The Embodiment: In Concern
Worrisome isn't it?
In-Concern, is simply that, a need to be in-concern, to which one must as in what way are they in-concern. And by this I do not mean a topical interests or subject matter. But rather how does one develop the in-concern. This desire to worry, doubt, and the like. I think in matters of Church or those who simply like to emphasize the irrational embodiment, then it will simply be what one should not do. But that isn't growth, that is a life worth living, that's remaining safe, and as a consequence, in pursuit, which such endeavors are directed toward authoritative appeal on a cosmetic basis. In the US, for many, this is as good as it gets for them. They are safe, they are authoritative in a cosmetic sense; and this is easy to observe through the interactions, in regards to where one is at. That is, have they actually taken on the necessary challenges to break these shells, these irrational veneers, or have they embraced them....and at some point, early on, we all do. However, most continue to embrace these veneers with new displays that promote growth and development, but it's a facade, a hollow life that looks good, but it's as dead as the dead can be. A sanitary nothing, of smiles, of pictures on the walls, of the good times once when. There is no true souring of the life. There is no true breakage, and by that, I mean there isn't a physical response to the psychology. There isn't this intensity of the matter, but rather, there is simply one scrap booking a challenge and pretending that the designation of that challenge warrants growth. No breakage, just a safe framing of danger. This safe framing of danger, is the Embodiment: In-Concern. There is indeed danger, but what does that actually mean. We are risk in the flesh, what is actually safe about us. There isn't anything safe, so why the need to frame otherwise.
The approach is irrational, but as is the case with all forms of embodiment, the irrational category is assumed. So there is this act of categorical splitting in-concern, that assumes there is some basis of truth of matters. A, this is so, moment, without challenging that bound, for which the activity belongs. That is, this is so, this reasoning, remains insofar as itself, so the existence of the language would be that of production, and not of notions of truth in isolation, of categories so certain, there isn't question. The Embodiment: In-Concern is ignorance and it is the foundation for any Critical Discourse or polemics project. And this notion, the modality, of this is so, applies even to these measures of achieving safety, like embodying because that is a good result, because will keep one safe, is the same activity as Critical Discourse. Both approaches to life are different directionalities in-concern. And that's what is seen primarily in the United States, those who protest in-concern, and those who embody the proper roles, safely, free of thought, of no concern, very much In-Concern, not of some argument, but rather of a design. Of utilizing the agency of irrational embodiment. And issue has little to do with what is superficially engaged, the language, but rather the failure to understand the same agency is being utilized, the irrational agency.
Even these debates, these protests, and these pushes to censor, are the same position of agency, of embodying, of demonstrating the, of embodying, to promote what is at issue, In-Concern. And ultimately, the matter goes no where, but towards an irrational and destabilizing society. The alternative, is rational agency, of the reasons, these productions, going insofar as itself, of no truth, no understanding, but rather, a consistency and focus of the production. Informatic thinking directs the mind towards the rational agency, but informatic thinking isn't a part of rational agency. Meaning, informatic doesn't require nor does it utilize the embodied category that is tacitly assumed for both agencies of the dialectic. But in regards to rational agency, informatic thinking is important, as it shuts down the ignorance of the irrational agency, of those operating in-concern, and irrationally so. Informatics directs one towards a production bounded, that is focused and consistent. The nature of organization promoted is rational agency; and it once was the traditional agency of the Church. But the Church no longer commands their agency, and so, they have lost influence; as the irrational embodiment, the material farmings, have dominated the avenue to the point of disrupting the actual agency of the Church.
Communication is in-concern, and though the body, of an irrational existence, does require communication for biological need, any communication no grounded in such needs, unnecessarily promotes the irrationality that is an aspect to this environment. The issue today, that should be realized, is that our language, especially western language, is largely undeveloped, and the understanding of agency has been forgotten; something the ancients reminded us to never forget., of a time, when they would balance non-dialectic with the dialectic. Today the dialectic is assumed. That is, assumed insofar there isn't a challenge. Informatics is this challenge, that western thinking cannot respond to. Even to note of the smiling faces around me, arrogantly, soliciting conversation as if one is going to rework and implement the irrational devices of the existing Church-Lost, of an organization that broke form its own traditions. Of a group that feels so sure of itself, that it can run intelligence, and craft a characterization that will somehow sweep these informatic challenges under the rug. And I expect this, considering those comforted by the irrational agency, have no heart for humans, but rather their power, and the subhumans that can provide for them; and all of it looks so human, so kind and caring, of these sentimental beings who need their help. And these desires of deficit characterizations, that's my red flag, and I have no need for defending, I'll play the part as well as I can and observe where these minds prefer to take the matter. After all, they have their reasons, they have their communication, and yet, there isn't a soul in the bunch that says....stop. I wonder why that is. Of what tradition to we belong to today. Is it the superficiality of the symbol that will save these souls?
Have at it. I have to move on, and that includes moving away from utilizing the in-concern, for presenting the challenge of western thinking, that will not be able to respond properly to any of this, without acknowledging the irrational agency currently being used, that is rock-hard, that has no defenses or strategies against ancient wisdom, her innovation, her challenges that demand rational agency. And rational agency is being demanded, and by design, this hermetic party, of nice smiles, affectations of happiness, and promotions of one's humanism; it's over, and those who cling to this absurd display in-concern will be thoroughly washed. Good luck!
And yes, I communicate and irrationally so, with this in-concern embodiment, this need to speak....but that isn't what I actual do....one does have the opportunity to direct their attention towards the means and methods of informatic modeling if the choose. But again, there are those who like their anecdotes, not only of what I say, but have also given me the privilege of visiting at my place of work, or enlisting the eyes at work to report back, is this not the case? Either way, how I relate to language, I am very specific. In high school, I was very quiet. In college I decided to crack that crust, and I'll likely be quiet once again, but understand this is a very different kind of quiet. Something of an actionable production that isn't tied to the expectations of those who benefit from the irrational agency, these embodied performances endorsed for the basis of cosmetic authority. This actionable production is in promotion of the rational agency, the American agency, that commanded the very founding of this country....the agency that once dominated the Churches but no longer, the agency that once dominated the messages of Hollywood, and the interests of American academia, but no longer. And yes, I question, to those of imprudence why is that, but ultimately, that isn't my focus, as my work, my path...I'm well aware of what I am to do, and that of which holds our bound, that of which created this design, that the ancients discussed, in regards to what sustains and drives power and what all of these rock-hard embodiments mean, what happens to these great victors of the goosestep, I have no need to be in-concern or worried. These ancient waters, this challenge by that of rational agency, this informatic thinking, will feed the rock of those who seek the anecdotes characterization, the private disclosures of cosmetic authority, to embody that of which the irrational need embodied, to sub-humanism in the name of their kind and caring humanism.
I can hear the waves crashing.
Note: That's an important memory when I was in High School. There were these compliments about my quietness, same in my first few years of college, and slowly I understood what that ways, and this desire to like how quiet I was; and ultimately the ignorance behind it as I actually read through swaths of information in a critical manner, like that of a Scottish Regent, not of a trivializing pretentious manner, of anecdotal discussions rather than general patters...and what has happened to the US makes sense, and these attitudes, these knowledgeable kids who haven't even proven who they are or put in the proper rigors to understand, well they certainly know how to assess don't they. And the older adults who haven't put in the proper rigors as well....their quiet emptiness shouldn't be considered for anything but wisdom....I'm simply happy that I was at least aware enough to start shattering the glass house and largely rejecting the golden cage. It's such a dead nothing life, to have any one of those square arrangements.
[For informatic production]
