kuulukse et ahto lobjakat oli pargis nähtud, oli tõmmanud paar lõuga ja siis edasi läinud. selline mees mulle meeldib kes käib rahva seas ja on tugev.







The more we analyze reality the more we find a void, because once we reach the level of quanta our conventional conceptions of the ordered cosmos just stop working. Not only do we here recognize that “there simply is no basic level,” that “divisions go on indefinitely,” whereby “the quantum level marks the beginning of the ‘blurring’ of ‘basic’ full reality,” [365] but also that “[o]ne should thus reject the ‘positive’ ontology that presupposes some zero-level of reality where things ‘really happen’ and dismisses the higher levels as mere abbreviations, illusory self-perception, and so forth. There is no such zero-level: if we go ‘all the way down,’ we arrive at the Void.” [366] This has a surprising consequence, one whose full metaphysical implications quantum mechanics thus summons us to accept: namely, that the closer we get to the origin of all things, the more ontologically incomplete reality is, the less distinguishable its fundamental constituents are from the void, thus forcing us not merely to proclaim that the void is “the only ultimate reality,” [367]but more drastically still that “’all there is’ is, precisely, not-All, a distorted fragment which is ultimately a ‘metonymy of nothing.’” [368] In short, what we experience as hard, full reality is at its core a mere vibration of nothingness lacking any true ontological depth, since there exists a certain radical indistinction between being (a structured physical universe) and the void (a structureless zone without any dense ontological determination in any traditional sense).




“The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The busi
ness of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types–the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins. He admires them especially by moonlight, not to say moonshine.”

[O]riginally [liberalism] was not an arrogant attitude, but…was quite a modest, honest attitude of confronting the problem of religious tolerance after the Thirty Years’ War.  In the seventeenth century, all of Europe was in a shock, and then out of this traumatic experience, the liberal vision came.  The idea was that each of us has some existential or religious beliefs, but even if these are our fundamental commitments, we will not be killing each other for them.  To create a coexistent social structure, a space where these inherently different commitments can be practiced…I don’t see anything inherently bad in this project.

mart juur:


inimene olen ja inimeseks jään,
sest mind inimeseks loodi.
inimene olla on uhke ja hää,
teise inimese moodi.

argo ideon:


Lõppenud nädalal avanes BBC vaatajail – vaevalt küll, et juhuslikult – võimalus kiigata ka peaminister David Cameroni kööki, kus telekanali reporter vaheldumisi esitas konservatiivide liidrile küsimusi poliitikast ja lõikas ühes temaga salatit. Kõik said veenduda, et Cameroni köök on päris mõnusalt sisustatud ning et väike maapood, kus ta liha ostmas käib, müüb nii küpsetamisvalmis kana kui toorvorstikesi.
Ei meenu, et mõne poliitiku köök oleks Eestis valimisteemaks kerkinud, viimati viis üks telejaam saadikuks ihalejaid hoopis külma kätte metsa, kus nad pidid sprotikarbist õlilampi valmistama. Seega on (vähemalt näiliselt) kasinalt hakkama saamise idu ka meie poliitikasse istutatud.
Vastupidise näitena võib aga tuua Kreeka rahandusminister Yanis Varoufakise hiljutise fotosessiooni elustiiliajakirjas Paris Match, kus vaeste eest võitleja poseeris oma Ateena kodus mõnusal terrassil ühes Akropoli vaate, päikese, kauni abikaasa ja valge veiniga. Osa vasakradikaalse Syriza toetajaid oli sellisest klantsi- ja glamuuriplahvatusest lausa veidike üllatunud.



üks tavasükav küllmik puuduvad käepidemed

ja all iluliist äkki leian üles liistu

teine sügavkülmkirst päris heas korras

on mõned täpid aga need ei sega väga kerge

teisest praegu pole pilti

küsige äkki saab tingida

paneks siis osta kohe hinna

natuke hind paku siis 58…….

sisu pole müügiks panin need sest siis poleks kapp tühi

ja ei lähe hallitama natuke joonistust saab emaldatud

nüüd ka teine külmkirst väga kerge transportida

teine raskem

tänud ette

torm14, «osta»

leidis muudlum

I have touched on the preponderance of space over time in late capitalism. The political conclusion to draw from this development is plain: namely, that in our time all politics is about real estate; and this from the loftiest statecraft to the most petty manoeuvring around local advantage. Postmodern politics is essentially a matter of land grabs, on a local as well as global scale. Whether you think of the issue of Palestine or of gentrification and zoning in American small towns, it is that peculiar and imaginary thing called private property in land which is at stake. The land is not only an object of struggle between the classes, between rich and poor; it defines their very existence and the separation between them. Capitalism began with enclosure and with the occupation of the Aztec and Inca empires; and it is ending with foreclosure and dispossession, with homelessness on the individual as well as the collective level, and with the unemployment dictated by austerity and outsourcing, the abandonment of factories and rustbelts. Whether you think of the settlements and the refugee camps, some of them lasting a whole lifetime, or of the politics of raw materials and extraction; whether you think of the dispossession of peasants to make way for industrial parks, or of ecology and the destruction of the rainforests; whether you think of the abstract legalities of federalism, citizenship and immigration, or the politics of urban renewal and the growth of the bidonvilles, favelas and townships, not to speak of the great movements of the landless or of Occupy—today everything is about land. In the long run, all these struggles result from the commodification of land and the green revolution in all its forms: the dissolution of the last remnants of feudalism and its peasantries, their replacement by industrial agriculture or agribusiness and the transformation of peasants into farmworkers, along with their eventual fate as the reserve army of the agriculturally unemployed.



How can culture and subjectivity not be transformed, when opened to the vicissitudes of this vaster landscape and population which is globalization itself? No longer protected by family or region, nor even by the nation itself and its national identity, the emergence of the vulnerable subject into a world of billions of anonymous equals is bound to bring about still more momentous changes in human reality. The experience of singularity is, on this level, the very expression of this subjective destitution, one so often remedied by the regression into older group or religious structures, or the invention of pseudo-traditional ethnic identities, with results ranging from genocide to luxury hobbies. This dialectic, between egoism and pseudo-collectivity, carries within it at least one moment of truth, namely the radical differentiation—qualitative, ontological and methodological alike—between the analysis of individual experience and that of groups or collectivities. Both kinds of analysis share the dilemma of bearing on an imaginary object, one whose unity is impossible and whose stubborn endurance demands, on the one hand, a new ethic, and on the other a new politics. To project either of these impossible tasks is Utopian; to refuse them is frivolous and nihilistic. But it is the political dilemma we must face in conclusion.