Slip inside the eye of your mind
Do not you know you might find
A better place to play
Pindarum quisquis studet aemulari,
Iulle, ceratis ope Daedalea
nititur pennis vitreo daturus
When Minos reached Cretan soil he paid his dues to Jove, with the sacrifice of a hundred bulls, and hung up his war trophies to adorn the palace. The scandal concerning his family grew, and the queen’s unnatural adultery was evident from the birth of a strange hybrid monster. Minos resolved to remove this shame, the Minotaur, from his house, and hide it away in a labyrinth with blind passageways. Daedalus, celebrated for his skill in architecture, laid out the design, and confused the clues to direction, and led the eye into a tortuous maze, by the windings of alternating paths. No differently from the way in which the watery Maeander deludes the sight, flowing backwards and forwards in its changeable course, through the meadows of Phrygia, facing the running waves advancing to meet it, now directing its uncertain waters towards its source, now towards the open sea: so Daedalus made the endless pathways of the maze, and was scarcely able to recover the entrance himself: the building was as deceptive as that.
In there, Minos walled up the twin form of bull and man, and twice nourished it on Athenian blood, but the third repetition of the nine-year tribute by lot, caused the monster’s downfall. When, through the help of the virgin princess, Ariadne, by rewinding the thread, Theseus, son of Aegeus, won his way back to the elusive threshold, that no one had previously regained, he immediately set sail for Dia, stealing the daughter of Minos away with him, then cruelly abandoned his companion on that shore. Deserted and weeping bitterly, as she was, Bacchus-Liber brought her help and comfort. So that she might shine among the eternal stars, he took the crown from her forehead, and set it in the sky. It soared through the rarified air, and as it soared its jewels changed to bright fires, and took their place, retaining the appearance of a crown, as the Corona Borealis, between the kneeling Hercules and the head of the serpent that Ophiuchus holds.
One of his central ideas is that of “hybridisation,” which, taking up from Edward Said’s work, describes the emergence of new cultural forms from multiculturalism. Instead of seeing colonialism as something locked in the past, Bhabha shows how its histories and cultures constantly intrude on the present, demanding that we transform our understanding of cross-cultural relations. His work transformed the study of colonialism by applying post-structuralist methodologies to colonial texts.
Bhabha’s work in postcolonial theory owes much to post-structuralism. Notable among Bhabha’s influences include Jacques Derrida and deconstruction; Jacques Lacan and Lacanian psychoanalysis; and Michel Foucault’s notion of discursivity. Additionally, in a 1995 interview with W. J. T. Mitchell, Bhabha stated that Edward Said is the writer who has most influenced him. In the social sciences, Edward W. Soja has most thoroughly relied on and transformed Bhabha’s approaches to understanding notion of space, action, and representation.
´´ According to the historian Åsa Karlsson, who cites among others Peter Burke, the upper classes of an emerging (Western) Europe came to distance themselves more and more from both the other classes of their own societies and from other cultures. At the same time, there was an urge for knowledge about the others that they had distanced themselves from. (16) This change of attitude towards other ethnic groups, classes, and religions has also been discussed by other Swedish scholars. (17)
- Å. Karlsson 1998:84ff.
17.Larsson cited in Å Karlsson 1998:84; Ambjörnsson 1994:33ff.
At the top of the pyramid of global management are the same 22 hereditary clans, a team that is artificial, and to create the appearance of choice it is divided into two teams (left and right). For the crowd, through controlled media, these two teams portray opposition to each other with an accompanying question: ‘So you’re for this side or for that side?’ Political life, to distract the crowd from important issues, is filled with formidable battles. The symbol of the opposition, cultivated to attract public attention and fanaticism is football: 11 on the left and 11 on the right rolling a ball on the field, which represents the globe. This is an iconic game for those who know something about the schemes of global governance of mankind, one of the most powerful techniques pumped-up out of the matrix crowd of ´elitism´.
These 22 clans, according to the functions of incurring conceptual power at a significant global level, can be called a global predictor, a scheduler giving directions/insight (predukazatelem) . They do not advertise their activities, which are visible only to the executive peripherals. It gives real control over countries on a global scale, through a hereditary clan of financial corporation families, controlling international organizations, political parties, foundations, multinational corporations, and banks. This mission is generously rewarded.
‘When the lamp of money is lit a circle of shadows form filled with usurers, counterfeiters, thieves, swindlers and sociopaths. The light must be protected at all costs or the destiny of humanity is stolen.’
