Classicisticaly Idealistic Politics

Wassup ladies & gents comrade fellow cyborgs!

Yo wassup!

The topic I would like us to contemplate now is by far the most inspirational and clearly pivotal for: a) our gatherings; b) anyone’s sense of communality; c) each person’s understanding of domesticity.

I more trust your sense of something being inspirational than how your argumentation aims at convincing me.

Cheers! I rely on your sense of what I find inspirational. That said, let’s talk about politics!

Yo! You start coz it ain’t easy to crack that nut.

Truth be told, fellow meditator. Accept your request I shall. Without further ado, I am dying to hear what you think about the current state of affairs considering human participation in public matters.

Hey, wait a sec! I was born and raised in the family of radical skeptics. While I am endlessly grateful for the political stance, I also take enormous pleasure in the fact that it never developed into cynicism. In addition, I have to admit that my upbringing presented me with the view that categorically excludes the term public from philosophico-political debate by virtue of there being nothing it can be contrasted, juxtaposed, and / or opposed to.

Gottcha, fellow comrade. Point taken, let’s move on. Presuming that each person-individual does partake in some kind of exchange, be it even radically unpublic, there are questions of pressing importance, among which I would select the following to be the focus of the remix.

Sun-splashed leaves reflect the light on the vibrating surface of the river. The river is smiling. The flavored smile emanates mild vanilla vibes over the apexes of the water dunes. Crystals of gleamy foam sprinkle the air. The music of the clouds showers the mountains.

Say more!

There you go. Methinks that I am urged to think about certain issues every time a dude presiding congress, parliament, or some such shit addresses the audience, thereby, supposedly, addressing me, you, and everybody else, as well as the universe itself.

I have no memory of being addressed by any of such big shots, big fish, or whadeva.

No, but they hold a different view. How’s that for starters?!

Me like it no. But if you say what prompts your thoughts in the direction of having a conversation like this, I might like what you say, but not also what is being said about it by the dudes in question.

Cool. Now, I think it’s spectacularly intriguing to think about drugs. The only thing more interesting than that is thinking about politics of drugs, drugs of politics, and related combinations. More than once has one been labeled a radically conservative anti-drug basher by the likes of presiding dudes and his or her audiences, as well as those who are, presumably, indirectly addressed. Those who so unashamedly stigmatize the spirit of grooviologist critical thinking must have either an extremely recreational, or, extremely active approach to mind altering substances.

If I may: the former would be an enthusiastic novice, while the latter would be rightly protective of his or her experience.

Without taking into account anybody else’s experience. Or enthusiasm for that matter.

Which should not preclude our taking into account a third possibility likely to include the abovementioned two. The third possibility is that such supposedly radically progressive and liberating thinking is heavily manipulated and results from noisy distortions of ideas. Frequently, the distortions are, in fact, revenue-induced blindness causing overlooking the fact that legalization of mind altering substances might be called an end to organized crime, but it can also become institutionalized crime. Once drugs are legalized, a drug addict needs no drug dealer to score from. This does not exclude the need to buy drugs from the authorized merchandizer. In many cases such need will entail means of getting money not be entirely different from how addicts achieve such goals within the rule of organized crime.

To me it sounds like a confusion that happens when humanity gets desensitized to literature. As a result, there is a tendency to render meta everything that it is not.

Say more!

Sure. There is the object level and there is the meta level. Originating in philosophy in strictly terminological sense, the distinction also concerns the level of storytelling versus the everyday. Once these levels and distinctions are blurred, realities are transformed into meta-orgies-of-everything-can-be-combined-with-anything-else.

Sounds uncool to me.

Same here.

Like fuck! And yet, not only are multiple realities rendered meta, but there is a tendency for multiple meta levels within the existing ones. To demystify the issue, lemmie say that while it is acceptable to have story within a story, it is ultimately abhorring to, instead of simply legal state, have rule of law.

If it does not strike you as redundant, you should think fast.

Fast enough to say that not only does it exude bad smell of ambiguity targeted to corrode human communication, but is utterly disgusting in exercising the power of the olympian sentiment.

If you think that such sentiment includes subsidized addiction, you might, as well, be right. In ethnic terms, it would be an equivalent to genocide, or, to what some mafotherfuckers call institutionalized slavery. But this is different.

Right on. Anyhow, my sense is that such a situation entails major shifts in the perception of the public which stopped being public when a civil dialogue became an obsolete genre.

By the same token, the confusion amongst the levels of signification and everything else can turn public spaces into potential sites of deliberately consuming whatever can be consumed. Thus, instead of secretly smoking / injecting/ snorting/ or however they “choose” to chase their pleasures, addicts can do it unconstrainedly whenever and wherever they want. The fact that to some “purists,” such as kids, for example, it might seem a bit awkward is, apparently, irrelevant. Fiscal logic says what the body needs should not be alien to a human. That logic sounds like bullshit. 

Exactly! Among the shifts in perception is the permeating sense that political discourse might easily be the prime example of empty signification. Novices and old guard alike can discuss heteronormativity, while the signifiers in such a debate would include the following: breeze, opening buds, fine dusty particles greeting oxygen.

Which they do!

They certainly fucking do! Another example of empty signification is talking about ecology, while deploying signifiers such as rock & roll, punk rock, and hard rock. One can also think of hours spent on painstaking efforts to come to agreement about new legislation for managing poverty in the slums of any settlement of our 

Arctic Native Ye Beloved.

If I had such a porn mind, I’d imagine that the signifiers would include, but be not limited to, the following: bail out, longevity, overpopulation, posterity, fiscal poetics.

No!!!!! Never could I distort my fragile mind to the point of fantasmagorizing of being a dosh poet.

Like fuck! Neither could I.

Now, what to say about such unpublic discourse?

Well, first of all, it is disguised in civil robes. Secondly, that, unlike yours and / or mine mundane thinking about finding ways of living dignified life of fulfillment, theirs deals in ideals. The ideals can be encapsulated by the overarching idea called the fiscal sublime.

Hey! Don’t call aesthetic which it is not!

Very good. Now, how do we, scum of the fucking thought, figure out what the fuck they talk about when they talk about politics?

Ladies & Gents, comrade fellow mafotherfucker cyborgs! I’m afraid we cannot devise a clue for cracking the nut called politics. What we can, though, is idly entertain the possibility of persisting in the conviction that signification in political discourse aims at not permitting one to understand it from a certain point of view. The realization about such a possibility should invigorate further pursuing the means of detecting such a point of view, transformative of itself. Knowing that the taboo perspective is a bait, we will just smile and endure in disambiguating the confusion. Put differently, we continue purging the communication channel. Because clarity, you know, is of the essence.