Everything is what it is, unless its something else...

What is difference? What is commonality? Do there exist objects that are totally and completely different? An object that shares no common ground or qualities with any other object, and is fundamentally separate from the set of all objects that are not it? Would such an object be fated to exist in a dialectic struggle of epic proportions against the rest of existence? And what can one say of the abstract object, those termed ideologies, which contain whole and complete structures of thought and decision? Can an ideology stand-alone, or must it always, either tacitly, implicitly or ostensibly, name an other? Can synthesis mean the triumph of one ideology over its complement? That is to say: does the dialectical process ensure the survival of both ideologies, either in whole or in part, or does it mean the destruction of one ideology in favor of the survival the other? Or do ideologies, by their very nature require a synthesis that results in a new and unnamed object which possesses the entirety of assumptions and reasonings of each competing ideology? Must this 'Synthesis' encompass and utilize the properties of each proposition equally? Does objectivity exist? Or is the existence of this 'Synthesis' the ultimate measure and creator of objectivity? At what point does objectivity emerge as a thing unto itself, which does not exist in relation to the struggle that created it but as something independent of the dialectic that birthed it? Or does this 'Synthesis' merely provide the illusion of conclusion? Does not the struggle continue with the 'Synthesis' and drive it forward in to more complex and layered forms of conflict?

And what if objectivity exists? Is there any among us who would dare to claim objectivity as an absolute? Or, to state it more bluntly, that objectivity has a firm existence such that it defines itself without qualification. (Can one thing be more unique? Can a fact or opinion or statement be more objective than another?) Does the mere determination of objectivity render all points moot that are not deemed to be objective? And if one were to create such a belief system, what would ensue? How would we as beings blessed with creativity and thought come to understand, know and apply such a thing? Would this ultimate objectivity give us the map that we need to find our way out of the woods and to banish the darkness with the light of reason? And if, for but a moment, we grant that such a thing may exist, how would we know this objectivity? Would it speak to us as a voice of math and organization? As a thing that we know aesthetically? As a thing that we know we know; in other words, as a thing that is apparent and clear to all human beings due to reasons that may be biological, psychological, spiritual? Then, if it is one of these things, which would should we pursue? Should science guide us; or god lead us; or the state decide for us?

One can speak objectively for and from oneself. One can objectively identify the world as it is presented to her/him at a given point in time and space, but this world, this universe, this world view belongs only to the individual who experiences it at that finite point. And yet the world can only be experienced through the individual. So do we attempt to synthesize all world views and standpoints? To bring together all to one? Or do we see that this is impossible and that we would only end up with a disjointed and contradictory universe that builds itself through self-destruction and conflagration?
And so I have found myself in yet another quandary. Life is...life is mine...life is mine for the taking...life is destined to be taken...life will go on...life will end...

So I wonder...sipping my hemlock and blathering at the guard; and I still wonder: if everything is what it is and not anything else, then what happens when things change?

How am I not myself...?

So what now do we, as agents of the empire, do? At what point can we trace back and connect our culpability to our existence? To understand and to experience the reality of the situation? At what point does the hypothetical, the theoretical, the possible hypostatize itself and intertwine itself in existence and enter into our communal subconscious? When does an idea gain power? How does any idea hold power? Can’t inattention to or ignorance of an idea give it just as much power as if one were to brood and obsess over it for years?

With all the technology and marvel of this modern world there are certain things that we cannot experience directly. I can watch as a rocket reduces the façade of a building, of a home, to nothing but timber and piping; but I cannot smell the smoke of the explosion, or feel the heat in the embers or feel the concusive force of the device. So what does that matter? Does my lack of physicality with the event some how reduce or erode the validity of my observations? Or does the mere knowledge and understanding of an event give me the ability to speak with a voice that has a right to be heard and spoken? At what point may I begin to speak and what point do I stand? Should problems of the state be approached from the standpoint of a citizen of the state? Or as an agent of the state? (Is there a difference?) May one call back upon his heritage and socio-economic status, ethnic status and educational background to formulate a position that weighs with some relevance upon the status quo?

And so…though I may be distanced by the physical I find myself ever more engrossed by the transcendence that technology brings us. No matter what the barrier, or the distance, or the time; we will find the connection that is essentially human, we will find the connection that is essentially us. But now must I ask one more question, one that has been posed before and answered numerous times, and will continue to be querried and responded to, and in this answer, elusive and amorphous, we find ourselves and we find the other. And the deeper we probe the more we find that each is connected and each is one and the same. We are our own nemesis and our own savior.

