Our society’s emphasis on competition (which involves ego and greed), rather than cooperation, is central to human problems today.

Even when we do cooperate it’s usually in the context of competition against some other group.


Heidegger argues that the traditional ways of conceiving technology are inadequate. Neither the anthropological view that technology is one form of human activity among many (e.g. including also praxis and theoria), nor the instrumentalist view that technology is a neutral tool, a means to an end that can be calculated and controlled by conscious human direction, grasps the essence of modem technology.23 For Heidegger, technology is a distinctive way of revealing or relating to Reality. As such it is never simply under conscious human control, for technology’s distinctive mode of revealing Reality always stands prior to any conscious act taken on the basis of what is already revealed.
Now a situation occurs where nothing stands in any sense. The world ceases to have any “otherness” for man; Reality dissolves into a variety of abstractions; nothing is present; there is no here here. Only by initially treating Reality as object can modem science so set upon the world that it can transform it into standing reserve. The irony is that in the process objectivity dissolves completely. Modem objectification transforms itself into the loss of the world. When this happens, the subject-which initially projected objectivity-no longer has any place to stand. In the account of Being and Time modem man is “everywhere and nowhere.‘lz4 Without its object, a subject no longer has any Being
Heidegger thinks that art reveals reality in a way that is closer to the original,
pre-Socratic understanding of Being as ale’thia and physis, where reality brings itself
to stand. Such a relation is important to Heidegger because he has concluded that
only within this kind of relation to reality is genuine human dwelling and rootedness
possible. “Dwelling” for Heidegger means having around one a world that is familiar,
within which man can act with a good conscience and without adopting the detached
stance of irony and cynicism. “Dwelling” is the alternative to the rootlessness and
homelessness Heidegger attributes to technological world. And true dwelling requires
poetry: “Poetically man dwells.“35


(post withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 24 hours unless flagged)







The United States Constitution is a design for a government with three branches, Legislative, Judicial, and Executive. An Executive is needed for very few things, and power should be limited. Unfortunately, most Americans do not pay attention to any office besides the President; meanwhile the Judicial branch is not doing anything to reverse the trend of Executive Orders which expand the power of the President, and the Legislative branch is not taking their responsibility as the sole body which can declare war. Rather than eliminate the Executive branch entirely, which would be a mistake, what we really need to do is rein in the powers of the President to restore balance.

There is a lot to be said for a Triumvirate, Troika, or Triarchy of equal powers, rather than allowing one branch to take over.


thank you for this thought


an interesting bit of american democracy is playing out live right now, i’ve been listening to it on and off during work for a few hours.




How different would the world be if we believed Anita Hill?


Concurrence: Rehnquist, joined by Scalia, Thomas

An Inconvenient Truth



This is the one I always think of and bring up–and actually what I was thinking about as I was drawing. It seems like people have amnesia about this one in particular, but I think I remember it so vividly because I was living in Florida at the time.



We are on the wrong timeline. In the right one, Clarence Thomas was never a Supreme Court Justice.


To anybody personally struggling right now as a result of these hearings and all it dredges up…i feel you. :(:pensive:


If the tragedy weren’t so horrifically dark, I might almost be capable of laughing along with a friend’s synopsis:

Really enjoying the season finale here. I love how it’s tying together a lot themes, both as reprise to ask us, the audience, to revisit our thoughts on previous episodes, and as in-world tit-for-tat between team red and team blue.

There’s the flat denial of an inappropriate sexual encounter, drilling down into words and semantics. There’s that whole thread from last season about the judicial pick just before an election. The last-moment reveals that may or may not be intentionally timed (brilliant!) and may or may not sway a vote (mm hm). The victim grilling. And always against the silent backdrop of a pervert president.

(Bill Clinton:Kavanaugh, Merrick Garland:Kavanaugh, Comey’s late emails:Blasey et al, Anita Hill:Blasey, Clinton:Trump)

The writers are masterfully tying together a lot of early plot lines, moral themes, and character motivations leading to this denouement. So many reasons to cry.

Today’s gonna be a great cliffhanger.

The timelike loops are a bit much. Somebody ought to hit the brakes on this writers’ room.


I was too young to remember Anita Hill. Maybe there was the question there of whether or not she was believed. What is undeniable today, in the wake of yesterday’s senate hearings, is that even when believed…it doesn’t matter.