ‘executioner’s ax’ as ‘Chop! Chop! Chop!’ is shouted (Credit: Getty Images)

Pop Goes The Weasel is an apparently nonsensical rhyme that, upon subsequent inspection, reveals itself to in fact be about poverty, pawnbroking, the minimum wage – and hitting the Eagle Tavern on London’s City Road.

My Thoughts On the Status Quo, Trying to Learn & Naive Experts

If one does not know what one is talking about, one should keep asking questions loudly until they're satisfied those who think they know what they’re talking about also don’t, Socrates springs to mind, for if he did anything he conveyed so well how so called experts know absolutely nothing on what they expertly claim to know. The elaborated quote of Wittengenstein by Zizek comically notes how “whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent”. Immediately the stupid question arises”.

It seems to me that the mind and our conception of reality are in a categorically opposed relationship an  antagonistic death roll of adversaries’ fighting along the poorly paved road of knowledege with would be genius’ and total numbskulls jostling down it alike. Perhaps the mind tries to shape our knowledge in a self-protective way and when we come into contact with the reality of known facts against the contents of our thoughts that later of which we once held above question our perceptions of how life is can come crumble down before our very eyes in an instant ideology gives way and we are proved wrong time and time again whether we care to admit or not.

But who should we believe in regards to serious social problems like racism do we trust a know it all expert that has studied everything there is to know from a whole shelf of books at library or someone who has experienced and been subjected to racism every single day of their lives, I know who I would choose. It has been already stated in modern life that it is impossible to say anything about the unspeakable e.g racism, so why must we add that we don’t speak about it, does the classical Kantian paradox of not knowing what we will never know mean we can’t even seek to describe it even for a purely aesthetic value.

I would argue that the status quo’s true aim is to disassociate, distort and divorce us from our own perceptive knowing, by denying our development and learning of common place knowledge. From childhood we are incased in a position that generates an inferiority complex our real life experiences counting for nought in the face of clinically sanitised educated analysis. But one need only think of someone who thinks they have done the right thing throughout their whole life, until that horrible point were their subjective view transfers to an objective one from the other and their decisions gazed upon in a way that conveys that the exact opposite of what they thought is true is actually the case. Despite this we seem to gladly slam the door closed to greater knowledge and objective understanding because society denies the subjective experiences a place of importance, as a place to grow and nurture the sense of oneself that offers a competing view to entrenched beliefs guarded by the status quo, maybe this is the stance we collectively take toward children that generates the social situation we currently face of lack of inability to live ones life and give it meaning. Camus once said that suicide is not something work contemplating because the sheer meaninglessness of life opens the door to true meaning that we can code into the programme that is our own life. I don't deny this view but argue that is increasingly becoming harder and harder to materialises and stay strong to the meaning and ideals we place as the foundational basis of life in this neo-liberal world. 

In a roundabout way the hegemonic monopoly on information relies upon our position of unknowing like a child, and when we actually come close to knowing things, before we do so in unwavering entirety it is the lingering doubt that the Mother or society capitalises on and uses as leverage to control us before we can know for ourselves. When we are confronted and face to face with an interlocutor we engage in an egotistical battle of competition were excess of knowledge is sought to the shame the other, that is until both fall heavily toward the ground of idiocy. 

My fleeting thoughts on the new disguise of racism look specifically at the role of neo-liberals and their role  in the ballet of life. In my experience it seems the supposed cool chums of society unwittingly champion the Game of Thronesesqe calvary charge toward the new frontier of bigotry. They are doing this by making the matter of racist prejudice unspeakable in a way that degrades real progress on the issue. Racism is never addressed directly a cunning ploy to try and make it a non-issue to swept it up under the rug. Indeed what a wonderful world it would be if we could all repress the social belief of racism and deny it as a societal ideological myth instilled in us involuntarily, maybe we could all carry on with our racist lives while denying the privilege to others in society. 

Is it strange to think there are some many racists in the Southern states of the USA were racism is outwardly promoted as the thing to do whilst in New York and other states multiculturalism is promoted but possibly underneath this pseudo acceptance racism bubble’s violently under the surface till the day a liberal snaps and the rooster finally comes home to roost in a big way possibly dwarfing the scale of the atrocities carried out in Alabama. A scary thought by denying the existence and place for racism in society we cut ourselves off from trying to neutralise the problem by making it an openly laughed at thing what a world it would be if this conversation was to occur in Missippi;

 “You know what my friend Joe said the darnest thing the other day he said he was a racist” 

“well what you know Joe aint that the funniest thing I heard all day, would you believe it people still tryna be racist!”