And what now from here?

So what is it that we are witnessing? And what does it mean to us to witness? As people? As a community? As a state? As the innumerable states of being and standpoints that overlap and sublimate each other that are encompassed by the inclusive 'we'?

What makes the current conflict in the Middle East so troublesome is its very intricately linked nature. Each conflict; having been named Iraq, Gaza and Lebanon (and one might now venture to view Iran as part of this group or as a party to each.), exists within in own historicity and finds itself inherently linked to conflicts that are simultaneously occurring. And what we find is that we as Americans are also intertwined in this conflagration. We have been backers and allies, merchants and robber barons, liberator and executioner. And we all have benefitted and suffered from this entanglement. The distances that physically divide us are no longer a barrier to our interconnectivity. At any point in time I can use a number of media to listen or watch the dropping of bombs across the world. To see the President make a live statement from mid-air. To read and comment on the thoughts of people strewn across the planet.

When we sit here on this side of the world, on this side of the port, on this side of the television, what is it that we can really see? One could make the argument that our media, ie the studios and corporately owned mega-media outlets like Fox and NBC and the rest, determines our point of view and is the lens solely through which we may experience the rest of the world. And at one point this may have been true. But now it is much different. With the birth of the internet and wireless communications we have left the realm of the then and entered the realm of the now. At any point in time it is possible to consume virtually any media from any part of the globe, and it has now become possible for much of the rest of the world to participate in this exercise. But this is all mundane, and assumed already as you are by no doubt consuming this particular media through one of the aforementioned methods.

But to the heart of the matter, for that is where we originally aimed before our foray into matters technological and communicative. How have we as the citizens of the United States contributed to these conflicts? And how we do we continue to drive them? The answers to these questions are long and far reaching. Culpability stretches from the steps of congress to the steps up the porch, from the halls of power to the freeways of the proletariet, from we as a nation with economic, military and political influence, to each one of us as micro-political agents. Each one of us lives a life of privledge and excess riding on the backs of other nations and the suffering of other people. We each consume and are nourished by the fruits of these labors. So then, in the midst of this strife and with the knowledge of our ouwn accountability, what are we to do? Where are we to go from here?

Its War

WAR

What is it good for?
As I watch the Wagnerian news programs that populate the mediashpere I am driven to question the aims and motives of the benevolent 5th estate.
The drums of war are beating with gleeful abandon as masked anchors veil their excitement with concern and faux intellectualism while pontificating through the news cycle. They all ask the same questions; What are the implications for the region? How does this affect the US? What can be done by the international community to stop the violence?
Banal and mundane questions meant to obscure the true matter at hand. These simplistic queries do nothing but affirm the prevailing assumptions under which the media would seem to exist.
And above all things, and with much audacity, these minions of moguls dare to ask this: What is the cause?
Why is this such a transgression? What's wrong with that question? Who the hell are you, you may be driven to contemplate.
This is such an egregious misuse of our inquisitive media because they accept the answer that is given by the politicians and powermongers. We are told that it is because of a series of kidnappings and some pot shot rockets. Are we to believe that these civilizations are going to war because 3 soldiers are missing and novice rocket engineers fire futiliy into enemy territory? If one were to listen to CNN and FOX and MSNBC and NPR and etc...then we would certainly believe this fairy tale. We would believe that these civilizations have been locked in mortal combat since the dawn of time. We would find it quite reasonable that this is an irrational conflict borne from genetic wounds that were inflicted millenia ago and have since festered and motasticized into the current conflagration.

Surely, and I say this as though my life depends upon an affirmative response, the people of the world do not believe this bullshit? Please let it be the case the we, as a community, know and feel that we have been hoodwinked. Dear lord let it be true that we do accept the value of these statements as true!

The causes of this conflict reach far back into the early 20 century, the end of colonization and the birth of global capitalism. It might even be wise to postulate that the origins of this problem strech back farther, to the very advent of capitalism. But, either way does not fundamentally change the ground on which we currently stand. Deep within the darkened and smokey corridors of power the fate of the world was drawn. With a blind eye to the future men laid lines and devined fates that have now come to be. And we sit at this point in history, left floating amongst the mistakes that are not ours, and we drive on ceaselessly into the night making the same mistakes of our fathers.

So what is it that we are to do here? Which way are we to go...?