Sold on life
If we are loyal to a way of life, we are also loyal to the form our lives take to be so oriented, as it is demonstrated in what we do. The bond we make arranges our lives, orders it so as to conform to what is expected. We give each other credit for disinhibiting the way, as taking it up proves the ideal we share has legitimacy to be oriented to life the way we are. The form becomes the given for the way life can be entertained through the choices it allows. To make good on, is always in reference to the form presupposed as any difference in styles of life, even “aberrant” ones does not diverge in any way from the form as the significance of preferences or values as it is always secondary. To question the “production process“, how our actions produce the form of life is to reveal their contingency. A disjunction, or disjointedness arises in our very life when we start to question the way of life beyond the styles entertained, beyond the production of want to the form that gives it legitimacy. To be sold on life, this way or that ensures the apparent differences conceals a homogenising effect. The disjointedness is necessary to see through what our loyalty presupposes.
When there is a fracture, or margin that separates our lives to create rivaling doubles that fight over “life” we picture what life could be, entertain it otherwise than being in our everydayness. We consume ourselves on our dreams in the holding pattern of our way, to picture it through the form of life is qualitatively different or divergent as it is a question of what we do to maintain our loyalty, the process of our becoming bound. If through this questioning we realise the way of life and so the form of life is not befitting, then this disjunction is the becoming of a dark precursor to action that breaks the form to reveal what has never been. An emergent form of life from a chrysalis as the action is beyond what is is expected of the way of life handed down. It severs with the past, so makes any claim of the past on the future redundant. What would become the order of this arrangement? What would we do to demonstrate the loyalty presupposed is no longer a given? How would our actions differ, what difference would complicate everything, make life difficult, especially for those that presuppose the form of life will not change so as to maintain an order? These are questions we explore through the form of life and what Enterprise Good offers.
Loyal to business
Can we say we are loyal to being given as consumers of life? If that were the case why would we be loyal? Perhaps there is something with this form of life that leverages us in a way we make a bond as consumers, but what are we loyal to? Are we loyal to how we give and receive ourselves? Would this commerce be what we are loyal to, the activity of our production?. We think being a consumer is miraculous, it has fallen like mana from the heavens yet to produce ourselves is to be loyal to a way of thinking our actions. So are we loyal to the business we make of our lives, would we say this? Would we say our lives are business activity? If not, then is our loyalty to not question the nature of what we do and whether it is in fact different to business activity? So to not question the way we have made a business out of life is a way to maintain the story our actions do not align with, hence creates a disjointedness in our way of life we perhaps sense but do not know why.
There is something amiss, something inexorably wrong, though when pressed we are unable to articulate exactly what this is. We have recourse to problems without knowing the underlying cause; perhaps. In order to make a bond out our non questioning we would have to be sold on the way of life, to conceal it in our everydayness for our faith to be securitised, a derivative sold. Would we say this? To be derivative to a bond substantiates you are given as a credit instrument, as you are an aggregation of wants, as this is what you are given credit for. Surely we acknowledge this is what it means to be a consumer? Though if we think our lives as financial instruments, to default is not just to not make good on the credit extended, to accept the extent of this credit as an instrument of loyalty, it is to make the default claim of you being a consumer contingent by shifting the form presupposed such that the existential claim of a way of life defaults.To default is to break the bond we make with ourselves, such that securitisation of life through the instrument of interest you are is revealed as a diminutive claim to be oriented towards life, as it presupposes the marginal form of life for interest to be a given. To no longer have an interest in the form of life, means the value or return on the form of life diminishes, as the loyalty to the way that maintains the form progressively becomes the domain of action. We can see this trend playing itself already, though without understanding what is at play when the marketing of intangibles and “conscious consumption” becomes legitimised.. This highlights the form of life is problematic requiring a supplementary good or meaning to make good on the credit, though this only brings the issue to the fore in spite of these efforts as “the good” still substantiates the extent of agency sanctioned. So the story inadvertently told is; you are a consumer and are only given credit for your wants you do not create, you economise in reference to an end secured against the relationality being market oriented entails. It is a impasse. This makes business just as much as people beholden to something they fail to see, as intangibles are contingent on an existential claim over the form of life. There is no possible way for human action to potentialise the form of life through these initiatives, for the simply fact people are presupposed to act in the manner they always have to produce themselves as the consumers business just as much as people give themselves credit for. You after all sell creativity out of life to be sold on your want of it, without knowing why.
