The Crisis is Us!

By Maria Odete Madeira

Crisis is the generalized threatening referent and reference that pulverizes the daily cognitive dynamics of the now-human-present, with the permanent alert that it is the case that we are in the imminence of collapsing as a species, and that not even the mercantilization of the crisis, as resource to an unwise opportunistic desperate maintenance of the current structures of economic, political, military and social power, is able to erase the evidence that is there for all to see: we have arrived, as other species before us, at an evolutionary dead end which appears to menace us with the status of failed species.

As notion, crisis synthesizes a dynamics of separation, intrinsically linked to the systemic clinamen (Epicurus), understanding by clinamen a capability that the systems have to spontaneously deviate themselves from their trajectories, making obsolete the hypertextualized notion of control.

In the situations of crisis, the systems intensify, in the retension, an autopoietic of undecidability that endangers, in the protension, the concreteness of the following moment.

In the retension is: the game, the rules, the names, the verbs, the signs, the meanings, the desires, the will, the rhythms, the myths, the rites, the potency; in the protension is: the act, the fact, the event.

Any existent, each existent, is a system, be that existent a relational topos or an organism, which means that when one speaks of global systemic crisis one is signalizing a dynamics of catastrophe systemically enacted towards levels of collapse that include the extinction by disaggregation of lives, of values, of dignity, and in which the system ceases to compute itself, as systemic entity, to compute itself as a dynamics of crisis that feeds, necessarily, from the crisis itself, in desperate autophagy.

By cathexized reflexive hypertextual sublimation, the crisis has become a commodity, a product; borrowing from Baudrillard: an object disappearing in its own horizon, dragging the seduced agent. We live for the crisis, feeding ourselves from the crisis because it is all that we have, because it is all that is left of ourselves, in ourselves.

The notion of reflexivity, with origin in the Latin reflexu, synthesizes a dynamics of folding upon oneself, in oneself. In the assentment that reflexivity, in the human agents, is linked to the conscious processes/dynamics of projection of images, incorporated in the cognitive syntheses of reflexive systemic judgment production, also stated as intelligible and rational, being, precisely, the exercise of reflexivity that allows a greater interpretative effectiveness in the exchanges with the environment, indispensible to the permanent and adaptive integrity of the human systemic networks, the question occurs to us: what “kind” of phenotypic effects are being synthesized by the neurocognition of risk?

What images are we projecting of ourselves and of the world? What are we capable of perceiving, evaluating and desiring?

To what point are there being organismically blocked the homeostatic mechanisms signalizers of the presence of vital risk? And what “kind” of risk evaluations are the human agents capable of doing, as producers of a risk economy in self-sustained collapse at the point of catastrophe (in the sense of René Thom)?

Palliative solutions are, by now, a waste of time.  Either the system, in global terms, synchronizes consensually towards solutions in which all win, or it succumbs.

More and more the term revolution occurs, circulates and transhumates, but a revolution points, in radical terms, towards a change in controlling territorializing impositional leadership that may, in some way, delay an imminent collapse, or hasten it.  A revolution does not solve, and never has solved matters of nature, in this case, a nature, stated human, intersubjectively shared by the species.

The crisis is us, the change must occur in us by synchronized globalized self-determination, using the terms of Kant: in “conformity to ends”, in this case, “to ends” of survival and dignity, of the survival of each and every one, and of the inalienable and irreducible dignity of each and every one.

Editors Note: Maria Odete Madeira is an Interdisciplinary Researcher in Philosophy of Science, Ontology, Systems Science, Cognition and Neurocognition.

email
Share

10 Responses to The Crisis is Us!

  1. -1 Vote -1 Vote +1Just Sayin
    September 13, 2011 at 3:57 pm

    The language used in this article is not appropriate for a general public audience, but rather a highly educated minority. If that is the audience you intend to limit yourself to, you are doing a great job.

    “In the situations of crisis, the systems intensify, in the retension, an autopoietic of undecidability that endangers, in the protension, the concreteness of the following moment”.

    “what “kind” of phenotypic effects are being synthesized by the neurocognition of risk”?

    Really???

    • +2 Vote -1 Vote +1Maria Odete Madeira
      September 14, 2011 at 1:49 am

      «The language used in this article is not appropriate for a general public audience, but rather a highly educated minority. If that is the audience you intend to limit yourself to, you are doing a great job.»