“and it gets better,  I picked him up last night and we went out for tea but he insisted we drive in his 

Japanese car to his favorite Indian restaurant where we ordered imported Dutch beers with our meals”

“being racist those were the days you got laugh at people stuck in the past like that”

“Sure does bring a smile to my face” 

The Dominating role of Violence in Slavoj Zizek's Philosophy - presented by Paul Taylor (Zizekian Studies)

My comment on the video: Thanks for the perceptive critique of "Secret Millionare" Paul Taylor its funny how millionaires of such large companies are secret pseudo individuals hiding behind there stone walled property. I really agree that the secret is how one individual/family can violent exploit all the everyday shown people for excessive monetary gain. They give back with the hand that feeds what has been taken ten fold with the other. One worker in an army of thousands gets a holiday and a check to buy back the fruits of their own labour. This video made me think, as Bukowskis tombstone said "Don't Try" haha

Summary thoughts:
The background of violence is the real. The overall system of media and the status quo want to diffuse our emancipatory potential by allowing us our political insight into the way our world operates only through capitalist entertainment. The establishment gives to us via the silver screen a symbolic illusion of what we truly want economic and social freedoms - true equality.Reality Tv is yet another way modern capitalism exploits the powerless in society by monetising even our most personal relationships with our families and turning them into entertainment content to feed the corporate machine.

Paul Taylor argues that we are sold a cure to our problems which is in fact one of the main reasons for our suffering. He takes exceptions to figures like Bono and Bob Geldof who only specifically through gaining vast riches by functioning in the system can afford to true and right the wrongs of social inequality. Taylor highlights how our dependency on figures of philanthropy and charity for certain issues like poverty in Africa stop us from getting to the core of the issue namely creating a fair and even playing for countries and people to compete in an equal economic game.

The fetishist disavowal:of violence "I know very well but even so" I keep the cycle of violence continuing is one of humanities most deeply troubling problems. And as Taylor states quoting Hegel to flee from something one fears is not the answer as the thing we seek to put distance in-between ourselves still exerts a hidden power over you. One could think of all the Rambo films and action thrillers were the lead protagonist flees from corrupt beaucracy only to latter be engulfed in a much larger conflict with the same force. Violence and confrontation in Zizek's view seems inevitable because only through confronting the wrongs in the mechanics of society can we get closer to a better one 'or fail a bit better" as he says.

Perpetual violence mares each and every life within society from the poor all the way to the rich know one escapes the structural violence of institutions and society. One need only look at a hagged former President or Prime Minister to demonstrate the inability to run from power relations and the drain on our human lives that they exert. Marx himself agreed that the bourgeois are victims of their own success at the top of the social totem pole for example their loveless marriages he saw as  more akin to financial transactions of hereditary wealth than anything to do with individual subject's entering into loving wed-lock. For all the abuses the elite subject the lower parts of society too in work through the abuse of the means to production and capital it does seem a just reward for them to not truly be able to marry for love, at least in the past! Vestiges of this inability to truly love of the 1% percent can even be seen in hit shows on modern cable television take for instance Game of Thrones" with the almighty rich and royal Lannister House whose siblings are forced to marry for power, money and social standing instead of love no wonder they become fixated with prostitution, war and incest.

A summary of how Zizek's Hegalian-Marxist Lacanian View developed - by Paul Taylor 

The Marxist Slovenian philosopher Božidar Debenjak was an early influence on Slavoj Žižek. It was from Debenjak that Slavoj began to turn to German idealism and Slavoj Žižek began to be influenced by the Frankfurt School. It was in Božidar Debenjak's course at the University of Ljubljana that Slavoj Žižek read Karl Marx's Das Kapital through the lens of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's Phenomenology of the Mind. The perspective formed through this interrogation of Karl Marx and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel has heavily influenced Slavoj Žižek's contemporary works. Slavoj Žižek has associated with Tine Hribar and Ivo Urbančič, both Heideggerian philosophers.

Slavoj Žižek was hired at the University of Ljubljana in 1971 where he worked as an assistant researcher. His master's thesis was controversial due to the Marxist tendency of the reformist Slovenian regime in 1973 and therefore he lost his position at the university. After this period he worked for the Yugoslav army in Karlovac. Slavoj Žižek later began to work as a clerk for the Slovenian Marxist Center where he became acquainted with Mladen Dolar and Rastko Močnik. Both of these scholars were focused on the works of Jacques Lacan. Slavoj Žižek began working for the Institute of Sociology for the University of Ljubljana in 1979. Shortly after in the 1980's he began to publish books which examined Heglian and Marxist theories from the point of view of Lacanian psychoanalytic theory. Slavoj Žižek has two sons from two different marriages.

