Taking Risks in Increasingly Regulated Publik Worldhood

What is worldhood?  What does it mean to be 'in-the-world'?  What, yea- is the 'worldhood-of-the-world'?  Well, I pose this question in the context of the terminology of Martin Heidegger, but not to make exacting philosophical remarks but to lay the horizon upon which one can discuss the meaning of the potential Obamatax increase in the oft obliquely understood taxation of U.S. citizens.  I will make a short case for the idea that the incoming increase in taxation is more than simply an increase on out of pocket expenses paid to the gov'ment.  Further, it is more than simply an expanse of federal/state power and prevalence.  What next years taxation deal really means is - to a fine point - more governmental control and dominance over, of necessity, sovereign citizens (i.e. all legal U.S. citizens).  Civilians on the street, come next year, will find themselves in an even more 'progressive' world.  This would be meaningless if it were not for the ontology of being-in-the-world.

Taxing the rich is, to some, a clear form of social justice-style class warfare.  Perhaps you've encountered this argument before.  Why this has meaning beyond the apparent is that when one, say - as a president - decides to make anti-wealth rhetoric a keystone of their pitch to increase taxation on all citizens, one is engaging in a form of downwardly-mobile governmental collectivism.  The effects of such policy decisions - not to mention the existent value system which is part and parcel with the neo-progressive 'cause' - can only truly be understood in terms of Freedom in light of certain phenomenological underpinnings regarding what Martin Heidegger, disciple of Holderlin, Kierkegaard and Czech Jew Husserl who spawned the methodological level upon which Heidegger posited an horizon of understanding, termed the "Worldhood-of-the-World".

It's a basic "what do these formalizations in D.C. really mean for us - pragmatically?"


I'm far from a scholar - but let's look at the facts...

We are, unequivocally, 'in' a world.  That is, we are 'beings' (i.e. entities) that are constantly 'being' (i.e. existing) in the 'world' or a 'world'.  Being as such, we have what is known as 'worldhood'.  We have a manner of being that is consistent with and partially constitutive of what we understand as the world.  This is, proximally and for the most part, an everyday understanding.  It is, as Hegel noted, a world of, again - proximally and for the most part - merely apparent phenomenological apprehension... Which is to say, you can't, say... see an atom, or accurately predict weather from your seat in your car as you drive to an engagement such as work.

So what is our 'apparent' worldhood?  What is constitutive of it?

My answer is, it is not apparent.  This isn't to imply some sort of grand mystery - but simply to note that Obama has an impact on our worldhood.  He, and his regime, actively distort, engineer/impact, or make existent objects of consciousness that constitute our world.  If they didn't, and I understand this is a fairly conspiratorial thesis, they wouldn't have power...

























So, you enjoy your objects of consciousness, correct?


What are objects of consciousness?

Well, whatever apparent verstehen one could conjur - you don't need a dictionary.




My thesis is thus - The increase in taxes post-2012 will directly parallel an increase in how manufactured our objects of consciousness are in their factical existance as part of our 'totality-of-tools' as americans.

Much of this is painfully pragmatic - an increase in federal regulation doesn't merely stifle business... it, in fact, has a relationship of esoteric interdependence.

My final point goes as such:

There is no such thing as 'interdependence'.  'Interdependence' is just a synonym for..........(scroll down)






































.....for 'dependence'.


"Live for independence from downwardly directed intellectual malarky!  Read Heidegger's 'Being and Time' (Zein und Zeit) in it's entirety!  It comes more than highly recommended! Thanks and Seasons Greetings from Domestic Democracy United.  Christ shall be in his kingly character in this- the year of our lord, 2012!"

Brendan O'Connell

Written while listening to Rush~

Disclaimer : Heidegger was a classico-socialist in germany during world war 2, and I hate to make apologetic - but sorry for referencing a Nazi during the holiday season... it's simply that Heidegger's Ontology IS the reigning formulation of 20th century philosophy, so to speak of ontology generally one MUST reference Heidegger extensively (this is understood in intellectual circles in the Continent).  I am not nor have ever been a socialist - and am aware of the anti-socialism slant of my blog being somewhat in contradiction to my use of Heidegger in Politalk.  It's simply, as someone who takes the intellectual realm seriously, that there is no way around Heidegger within contemporary Philosophy... and I truly feel sorry for the Neo-Utilitarians who fail to recognize the gravity of his Deconstruktion.  "Basic Writings" is a shorter alternative to grappling with "Being...", though I must comment that his later writings, much as with Hegel and his "Phenomenology...", such as "Basic Writings" are far more politically Socialist than his 'non-ethics' in "Zein und Zeit".... So you know - pick up Basic Writings for the philosopher on yr X-Mas ;list... Available at most bookstore's philosophy section.  Most copy's are brilliant red with large black font on the cover.  But don't expect to understand H. without, at some point in your life, coming face to face with "Being...".  In my defense, "Being..." was written far before the Nazi party became in vogue, not to mention dedicated to Husserl, the Czech Jew I mentioned previous.  Again, in my defense, I read Basic Writings and literally threw it in the garbage can at a certain point where I realized that his later works are a bit more National Socialist than his early phenomenological work - "Being and Time".
Second Disclaimer : Please forgive 30 to 40 percent of comments I've made that appear overly hostile.  If Gangnam Style-star Psy can get away with saying "kill the f_ing yankees" and then play live at the whitehouse surely a starve-crazed southern gent as myself can be forgiven of wandering into ideological terrain which should, in all likelyhood, remain redacted.