      You are classifying, cataloguing and generalizing…, is it not the case that you are being prejudiced, presuming that there is a globalized zombified majority that does not have an ability to understand the basic or for critical reasoning?

      «Really???»

      What is your counter-argument here?

      • Gilbert Mercier
        +2 Vote -1 Vote +1Gilbert Mercier
        September 14, 2011 at 6:18 pm

        Thanks for setting the record straight Maria. What are we supposed to do, bring down our standards & give some fodder to the lowest common cultural denominator? It is also quite amazing that “Just Sayin” is positioning himself as the arbitrator, not of good taste but of what complexity of content is “appropriate for a general public audience”.

        • +2 Vote -1 Vote +1Maria Odete Madeira
          September 15, 2011 at 1:31 am

          Thanks, Gilbert…

          An interesting question was enacted here: who has interest in the maintenance of a “general public audience” in a state of grotesque neural tautology self-sustained by an emptied small intestine? Why does the fundamental philosophical discourse scare so much some people?

  2. Vote -1 Vote +1Michael Smith
    September 13, 2011 at 9:08 pm

    Surprisingly enlightening appreciate it, It looks like your trusty followers may well want a lot more information like this continue the excellent work.

  3. Pingback:

    Vote -1 Vote +1Bail Bonds

  4. Pingback:

    Vote -1 Vote +1Mobile Money Machines

  5. -1 Vote -1 Vote +1Robyn Ryan
    September 18, 2011 at 6:08 pm

    I recommend Leonard Schlain’s “Alphabet versus the Goddess: the Conflict between Word and Image.

    He suggests the brain is re-adapting from a left brain hierarchical and emotionally distant means of transmitting culture back to using both right and left sides for communication – thanks to keyboarding and computers.

    He suggests that sudden introduction of a left brain word based power structure into a visually oriented society creates a cultural trauma until the culture reorganizes its collective brain to left linear dominance. South Pacific societies are examples of cultures attempting to grapple with this bifurcation.

    Following his ideas, what is now happening is the End of the Word as we know it.
    Words are relegated back to informational symbols without the need for coding and interpretation.
    Generations born since 1990 have no concept of privacy and duality. They communicate to the world as easily as we use the phone. Secrets are impossible, modesty and appearance are options, not barriers. Avatars rule.

    Cultural narratives are now cooperative, rather than combative.

    Governments as hierarchies of power cannot operate out of the public eye.

    We’re not failing as a species, we’re merely taking the next step towards maturity.

    • +1 Vote -1 Vote +1Maria Odete Madeira
      September 19, 2011 at 11:09 am

      «Following his ideas, what is now happening is the End of the Word as we know it.»

      Words are verbalized thought, a thought is a judicative valorative cognitive synthesis that involves the whole of the organism in survival interface.

      «We’re not failing as a species, we’re merely taking the next step towards maturity.»

      The world is not, in its great majority, comprised of belly filled elites, the world is comprised of people that fight for the right to health, to education, to dignity. There is no evidence that hunger and suffering will end in the world.

      We are not indeed a “failing species”, we are a failed species. We have already failed from the moment in which we enacted so much indignity, which does not mean that this failure may not be corrected of course. But it will not certainly be with totemic solutions (I think Freud would support me on this).

      «the Conflict between Word and Image»

      «Words are relegated back to informational symbols without the need for coding and interpretation.»

      What is being suggested in this argument? A more effective social control through the image? Without interpretation? The end of subjectivity/intersubjectivity? The end of critical reflection? Dazzling people with images, for effects of power, so that they forget to interpret the intention behind the image? Effects of control?

      Someone is eating moldy bread but it is transmitted an image to that person of a succulent bread and the simulation is taken for fact that the bread the person is eating is not a moldy bread but a fresh and succulent one?

      Conflict between word and image?! How?! If the image is a conscious projection of some thing that is in front of the individual that looks and sees, and if the words are the names that replace the things in their absence.

      I don’t know why but this smells like “Fahrenheit 451”: let us burn the words, kill the “intellectus/intelligo”: understand, perceive, knowing. Is this what is hidden behind what is stated in what you wrote about?

      Transform people into slaves, zombify the world, consuming the “new maturity” slogan, a maturity that does not exist in fact.

      “Goddess”?! Please, we have sufficient problems with our absent God.

  6. Vote -1 Vote +1quilts shams
    September 18, 2011 at 7:28 pm

    A good article! Hope you continue.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login