Slavoj Žižek wrote the introduction to John Lee Carre and G.K. Chesterston's Slovenian translated novels. Slavoj Žižek edited a number of translations of Louis Althusser, Jacques Lacan and Sigmund Freud to Slovenian. It was not until the late 1980s when Slavoj Žižek came under the scrutiny of public attention. During this period he was a columnist from his work for Maldina, a magazine aimed at youth which criticized the Titoist regime. The magazine gained notoriety for its stance against certain aspects of the times Yugoslavian politics, in particular the increasing militarization policies aimed towards society. Up until October of 1988 Slavoj Žižek was an active member of the Communist Party of Slovenia. He quit during the protest against the JBZ-trial. He was not alone in this protest, he quit along with thirty two other public intellectuals with origins in Slovenia. Slavoj Žižek was involved with the Committee for the Defense of Human Rights a social movement fighting for democracy in Slovenia. In 1990 the first free elections were held in Slovenia. At this time Slavoj Žižek ran for President aligned with the Liberal Democratic Party.

Slavoj Žižek became widely recognized as an important theorist of contemporary times with the publication of The Sublime Object of Ideology, his first book to be written in English, in 1989. Since this time Slavoj Žižek has taken the contemporary philosophical world by storm, never afraid of confrontation he is a dangerous theorist. Slavoj Žižek's work cannot be categorized easily. He calls for a return to the the Cartesian subject. Slavoj Žižek also calls for a return to The German Ideology, in particular the works of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling. Slavoj Žižek's work draws on the works of Jacques Lacan, moving his theory towards modern political and philosophical issues, finding the potential for liberatory politics within his work. But in all his turns to these thinkers and strands of thought, he hopes to call forth new potentials in thinking and self-reflexivity. Slavoj Žižek also calls for a return to the spirit of the revolutionary potential of Lenin and Karl Marx.

The Nazi Royal Family Salute

Hmm what to make of this well we all know the Royal family are German in heritage so it shouldn't come as such a big surprise. And they do seem like they are horsing around a bit and rough housing and shaking around a lot like wobbly jellow! plus their pet dog is quite cute the way it runs round...but nevertheless the clip for all it's worth shows how non-plussed the royal family was to Nazi take-over an organisation put together and funded by the German aristocrats of which the Royal family would have very close ties, if anything the clip displays a fearless grapple hold on power regardless of which way WW2 ended, thank god we didn't end up with a Nazi Royal Family posing with Hitler perhaps some where over the rainbow in a parallel universe things are a little more fruity!!! On a more serous and sombre note the clip post holocaust does seem to trivialise the atrocities perpetrated by the Third Reich, and on that note I think the Queen herself should apologize to protect the reputation of her family and loved ones. Although she was to young to understand the significance of her actions her parents surely should've known better! shame on you Queen Mother :)

 

Nietzsche - The Lone Philosopher Dancing in the Stars

One must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star.

Friedrich Nietzsche

I watched some youtube videos on Friedrich Nietzsche today, he certainly wasn't a person you could accuse of having everything his own way. From his dad dying during childhood to contracting syphilis from a brothel and then to be forsaken by the love of his life it almost seems a Greek tragedy of which the philosopher studied intensely. I find it interesting how Nietzsche discovered Schopenhauer's works and at first completely embraced the pessimism and sad outlook on life, until he wrestled the concept of the Will free of his fore bearer turning the will that was in Schopenhauer's philosophy the root of all human pain and suffering:

"Suppose that, with the exception of some sore or painful spot, we are physically in a sound and healthy condition: the sore of this one spot, will completely absorb our attention, causing us to lose the sense of general well-being, and destroying all our comfort in life. In the same way, when all our affairs but one turn out as we wish, the single instance in which our aims are frustrated is a constant trouble to us, even though it be something quite trivial. We think a great deal about it, and very little about those other and more important matters in which we have been successful. In both these cases what has met with resistance is the will"   (Counsel and Maxims)

Into a positive and life affirming attribute, Nietzsche arguing that:

"One must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star"

The will of sorrow thus turns into un-ending source of fuel that confirms Nietzsche great belief that what all human beings really want is the power to transform our lives and achieve what we never thought possible. A dream turned into reality. A lonely German man who had almost no friends except Richard Wagner Nietzsche firmly believed in the ability to enjoy a second wind in life achieving things that we once deemed out of reach and only possible for others or before are lives went off the rails. The reason for Nietzsche totally embrace of our own particular life pitfalls, highs and lows warts and all was because he knew destiny came about in completely different ways and if one could only embrace one's life completely even if it meant living it forever and ever you would indeed find for oneself a life beyond good and evil above the masses of 'medocracy' you would become Super-human the true potential of humanity.

