The new philosophy 2

Let’s try a topic.

A big one. Politics and Ethics.

Emotionally I don’t feel qualified in any kind of way. Within the lives I’ve led, I’ve compromised when maybe I shouldn’t. I’ve taken a stand when it was probably a bad idea. I’d say emotionally I am rather confused.

Intentionally? Well the world is at a stage where I genuinely believe ethics demands an intersubjectivity of intent. That’s my intent. I’d rather everyone’s crazy, possibly UN PC, possibly prosecutable, possibly ugly to me, possibly ugly to you, possibly ,isguided with respect to my viewpoint, your viewpoint … you get the idea. My intention is for intentionality to be rendered explicit within our debate. Our political debate. Explicit. Our ethical debate. Explicit. And upon the latter, no shame. As before it was a “subtext” or “alterior motive” or “external influence” or whatever. Let’s. Just. Put our intentions. On. The. Table,

My intentions on the table are that all are, present, explicit , freely expressed, upon this tabled ethics and politics.

Finally as preamble … a quarter of my family were nazis, a quarter persecuted terribly by the nazis, a half were Islamic marketeers and priests.

With this context in mind.

Politics is the management of a nation. There is politics of the corporate and perhaps one day that will dominate. Yet today, within the west, politics is the management of the people.

Ethical? Does it need to be?

Yes, because ethics must retain and remain. A gold standard. I suggested the politics of nations may disappear. If it does, for it to survive as a domcratized engine, we still require the gold standard.

And that will be what we call ethics,


The new philosophy

So, basically, it’s what we all expect from this discourse.

It’s what everyone wants from philosophy. Let me chose my words carefully here. It’s what everyone wants: an emotional contact, subject to subject, an intention, an intention to effect if not convince, just to effect. And a viewpoint, one of a a few viewpoints. So the listeners, so everyone, can interact, in accord with their emotion, their intention, their viewpoint.

This is the new philosophy. It’s just what we’ve always been saying. But now, we make these three explicitly encoded: our emotional comport, our intentional speech and our existential viewpoint,

I argue this trinity has been implicitly yet tacit, invisibly foundational to our discourse, this discourse of philosophy.

And that people are now beyond the tacit, yet desire the discourse. Look at the bookshelves. Formal philosophy is. Being left behind. Has been left behind within the Anglo American axis. And even within Europe … what good has come? Fashion. Art. Oh, so hard to grasp, but such a bourgeois privilege to grasp.

They’ll get sick of it shortly too. Or disengage entirely.


New philosophy. Let’s get back to the roots.

And let’s be explicit, whenever we speak, of life, of meaning, of our perspective … we are emotional, embedded, we have intent, embedded, we are existent subjects situated within a nexus of emotionally intentional speech acts of philosophy.

The new philosophy

It is therefore necessary to make explicit what we embody, our precepts of being, our comportment within life as well as inquiry. Explicit, because these traits are being diluted, and as traits they are good in some. But also explicit, because we take two, then render one from a demonstrative to an existential.

The three precepts …


Adore her form, gazing upon it all, anticipation

visitation of love, our love, her love, your love, my love, pure love: universal answer

And singular question. Sanctified, I believe my revery to be. Because I am gentle with love. At least one good thing I can say for myself.

Yet, oh my fucking god, gazing upon it all, good girl, just like that: doing that anticipation dance.

I’m caught up, by love. In love, desirous of her, I am rendered, am I rendered? Rendered 2 dimensional, mere mortal miming my mores my mere mores …

Older me, sitting within my pill circle of shut down, done with this, done with that, done with it all.

But I’m still caught up within love, desirous of them all, each, yes, I admit it, each, adore their forms, gazing upon them all, older me,

The anticipation of a changing subject, with respect to age, changing subject 21st century right now, his sexuality like these,

Oh, but I would kiss your lips, tongue to tongue, serpent lady, virgin vestal, jinn girl, Gog and Magog pussy

Depth divine. Depth delight desire these, one, let me, the other, yes.

Such a good girl. Such a good girl.

Your body is holy scripture, displayed before scholarship’s authority flow.

I love this, I love you, I, whatever I be,

A “me” …whose soul throw be eternally commingled with your electrically sweet body.

Colour qualia and fear

Colour qualia: perception of what is red, what is blue, what is yellow, what is white, what is … but … but what context? The “new” metaphysics of the late 20th century never really quite specified. It was as though the islands were rapidly reorganizing their longitude and latitude just as the geographer could categorize where they were, but failed, as he had not yet pinned down “longitude” and “latitude” within his meta-map.

