This is your take? I mean, the insider trading stuff is pretty heavy evidence that people knew ahead of time. People with money and resources to act on this foreknowledge. And the case that we are presented with by the commission is, well, a story of people close to important state actors conspiring to commit the crime. The state dept story is a conspiracy theory, even if truncated, obfuscated, covered-up, that is still what they presented us with. Oh yeah, and that many in the intelligence community knew of the attackers presence in the US, others knowing of an impending attack, and the attackers being closely related to Saudi intelligence, ya know, the intelligence service buttresses with US technology and training in close partnership. But yeah, just like “UFO’s”.
Some folks are presented with facts which should cause alarm and suspicion but instead reel and dismiss, and I can only point to a lack of intellectual curiosity, ideology, or a motivated viewpoint based on a perceived in-group’s general opinion which steers then into taking the state department position, and that of the Atlantic Monthly. “Actually it’s all chaos and accident, and our pattern seeking brains project meaning onto events which are random.” I’m nit saying that’s your position, but it is a common refrain to dismiss real conspiracies, and reminds me of Parenti’s take on historians who talk about “the reluctant US empire who rose to the occasion at a critical juncture to bumble its way into global dominance”. Like, no calculation or conspiring required.
As if these shit hole leaders are braying at every opportunity to make money dropping bombs. Just god smiling on them I guess. Nothing to see here.
The extended substance to Descartes is broadly the material, whereas the thinking or res cogitans is the thinking substance. How to bridge the immaterial mentality of thinking as a causal force in the material presented a problem for him and was difficult to bridge in this conceptualization of the full human: the mind body problem. The split subject in Lacanian psychoanalysis refers to in part the "mirror stage" of psychological development, where the undeveloped infant first sees it's own image in a mirror and begins to recognize it's own incomplete self image (only seeing of itself without the mirror its legs, arms, perceiving its clumsy motor skills, etc) compared to the ideal subject reflected in the perceived-to-be complete "other" in the mirror, which is not first recognized as itself but an ideal form which seems to be superior and complete in comparison. This is furthered by the imposition of language or in Lacanian terms "castration" which is essentially the imposition of a defining, limiting, prohibitive symbolic structure by way of language which creates a separating or splitting of the self independent of the flesh and blood, now extant in the symbolic and signified sense. There can be no unification of the split self, which is the underlying source of the neurotic or psychotic, with the former responding to castration with repression and the latter responding with a complete rejection of the prohibitions circumscribed therein. This is a vulgar understanding but how I interpret it.