A great analysis of "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" by Philosopher Brian Johnson

Epicureanism - Money, Power or Friendship

The often ridiculed philosopher Epicurus believed that our sensory knowledge was the basis for all human knowledge. The fact that atoms existed in his view was strengthened by visual observation over and above abstract reason. His famous example of holding a stick in water during the day so sunlight reflected off the atoms in the water bending the stick was the basis of atomic existence because when one pulled the stick out of the water the stick became straight again. He believed reason and the mind alone could not sufficiently convey the actual existence of atoms, only through observed physical and repeatable examples could we understand the structures of reality. Despite this Epicurus argued for many things outside observation and visual certainty one controversial theory being the idea of a mortal soul destined to die due to its atomic material structure. In contrast to Plato's winged immortal soul that returned to heaven and earth in an endless cycle Epicurus conception of the soul meant that it was fundamental prone to decay, death and ultimately destruction. Just as the human body decomposes overtime same goes for the soul breaking down and becoming a null entity the atoms of the soul dissipating maybe due to a lack of consciousness acting like a glue.

Similar to the modern theorist and psychoanalyst Freud the ancient philosopher Epicurus argued the way we orientate our lives around our own inescapable deaths is detrimental to our happiness. 'The Freudian death drive' identified much earlier in Greece is thought to propels us towards action in life to hide our sub-conscious knowledge that we will soon be all dead and are living on borrowed time. Epicurus perceived that 'the fear of death stimulates the desire to accumulate wealth" hence our inability to confront our own inevitable end generates the excessive need, drive and desire for superfluous material objects to take our minds off the dreaded unknown; death. Moving towards religion Epicurus theory stated that the idea of God was an oxymoron. He firmly doubted and dis-believed the existence of gods on the basis that 'if they really were invulnerable and completely happy, why create a world? And have interest in mortal lives'. I stand in agreement with this view because it really doesn't make sense for a perfect being to create an imperfect world/beings to entertain themselves. The only reason a 'God" would ensue an act of creation would be due to a lack of completeness in their existence and individual entity denying them the status of a god. The notion of divine boredom seems like a poignant imperfection. 

A serious problem with Epicurean thought is a commitment to a fixed, structural determined reality were a person or agent can nevertheless self-determine ones life and actions in certain instances. Epicurus insists that the "atomic swerve' a known phenomena at the particle level were atoms can change from a determined route to another path means all things in reality including human beings can break free from a certain interactions and conditions avoiding situations that determine the outcome of our own lives. Through the questionable 'quick save' power to allow us the ability to make autonomous decisions in an unfree world we can improve the quality of our lives. Although things are written in stone from Epicurus view about our lives we can still choose the tablet on which we write the particular life narrative we choose for ourselves. Despite this perplexing conception of freedom responsibility in relation to our actions, just like the swerving of the atom becomes ambiguous, for it becomes increasingly difficult to say whether someone is truly accountable for their actions, for instance did someone exercise their own free will in a situation top change an outcome or did they go with the pre-determined flow of their life events due to the determined nature of the world we find ourselves living in.  

Through the ages Hedonism has become synonymous with the figure Epicurus and his thinking and thoughts in philosophy be it in a vastly mis-understood way. To set the record straight the ancient philosopher actually postulated against popular opinion that one can not 'buy a life of pleasure that outweighs pain'. Epicurus argued the sensual senses were unable and deficient in aiding the hedonists pursuit of pleasure correctly. Although he held that the 'infallible good' was indeed pleasure that was known by the senses he did not promote a crude modern caricature of the idealised lifestyle summed up by money, sex and power, the reverse was his true for the philosopher as he outlined the desires mentioned of a base human appetite were riddled with fears, pain and worry due to the problematic and frequent loss of them for no reason and the painful arduous hard work undertaken to gain them let alone maintain them. From his oppositional view to excessive material wants and desires Epicurus stated that when one truly becomes free of the spinning cycle that is "the wheel of desire" the truly pleasurable life devoid of anxiety is achieved. In order to maximise happiness a hedonist has to find pleasure in the simple things of life like; leisure, food, conversation, shelter and warmth in truth the basic necessities of life. Epicurus subtle form of moderate pleasure seeking and the utter avoidance of pain places a strong emphasis on the calming nuances that help make the human condition a fun and easy experience. 