Going Direct is a plan put by Blackrock to the Federal reserve in Late Summer 2019. All of the financial realities facing us now are a consequence of the policies adopted by the Fed and the world’s central banks implementing Blackrocks’s recommendations. The first thing that Blackrock did was bail out its own Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) effectively a new TARP with ETFs being the new subprime CDF’s (Credit default swaps) What Klaus Schwam calls the 4th industrial revolution or Great Reset, and the slogan “Build Back Better”, all the Green New Deals and promised fresh starts stem from a Financialised Bean counter logic from Black rock and its Going Direct, we are living in the Going Direct paradigm and in Going Direct there is no democracy, there are no grassroots there is only Authority to below and obedience to above.
Kant’s maxim “act in such a way that your conduct can become a norm for all men in similar conditions” is less simple and obvious than it appears at first sight. What is meant by ‘similar conditions’?
To be sure, and as Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith (the editors and translators of the English translation of Gramsci’s Prison Notebooks) note, Gramsci here in fact misquotes Kant, and that “similar conditions” does not appear in the original text, where the German philosopher says: “I am never to act otherwise than so that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law.” This principle, called “the categorical imperative”, is in fact the very foundation of Kantian ethics.
So where Kant says “universal law”, Gramsci says, “a norm for all men”, and then he adds an additional “similar conditions”, which is not in the German original.
“The world at large, and the Arab and Muslim world in particular, is going through world historic changes – these changes have produced thinkers, poets, artists, and public intellectuals at the centre of their moral and politcial imagination.“
That misquoting is quite critical here. Gramsci’s conclusion is that the reason Kant can say what he says and offer his own behaviour as measure of universal ethics is that “Kant’s maxim presupposes a single culture, a single religion, a ‘world-wide’ conformism… Kant’s maxim is connected with his time, with the cosmopolitan enlightenment and the critical conception of the author. In brief, it is linked to the philosophy of the intellectuals as a cosmopolitan stratum”.
Monk (1991), in rather greater detail, in his
biography of Wittgenstein (p. 487):
decided he no longer
wished to have conversations with Wittgenstein,
saying that he could no longer give his time and
attention to the matters Wittgenstein wished to
discuss. This came as a great blow to
Wittgenstein. He pleaded with Sraffa to contin- ue their weekly conversations, even if it meant
staying away from philosophical subjects. “I will
talk about anything,” he told him. “Yes,” Sraffa
replied, “but in your way.”
There are many puzzling things in the
Sraffa-Wittgenstein relations. How could
Sraffa, who loved dialogues and arguments,
become so reluctant to talk with one of the
finest minds of the twentieth century? Even
initially, how could the conversations that
were clearly so consequential for
Wittgenstein, which made him feel “like a
tree from which all branches have been cut,”
seem “rather obvious” to this economist
Andrew M. Niccol (born 10 June 1964) is a New Zealand screenwriter, producer, and director. He wrote and directed Gattaca (1997), Simone (2002), Lord of War (2005), In Time (2011), The Host (2013), and Good Kill (2014). He also wrote and co-produced The Truman Show, which earned an Academy Award nomination for Best Original Screenplay in 1999 and won a BAFTA award for Best Screenplay. His films tend to explore social, cultural and political issues, as well as artificial realities or simulations.
His film Good Kill was selected to compete for the Golden Lion at the 71st Venice International Film Festival.
Director Writer Producer Notes
1997 Gattaca Yes Yes Yes Sitges Film Festival for Best Film
London Film Critics’ Circle Award for Screenwriter of the Year
1998 The Truman Show No Yes Yes BAFTA Award for Best Original Screenplay
Saturn Award for Best Writing
London Film Critics’ Circle Award for Screenwriter of the Year
Nominated–Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay
Nominated–Golden Globe Award for Best Screenplay
Nominated–Online Film Critics Society Award for Best Original Screenplay
Nominated–Chicago Film Critics Association Award for Best Screenplay
Nominated–Writers Guild of America for Best Screenplay
2002 Simone Yes Yes Yes
2004 The Terminal No Story Executive
2005 Lord of War Yes Yes Yes
2011 In Time Yes Yes Yes
2013 The Host Yes Yes No
2014 Good Kill Yes Yes Yes
2018 Anon Yes Yes Yes
TBA Monopoly No Yes No Announced