terminal 0
unfinished
NEFX - The_Tricks_of_the_Malicious_Folly_of_Being-as-Subset It is all too easy to arrange culturally codified perspectives in a false dichotomy or closed “full” spectrum of conceivable thought (as widely recognized and sanctioned by that culture), and to then portray as though both that thoughtforms predicated against being-as-such are but the hapless unfortunate outcrop of a fixable or laughingly ignorable naivety or cultural aberration that is somehow easily includable as part of the total enterprise of beings…and also that those toiling for the sake of being-as-such at the expense of culturally codified convenience, familiarity, and known societal-structural givens are but a byproduct or mirror image of the former out of the common societal sense of “disruption” that occurs from both (which is dependent anyway upon the society’s present general range of thought and ideology, which ever-shift especially in response to such conflicts and their according widely-known key or historically emphasized events, viewed often through amnesiac nostalgic sanitized rearview lenses). In such thought, preservation of being-as-such with reference to subsets of being is misrepresented (perhaps deliberately) as preservation merely of BEING-AS-SUBSET, to the degree that fighting against the inherent opposition to being-as-such that being-as-subset represents is disingenuously said to be by proxy actually against being-as-such by being against the Blightgeistian PRIZING of being-as-subset -- and Blightgeistian culture at large clings to this as showing that fighters for the former are AT LEAST as dangerous. In Blightgeistian and especially Erosive thought (however disingenuous), being-as-subset IS being-as-such, and defense of the one is defense of the other. Under Erosive thought, the presence of a humanly distinguished enemy — a ground, a chosen technical form of communication, a biological relation — can serve as a source of passion in the absence of any other of sufficient certainty, with the resentment of this latter fact channeled into passion for the former. Erosive thought cannot conceive of the righteousness of systemic upheaval except through rosy retrospect as it pertains to current conditions that the Erosive agent may not ever conceive of as being distinctly good so much as merely familiar, as “right” by the mere fact that it is a present or pre-eminent societal given, whose cause was right “back then” but would be wrong now and even aligned with the being-trouncers of yore; and still other Erosive agents abhor such conditions but may hide this fact in different mass avenues to gain social leverage for when they will reveal their honest prejudices and malicious designs much later after a certain threshold of secured power is passed. After all, Erosive thought views death of a being vessel, generally speaking, as either its failure or, conditionally, a failure of a third party against the Blightgeist and Erosion in particular.