At the beating heart of Epicurus hedonism is friendship standing proud above all other objects and human relations in the world. The reason for this position of esteem afforded to friendship is due to the redeeming qualities associated with friendship, being: justice, mutual benefit, aid in tough times as well as emotional/physical security. While the dominating traits of greed and power may seem enjoyable for a time, especially if held in abundance the inevitable wane of greed turns to debt and power transforms into open rebellion generating painful repercussions for the followers of such vices. In a similar way friendship flourishes in the good times, celebrations and joyous occasions of life yet it also thrives in hardship.    After sometimes undergoing a rigorous test in a bad situation were we tend to discover our true friends, friendship either breaks and is all but lost or triumphantly passes the test becoming far stronger and above question helping safe guard a dear friend from the  possible experiences of cruelty, antagonism, sorrow and plain meanness from others. 

It is because of this 'steadfast' quality of Friendship that it takes up such a staunch opposition to injustice dealt by corrupt and violent institutions and individuals in society. Whereas other philosopher might have tried to sway a person into thinking society is built on 'divine inspiration and social hierarchy mitigated by human nature' Epicurus is vastly more cynical maintaining that human society is structured predominantly by 'human anxiety' manifesting in corruption and greed in a sad bid to avoid death. The poisonous shadow of death is why friendship proves to be 'the most pleasurable' pursuit in life, namely because the collective human needs of others granted privilege through the vast friendships in the world will in time erode away our enemies position of power who monopolise human wealth for their selfish ends extending human unhappiness. One might indeed tend to think of Julius Caesar a gifted man who amassed great and power fortune but who alas died at the hands of many murderers, if he had possibly privileged friendship over money a bit more he may have been able to survive and live a longer more fulfilling life, a true friend in most instances would have made him more aware of the plot against his life and urged precaution. The creation and functioning of the state in Epicurus view is an offshoot of friendship. It's sadly often diverted true aim is to help citizens forsake pleasure for pain.        By acting justly the hedonist and state function in a relation of friendship improving the life and existence of both entities 'The pursuit of pleasure demands the cultivation of moral virtues' and if understood properly  'the one great incentive to face danger and brave troubles is friendship from the epicurean perspective'. 

To conclude there are many criticisms levelled toward Epicurean philosophy one of the most harming being that his philosophy is essentially a shallow simplified account made for popular consumption because even the stupid can grasp the core principles of the theory namely; avoid pain and anxiety, veer away from excess, friendship is at the core of a happy life and the role of the state to promote pleasure. While below the surface the Epicurean ideas after analysis by intellectuals find contradictions that expose the difficulties that "has, a useful result: it shows us why principles that initially seem simple and attractive are neither simple nor attractive after all". From my view despite the structural problems of atom swerving self-determinism I would argue that the shallowness argument of Epicurean theory does not destroy the validity of his Epicurean philosophy. Certainly If ones primary aim is to trip up a theory based on speculative atomic claims before the invention of modern technology one can reduce the claims of Epicurus significantly. However, what I would argue in Epicurus philosophy that is impervious to damage are the simple unquestionable truths about the virtue of helping others and undertaking a temperate modest outlook on life to produce a pleasurable experience of the human life. Epicurus metaphysics maybe be off to a degree but surely his moral compass and good attitude is facing north. 

Sources: Classical Thought - Terrence Irwin (All Quotes) This whole article is indebted to this reading significantly as I offered my own view on ideas raised by Mr Irwin in his summary of the thinker and plucked out the thoughts that most interest me like a book review. 

A Short video on the man himself :) 

Karl Marx - The Joys of Unemployment and the Reality of Over-Abundance

This is a great video that highlights the most important points of Karl Marx's revolutionary thinking about Capitalism; an often mis-understood thing that is the main mode of modern economic and financially relations between human beings, objects and our environment. Whether one buys a chocolate bar, a house or pays a cleaning lady to tidy up your house chances are your living in a capitalist world were all relations are distorted by money. Ever had that feeling that your friend would rather not buy you a sandwich but does so anyway Marx even addresses the social phenomena of human selfishness in relationships.  

Before I watched this video I had no idea how radical Marx was! I never knew for instance that he thought unemployment was something to be recognised, celebrated even cherished as a glimpse into a possible positive future. A time were everyone doesn't have to work can choose what they want to do due to the main problem of capitalism; that is to affect at producing for its own good. It reminds me of a fact I heard years ago that Russia alone could possibly generate food for the whole population and steal have left-overs. Well, you certainly wouldn't think that looking at modern food prices. In New Zealand the main supermarket chain should really be called Count up not Countdown! could someone sue them for mis-information, now that would be funny.