In other words, the language game of that metaphysics was built on shaky ground.

Here’s a more interesting yet surprisingly obvious counter discourse. Colour counter qualia intersubjective. The intersubjectivity of colour. Counter qualia: not what we (whatever and whoever and where ever where are) perceive as “red”, but rather the eco-social-literary nature of what each subject agrees constitutes “red” within each and every, evolving, ever amorphous, taken to the now … by “red”.

Eco nature. Red: species perceive red and are afraid, fear is red, warning, red alert.

Social: red is warning, but so, along a completely different language game, so is sex, so is the game of pleasure, so red can be substituted, like a pawn reaching the end of the board, for sex, the red room, the scarlet woman.

Literary: Awareness and inscription: the means to production of each and every qualia-oriented metaphysics, the old ones and those to come, by means of interplay between the ecological nature of intersubjectivity and the social/civilizing axis of substitution/exchange within the rules of the either/or language game.


Let us make one footnote with respect to this new concept we submit to the reader: “Ecological intersubjectivity”. By this we do not mean an environmental activism, god no, well, you probably know us well enough now to understand we dislike anything that is situated within the category of “activism”. We mean a phenomenology of the self that is absolutely scientific-in-and-of-its-time: that is to say, a phenomenology that appreciates the constitution of the psyche with respect to the science of our evolution, of our chemistry, of our physical origin, of the mathematics-in-and-of-our-time which is its foundation, as seen now.

For the “ecology” here is of earth: everything that inhabits it, subjects of all sorts, including subjects that are human and hold human relationships, but also relationships of evolution, perception, instinct … Hence passion, hence colour, hence politics, hence war, hence love, hence grief, hence belief and faith, hence despair and rejection, hence rise and fall, hence death and life, hence … hence, understanding of “hence”, of consequence, hence theories, hence the subject across all these consequences, hence inscription, hence the literary, hence the new concept of us, all subjects … “Ecological intersubjectivity”.

So many possibilities to take it, yes? Fear and joy: gargoyles and Tibetan demons, of red and black, evolution dictates they are demonic intersubjective qualia with the worshippers whose prayers are yet protected by these jinn, the loud noise of this depiction to frighten away/to protect, again ecological agreements of relationship and context. From gargoyles to what is protected, worship, purity, white and saffron, fragrance, pleasure, safety, us, we, me and you, intersubjectivity guarded/predicated by red and black. And red/black guarded and predicated by fragrant purity of the angels. Ecologically agreed colours of danger surround those agreed colours of sanctity, and vice versa oroborus, those Churches men build, of whatever religion.

Ah but once these concepts are predicated, there emerges the dual operators over predicates’ premise.

Existential: from red/black bite, experience of subject to danger, this fruit is poison, this berry is dangerous, this snake’s colour means avoid, we agrees, the subjects of species agree, from this red/black, we have experiment, empiricism, precedents based upon experience first hand, and so we can avoid, and have white fragrance, and rainbows to follow the orb/signs’ recursive construction,

Universal: from white comes red/black, protective, to insulate the rainbow to follow their divinely sanction co-recursive shattering.

The new ethnography 1

The new ethnography positions itself as its eponymous sign signifies: new ethnography, in succession to what has come before. But not in opposition, because to conform to a master/slave-Oedipal-translation metric, of the stronger son philosophy to succeed the father, of all that: not in opposition, no.

We acknowledge Boudieu, what we see is seen on the shoulders of gods, or if not gods, important thinkers. Habitus, symbolic capital: embodiment documentation of all games, no matter if they are sub cultural, or current, or obvious, even better, bring them on. That Anglo Saxon movement, sociology PhDs combine and embody!

We use that.

And we acknowlege Levi-Strauss, who, is accompanied by a John to his Jesus, who must be recognized for any student of the latter 20th century, by Derrida, Derridean deconstruction of the Levi-Strauss categorical imperative. Levi-Strauss is embodiment, but with a lie: the presumption of objective geometry of society. Like a diagram could be born of this Right, this Bottom. This Top Top Top, this — Left then Universal Existential function!


Empire’s defined by its geography. But its fundamental drive is the quality of its daily, banal, on the ground management, the rise and fall of empire is dictated by the quality of its programme managers. Not so much the programmes, they’re reasonably arbitrary as long as managed with a real strategy. Strategy, geography, management. These are the three pillars of empire.