Politics as.. philosophical?

Further to what I said in that other thread in Interpretation, in light of this it now becomes possible to split politics into two parts, the political as such and the political as philosophical; the latter being our main interest and still an enigma, while the former is concerned with all technical administering requirements of society and economy, also includes the negotiated requirements between differing psychologies, personalities, and all the inevitable arbitrariness that pervades so much of the world and human life.

To be accurate we should say that that in politics which we call philosophical is not political but is more like one part of the philosophical which has manifested secondarily to itself, from the realm of pure thought to the realm of daemonic action. Philosophy reflects daemonism and it is no less true that man himself, and his societies, reflect a daemonism; philosophy is "trying [as much as possible, these limits being set by universality bending toward man] to seek the heart of all conflicts", while politics is in an opposite fashion, "trying [as much as possible, these limits being set by man attempting to rise to the universal] to avoid the heart of all conflicts". Philosophy wants to know, politics wants to "be", which requires being responsive to that point at which knowledge is arrested and one instead 'acts'.

The limits of politics qua philosophical secondary expression are set implicitly by the structures of human psychology and by the laws for how these relate to each other, and of course by the material constraints of existence in combination with all of the arbitrary, accident and random or uncontrolled in the world or in the human heart. It is a very large space: politics is quite large, but if we consider the two sides of politics here enumerated we see this space is not homogenous in kind, that the first part, the political as such, is volumous of all that accident, random and un-controlled, likewise of the constant imposition of material constraints and limitations that everywhere bound human processes of self-expression or social development, whereas that the second part, the political as philosophical, is volumous of the great impossibilities for a thought-process of knowledge to translate itself meaningfully into the world as action, as the elements and requirements of that world and given the first political sphere of politics as such. If politics is a positive substance we can only trace philosophy upon this substance by looking negatively at those politics-- we cannot simply point to this or that philosophically-influenced marker or idea that has become causal to some event or process we call political, because such phenomena are, even if originally philosophically-inspired, merely dead ideas frozen into false forms for the sake of becoming an active constituent in a political field of determination.

Like anything else, the more conscious we become of the positivistic expressive substance the more we also become aware, if only at first in an intuitive way, of a problem that runs deeper throughout that substance and through our consciousness of it, that problem being the existence of the negative domain which impels the substance upward into its reality and cannot be adequately captured by that substance which we might say is reflecting or "representing" it; here we are talking about politics and if philosophy is possible to it, which means that in order to understand this we must patiently observe the political in itself and divorce its pure elements from its false ones; we must read into history and the heart alike the more minute variances and determining factors in order that we become able to split out the proper philosophical elements and identify these for study, if indeed we even find that they exist there.

My biggest problem with political philosophy here or elsewhere is that these questions are simply assumed answered and no attempt is made to ask "how is philosophy even possible to politics?" given the fact of another central problem which is equally unasked, namely "what is 'politics' anyway?" So I am going to work on these problems and begin to create a more true philosophy of politics so we can determine if, at all, anything of philosophy lives in our political realities. Anyone who wants to help is encouraged and appreciated.

Ok.

The heart of all conflicts.

Does this matter? First question.

Largely, no. Mostly dumb confusion.

But there is one heart of all conflict, the heart-despite-politics.

Ressources.

Politics has asked: for who?

Further: for what Country? Within countries, mindless mechanisms.

For mechanisms.

From where?

From mechanisms.

Not all men can bleed.

For what?

Politics has answered: confort.

What do people who cannot bleed need for confort?

They need to be let to bleed a little. Jobs cannot be bloodless.

Why jobs?

To bleed a little.

What mechanisms lead to jobs?

Need for confort. A man cannot bleed for confort.

(In Defence of Freud: he saught instinct in jobs: surgeon - butcher)

A man cannot bleed for instinct (isn't instinct what bleeds?).

What can a man bleed for?

Freedom.

A man must own to bleed.

What can a man own in a job that extracts and transforms ressources?

Philosophy is too high.

Chemestry is too raw.

Why trust a chemist with ressources?

Confort?

A man who can only bleed a little, what can he aspire to other than confort?

Politics has answered: fake-bleed.

What is smaller than patriotism?

Ressources lies at the heart of all politics, not just state politics (state politics being perhaps the more banal representation).

Here is when potheads can really help.

What fucked up fun ways are there to understand this problem?

Ressources. Water.

How do you convince a person to get philosophy water? They have itching questions we have no answers for. What a failure for philosophy!

I don't give a fuck if Heidegger.

What are those itching questions, anyway?

In my experience, people are happy to bring me stuff. All it takes is an intelligent smile, a sharing of something they don't have but trust.

Why would they trust me? I have been hated plenty, too.

Philosophers must take a cue from artists: find the people that trust us (in their case, love them).

We must first trust that we can deliver constant intelligent smile in exchange for the ressources.

...

Astronomy...?

.....

That is motherfucking right, astronomy.

The power of the cosmos.

I guess rocket scientists had already figured THIS one out.

Astrology has more funk, but its language is too silly. Science language's original legitimacy was in astronomy.

Astrosophy.

Dunno...

Astrostheny? What was that word Nietzsche had for friends of wisdom?

Too dishonest...

Cosmonomy?

Ok, different question (Plato, you easy-answers fuck): why does philosophy deserve resources?

Ah, the dragon at last!

This is why I did drugs.

My own, private, personal veredict: I need more good solid philosophy.

But I don't want to be a fucking dragon.

My own, private, personal veredict, updated?

Politics won't do.

It won't do at all.