Joking aside such pivotal parts of Marxism that the world is still abundant and how employment is unrealised social "Freedom" reminded myself of the lies churned out about Karl Marx, the prejudices clinging to the man and obsfucating his theories. The mass media and social conditioning to obey  really does try to poison the virtue in Marixst philosophy and economics. One usually always hears the claim that Karl Marx wants to take away money from hard working individuals in society and re-distribute it to the undeserving poor and working class. The prevalence of the idea of 'money theft' associated with Marx no doubt compounded upon his Jewish heritage creates the horribly persistent idea that he is a mad communist hell bent on causing utter financial chaos. But does Marx really want to deny us the ability to survive through engaging in monotonous work, some ignorant people fiercely agree and argue his ideas jeopardise the simple transactions of buying food, paying our rent and generating a livelihood. 

In reality Marx wants real financial order by turning away from the problems inbuilt to capitalism that actually threaten your ability to pay your mortgage, feed your family and find work. His great beard is not purely seeking the denial of other peoples rights to property, money, objects and other human beings for profitable exploitation due to envy and jealousy. Instead Marx genuinely wants  improve the lives of everyone through reducing anxiety and giving us security. He was even perceptive enough to not that the rich are unhappy to as marriage at the top echelon is an investment not built on a foundation of love. Marx and his social theory is adamantly in favour of us following our passions and enjoying life without poverty and sadness. He's even trying to help us fix our personal relationships so we don't get put in the dog house whenever we subconsciously forget to by our lover flowers due to ingrained selfishness! To conclude Marx is only presented as a subversive immoral individual in history because he wants to restore the morality and human dignity to the selfish, lazy dis-enfranchised people throughout the world who are both rich and poor.  

A Segway on Marx and Over-Abundance

p.s - If Karl Marx was fat could we read it as a personal affirmation that Capitalism aims to exploit us     for no other reason but to feel guilt which controls our thinking so even when we are confronted with the access to over abundance, resources and enjoyment in the world we deny it to ourselves - e.g We know that there are a hundred cans of Coke in any store yet we must be punished in a way to enjoy just one can! 

Is that we are indoctrinated into an ideology which demands that we are satisfied with the wage not the riches, the singular over the multiple, the subject over everyone! If one thinks about it from an early age in childhood we are forced year after year to share our Birthday cake with others? Is that truly just. 

Would a Marxist Birthday in fact not be to share a piece of cake with everyone else but instead make sure that all our friends have the ability to bring a cake too. Is the answer to inequality to really reduce what we have, to improve the amount given to another person or instead improve what another person has removed from ourselves so we are not depleted and they are not beholden to us. 

Surely it must be the case that autonomy is more important than egoist generosity. Dependence is what Marx wants to erudite from the world but not by means of a cynical hand out, more like a hand up to make your life your own!   

Anela Pritchard Speech on Teaching

without consultation across the entire board. Anela Pritchard posted her speech to Facebook - the speech she says she was suspended from school for giving: I'm a decentlysmart kid, with some decently good grades. But sometimes I believe that, with the essays, worksheets and endless amount of study assigned tome eachday, that teachers secretly hate me, rather than actuallywanting tohelp me do better. Theymost likely, if anything really, just do it for the pay check. I'm not saying all teachers do, but the majority of them appear to be that way. I always think about how I do believe school is important, however I don't believe most of the stuff taught there is. Do I honestlyneedto know what a= 1+rnto the 2nd power is, go over the Treatyof Waitangi everyyear since I was literally5, or memorize the periodic table in order toget somewhere in life? Do I honestlyneedto know the structure of a seed and how it works and whatnot? No, I don't think so. I believe school should, instead, teach us more valuable information that we'll actually need for our futures. In High School, we should be learning about the real world, how to paymytaxes, applyfor jobs, mortgage my house, buya car, things that we will actually use in the future. Sofar, I've onlylearned that whatever I manage to get done in a short amount of time isn't enough. What's that? You did your homework, but didn't doone questionbecause you found it difficult and you were struggling? Well, there's a unsatisfactory for homework on your mid term report! Now, that's just not OK. What my point is, we all struggle, and work, and stress our selves over things that aren't important in the long run. Two years after High School, and the majorityof the students who've graduated have alreadyforgotten anything they've learned in the last four years of their school career. Stressing myself over end of year exams, because if I fail, I have myparents on myback, asking me why I didn't try hard enough, my teacher telling me I could have focused harder in class and mypeers simply telling me that I'm stupid? Ridiculous. I honestlyused tolove going to school. I thoroughlyenjoyed it, and it made me happyto goto school, tomeet friends, to learn things that I never knew. But the minute High School starts, it's either you fly, or you fall. Now I strongly dislike it, and want nothing to do with it. Some teachers are nice, there are a good few who are genuinely nice and want to help us but it seems that the teachers that are not willing to encourage and help me are all teachers of the subjects I'm not good at and it also happens to be that I don't enjoythem. It's unbelievable how some teachers play favorites. Theybelieve you can do better than your best? If theywanted me to do better, wouldn't they actually help me to understand? theywouldn't shove more work down my throat and expect me not tohave anytrouble with it. I'm not saying to treat me special because I struggle in the subject but because I'm a student who would like to learn things bya teacher, and not a book. Actually do the teaching that youwere taught and you are paid to do. Don't just give me worksheets todo and expect me to take a test onthe topic 2 days later. You know...the school system is reallyscrewed up...We have all these teachers that don't enjoy their jobs and are all angry about the cut backs in their paychecks. Making us feel like complete idiots and making us feel useless. Like it's our fault that we don't understand the work! Maybe some of us just don't understand it! Or maybe the teacher didn't teach it very well, but we're the ones dealing with the consequences of failure. It's teachers like this that make us students want toskip class and not go to school because we think we aren't good enough for the certain subject. Like we are stupid and will never understand it... Teachers are PAID to TEACH us.. not paid to hand out a piece of paper with words on it and sit around and do nothing!!!!!!! I'm not saying all teachers are bad, and I understand that us as students need to make an effort. But our teachers chose this career and need totryto cater for each individuals education. We spend 7 hours, 5 days a week, plus extra hours on top of that going over the days work, revision, studying, completing unfinished work and also homeworkgive, working to please everysingle teacher, the least the could do is have some understanding and simply teach.

