Adaptive Versus Creative Powers

Below I will end the year and leave you dear reader with one important question.  While you and I are surely on the train of the digital re-cognizing of life and the world - to use the word 'revolution' to describe what is happening is to not clearly see the possibility cresting over the horizon - many, many others are most definately not.  But, unlike the past two major ages (i.e. the colonial and industrial ages) those most at risk to be "left behind" reside in the "advanced nations" and not those parts of the world that are fiscally disadvantaged (imho).  So, is this really a problem? Or, simply Karma?  Anyways, happy new years everybody!

The problem of valuing adaptive qualities/powers of an individual higher than creative powers.

The increase in the degree of information threatens the loss of identity of people today (contrary to the belief that it is strengthening social reason).  Those who feel independent and helpless in the face of technically mediated forms are more likely to become incapable of establishing an identity.

Adaptive power refers to the ability to become a specialist or expert and thus at the same time a functionary.  Functionaries by their very nature must be completely concentrated upon the administration of their function (e.g. scientific, technical, economic, monetary processes, administration and politics).  Smooth funtioning of the apparatus is the ultimate aim of inserting an expert.

The problem: As ever fewer persons are making the important decisions and ever more are manning the apparatus, modern society is thus oppressed by imminent structural pressures.  This in turn leads to the degeneration of practice into technique and - through no fault of the experts themselves - to a decline into social irrationality.
It would be propitious at this juncture to emphasize the gravity of this last sentence - and to ultimately show that every word was thoughtfully chosen - by providing the meaning of 'practice' as defined by Heraclitus and re-cognized in the modern word by Gadamer: Practice is carrying and conducting oneself in solidarity; solidarity of course being the basis and foundation of social reason.

Standing Out

Logos is common to all; but most live as if they each have a private reason.  Does this have to remain so?

Perceiving and re-cognizing both what is, along with where the 'what is' has come from and everything that the 'what is' has left behind in time is standing out of Logic.

Living and acting as if being alive as woman or man in time - the 'what is' - is the result of a series of random events is standing in Logic.

Most fritter away their time floating within the all pervasive current of Logos.  It is only the few who stand out of it that can make the attempt to divert the flow hither or thither by reflecting their hearts.  Do things still have to remain this way?

ex hupothesoeos anankaion

"All power exists only in its expression."

Ontologically, power is "inwardness."  Freedom is combined with power.  For power that is more than its expression is always freedom.

"Beside freedom stands necessity."

Necessity is the resistance that free power encounters.  The resistance that free power encounters is itself freedom.  The necessity is the power of what has been transmitted and of those who are acting against one.  By excluding many things as impossible, it limits action to the possible.