Consuming want of self as way
Originally published at https://enterprisegood.com
Want induces what?
How does want become primary such that its legitimacy can be the given of our sociality whereby we do not question why this is the case? Can want be seen as a consequence of a lack of culture that champions its primacy to obscure we are beholden to a way of life that diminishes what it means to be? What would that mean other than our agency is synonymous for the most part with choices legitimized by our wants. If want can be engendered to simulate you are demonstrating agency, so give the appearance our actions have meaning beyond the way that legitimates them, then the world recedes and continues to be an unquestioned given.
Does this want pull us outside ourselves through all matter of inducements to install us in a holding pattern of our own making through our aspirations? Would our way of life in that case be a way to maintain our want of life, so through the way our want is legitimized condemn us to a vicious circle? To cycle upon ourselves what would that mean?
The self to share
the way life is given through marketing, branding, social media, are we in waiting for the means to catch up to our aspirations consuming ourselves on the visions we entertain?
To answer this let us consider 1st what self we presuppose when we are market oriented. If our want is primary because money is a given then the ideal we are oriented to is to remove ourselves from the constraint we otherwise work against. This orientation is an intra mundane transcendence, as to remove oneself from the claim of money is to consider ourselves independent from it so approximate a level of “sovereignty”. And yet to accept its legitimacy by resolving upon removing its claim can only substantiate the credit we are wanting to claim all the more incessantly and the order that defines your agency by the good of our wants. Money is after all a given of our way of life.
So if the pattern is to make ourselves a means towards the end , and the way life is given through marketing, branding, social media, are we in waiting for the means to catch up to our aspirations consuming ourselves on the visions we entertain? This is the compensation for a way of life we accept, the models of emulation, influencers of life, we are sold on the signs of life, that continually work to disinhibit our loyalty to a way of life that is never questioned when our agency is reduced into the good of our wants, that sustains the form of life necessary for it to be market oriented.
No credit other than…
If wealth is pursued to embody “sovereignty”, true sovereignty determines the exception to the rule that polices what constitutes agency, so the extent of its legitimate domain
You are given no credit for the way life is given as your role is to consume the vision of life to maintain a holding pattern of aspiration that can be leveraged in all matter of ways. Wants can be substituted as tastes change, as you refine your sensibilities, as you become more affluent. This difference in the potential of agency is given the outlet to demonstrate its “exceptionalism” through consumption through substitution, upgrade, renewal and alike. For this reason consumption is an activity that consumes the self that would act otherwise than what is presupposed. For if wealth is pursued to embody “sovereignty”, true sovereignty determines the exception to the rule that polices what constitutes agency, so the extent of its legitimate domain. So if the exceptionalism we orient to resolves upon choices, between rarified goods, lifestyle deemed worthy of our lives then the aspiration of independence can only seek its realisation in the signs that would embody this ideal and similarly testify to the extent of agency we accept for ourselves.
To differentiate what would constitute sovereignty is the way we style the supplement of time we reserve when we make a means of ourselves to be independent. Consumerism is the incessant demand to show this difference, so the rule of ones style can be worthy of emulation. And yet as we take cues from each other, the acquisitive mimesis feeds upon itself, doubles itself, in a profusion with a centripetal force working through the apparent disparateness, so that no one is immune to the inherent derivativeness, irrespective of the claim of surpassing it. There is no end to the diminution of what it means to be as the spiritual aspiration that underpins the incessant activity, simulates a dynamism to conceal a moribund culture where the vestiges of a transcendentalism is immanentized when resolving upon securing time as a supplement, sabbath or afterlife reigns. There is no end to the spiritual aspiration because it is beholden to a way of life that captures it to an end that can maintain the demand of a life we deem worthy rather than command the way life is to be given. The qualitative difference is literally a world in the making, one is based on the order of want the other the democratization of creativity.
If want is primary and your actions are predicated on removing dis-ease, what would remove a collective disease, a spiritual disease we are beholden to? Nothing short than collective action can achieve this
To make an exception of the rule that reigns in our market oriented way of life, is to make an exception of the rule of the consumer, of your being given as such, and so shift the relation from want to creativity. To give due regard to your implicit creativity as a person, is to make an exception to the way life is given through all the inducements of lifestyle and resolve upon a different way that would animate the creativity dormant within your life with other people to create a common surpassing.
To command is not to demand, but rather make the exception that determines the rule, and what would this command be considering we are consumers and so only have consumer sovereignty? To command the way we are approached. To do so means difference is given in the way this command directs beyond the current paradigm of your passivity to potentialise the flourishing of what it means to be. If want is primary and your actions are predicated on removing dis-ease, what would remove a collective disease, a spiritual disease we are beholden to, nothing short than collective action can achieve this.