The Four Aims of Indian Philosophy

A brief pictorial summary of the four aims of philosophy in the chapter of the same name from Heinrich Zimmer's book "Indian Philosophy". I just happened to stumbled across his book on the ethics shelve in the Auckland University library this past Friday. I would also recommend the last chapter in the book that discusses who gets into Nirvana.

My Thoughts on the "Interpellation of Django Unchained" and The Figure of Schultz

In writer Abigal Fagan's paper "Interpellating Django: The Functions of the Gaze in Tarantino's Django Unchained" accessed in the free open database of the International Journal of Zizek Studies

I found many thought provoking ideas and sociological readings of Taratino's Oscar award winning film. 

Fagan's perceptive analysis of Django Unchained incorporates the view of the Lacanian Gaze and Zizek's application of the symbolic, real and imaginary. At the heart of Fagan's essay are the issues of violence and racist ideology both two reoccurring themes in the millennial spaghetti western.    
      

The characters of the film most deeply concentrated in Fagan's critique are Schutlz an eccentric German bounty hunter oblivious to racism, Big Daddy and Calvin Candie both rampant racist slave owners and of course Django an emancipated black slave. In this article I want to offer a brief overview of the essay's main points and what I found most interesting while also offering a differing view to Fagan's conclusion that Tarintino's wild west movie is in fact not racist! 

To begin with lets identify what the theory of 'the real' means in the context of Django Unchained,;

"Lacan teaches us that human experience takes place in three orders, the real, the symbolic and the imaginary. While the symbolic order is the primary focus and venue for Django Unchained, Django's rise to the triumphant hero of the film is predicated on his internal and therefore imaginary-images of himself, just as Schultz's fall is predicated on his inability to symbolize his experience of the real. Indeed it is Tarantino's allowance for the real to destabilize the symbolic order or law that governs his film that makes the film so engaging." 

From this extract specifically the the last sentence one sees how director Tarantino deliberately unbalances the 'symbolic order' of the film's lifeworld coded in excessive racism through the introduction of the Lacanian 'stain' which is Django. As a free black slave Django the acted by Jamie Fox disturbs the ideological world of the inhabitants this is because he is situated in the place of the real, outside of the symbolic chains of racism championed by the white majority. The later who believe black people have a fundamental lack in character and intellect. The racists argue that blacks are naturally subservient and therefore should serve as the slaves of society. Hence there is an antagonism between the symbolic order and physical reality with racist ideology as the intermediary between both upholding racism for the symbolic and keeping the real; black people and their normality at bay and hidden from view.. 

The 'imaginary Lacanian stage' comes into play in Tarantino's work when the symbolic is fractured by the truth conveyed by Django. His mere existent is and characteristics of excellent behavior and 'street smarts' convey how black people are in no way deficient. The realization of black equality in relation to the hegemony of the white oppressors in the film conveys how the symbolic order can quickly become besieged in a state of emergency. For how can one maintain a universal and claim that African Amercian's are stupid if individual particulars like Django exist who are strong fit smart and black and more than able to do a white mans work. Hence, the 'imaginary' needs to be drawn into knit the symbolic order back together with physical reality saving the meaning and foundation of societies racism. This is done by cheating and circumnavigating the holes in the theory of societies racist ideology namely the inferiority of black people by creating new imaginative and racist claims to reinforce weakness and deficiency in their character. What must be maintained is the privileging of white people in society renewed again on a fresh false pretense of the 'imaginary' allowing the maintenance and grapple-hold of oppression over the personal freedoms of 'black people', the most significant being the power over black peoples bodies divorcing them from their  autonomy.

