1000 years empire of capital

Michael E. schreib:

>This incoherent Heidegger-Juenger-Nietzsche mix as global explanation is
>easy and
>all-encompassing and apocalyptic and therefore perhaps very
>(self-)satisfying, but it depends
>on translating some shaky metaphysics into the ontic realm of worldview.
>
>Woe to those who misrecognize the essence of capitalism.
>But who would risk asking this question again as a genuinely philosophical
>question?
>
>Michael


Hi Michael well having no capital of note to lose i'll risk asking,
hopefully philosophically. it seems, here at the surface, that money,
whether in the form of greenbacks or conch shells, is simply an evolving
medium of attaining a desire by a desiring machine, a machine formed such
that all this partakes only of a degree-measuring thing - the machinic
reactive degrees of "desire, possibility and opportunity" - and there
remains over from this as consideration only those mediums in which the
gathering nexus of these three things impel toward manufacture of the
various petrie dishs needed for their personal nurture and growth as
artificial life forms, as all life is artificial, something conjured by and
from the analogic behavior of the atom and its levels of organ.ization - -

or i guess i mean, capital seems more to do with bio.logical,
psyche.o.logical, or socio.logical science than with philosophic yearning,
nes pas?


ps  i also feel your sense of the apocolyptic straining in the taut strings
of the interchanges here, i suppose it's the outcome of a worry that the
weight of the world is always underweighed by the unconscious or
subconscious body that constantly demands extraordinary control over those
forces that threaten its ongoingness - - most prominently exhibited in the
psyches of those who worry that the force they "are" is inadequate to the
appearances surrounding them and are forced strategically to continually
invent supporting fictions - -

or maybe not
Kenneth




     --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---