The German bounty hunter Schultz how has no concept of racism in Django Unchained. From my point
of view I find this character to be the most complex and multi layered in the film. I would argue Schultz is a subtly oppressive force in the film. Although he frees Django and agrees to help him win back his wife Broomhilda, I can't quite avoid the feeling that Schultz is a carrying out a deception of character even perhaps unwittingly to himself on a sub-conscious level. In a pseudo sense Django is freed by Schultz given
a gun a horse and fine clothes and even allowed to hunt white men alongside him but there seems an underlining form of exploitation occurring through their seemingly beneficial relationship. It is as if Schultz wishes to turn Django into the mirror of himself; a white man. This is evident in the scene were he takes Django to a tailor and buys him european clothes, allowing Django to exhude a sense of European class.       It seems clear that Schultz acting as the 'Lacanian screen' identified by Fagan helps immerse the viewer in the racist times and ideologies of Django Unchained. Schultz filters out the racism in the film in a way that avoids confronting the issue, he seems to think there is no real racist issue and by doing so helps us forget the elephant in the room that all the black people in the film are slaves. Indeed it is Schultz lack of racism that helps the viewer to solely concentrate on Django an object of desire above everyone else. Which is strange considering Django is only interested in his own self-preservation and life of his partner Broomhilda a seeming extension of himself. In contrast there is no real dialogue or talk between Django and Schultz of freeing other people other than the ones they know. In my reading it seems that Schultz only seeks to reinforce capitalist individuality and privileging of the self in Django Unchained in direct conflict with
real collective struggles of black people. Schultz weakness of character is embedded in his preference to sustain himself over others resulting in his own death because of his inability to place others before himself. He risks Django and Broomhilda's own deaths in exchange for a selfish act of murder against Calvin Candie because of his excessive subjective pride in face of the racist oppressor and in doing so becomes one himself. He is indoctrinated into the violent and racist ideology of the film by sacrificing himself and his black friends who are very lucky to escape his engagement in murder in the end spells out his own destruction for his due to his latent character of corruption. Schultz is a figure that makes his money of others by killing them and doesn't not transcend this urge to kill, in my view he is a psychopathic enabler.

Section on the racism in the film coming soon 

  

passing through a dream

Passing through a dream Nothing is ever quite how it seems Appearances deceptions distortions And all those dreadful unforgettable emotions Seeping through our pink organic skin A million things reoccuring Sometimes i wonder if anything is ever truly certain Like a game on a lost planet hidden in the clustered stars of the milky way

Why do we Desire views of Nature?

Why do we desire views in times of leisure at home or on holidays even when we are at work? Well recently ive been thinking about it and looking at some of the most desirable views available from regal pastures to wrestling wild seas, lush vegatative forests with there unabashed variants of trees yet what is it about them that we want? perhaps most likely is the reason that we want to possess them and recover what has been taken from us and our ancestors. Before our city dwelling experience we lived in a natural pri-mordial human enviroment. The times of neurotic ancient civilizations and there need to build very high walls still a faint but persistent idea in our heads. Amongst the soft grass and wild flowers as well as numerous predators we absconded. But the song forever remains the same we humans love the natural life giving phenomena of rivers that share food with us, trees that sheltered us and which we burnt for firey hest and grass for our herds and livestock when we started rearing flocks. A view from a window from our front room, hotel patio or sail boat triggers off our desire for nature that we have depended on and still do to this day and most likely always without an extreme tech revolution. In light of our gaze out across the landscape what is truly distressing is the fact that we should be satisfied with a multi million dollar view and deny ourselves the real tangiable thing nourishment and sustenence of our lifeblood without feeling an underlining primitive regression in our natural state of being typified by our dependence on natures unrefined natural capital. A view has the power to sweep us back into the pre-historic nostalgia of creation as a species which have so ardogantly stormed forth from to know real telling advances. Slavoj Zizek stated that the most pressing issue of our time is and will continue to be the 'battle for the commons'! For societal powers have taken our land our trees ours our animals our streams and rivers everything that can give and sustain life and then they demand that we buy it back with money generated off the backs of our own labour! It can not last either we will rip it back of them what is ours or the natural enviroment will become so alienated and degraded by us that we cant buy it back and we're really in a pickle then! But hey in the mean time admire the view, just dont forget not to touch.