Debt (money being a species of debt).
*
Where we must begin from is the idea that debt – money – is not perceived as debt, identified with that finititude, but on the contrary is identified with life - infinity - itself.
… in the circumstance that one lives “in the world as it is”.
In this circumstance one lives a kind of illusion.
A kind of bi-polarity is understood of the world in which one lives: that is to say, where either one is free in that world in which one lives in having money, or (for example) in the world in which one lives, is a wage slave: the world becoming, being this singularity. What I mean is that since as value money is a finitude - purely instrumental - but yet seems otherwise …
Or what I mean is that this is what everything becomes; or this is what everything is, regardless of one’s ostensible attitudes or feelings about money or values in general.
In other words, a condition is inherited whereby the world, and the things in it, are known only instrumentally; but in the form that this entails, which consists in the admixture of daily life, it is next to unrealisable how this case works; since it all connects with life either directly or indirectly and so the virtue of money as an idea of limit tends to be lost sight of, ‘money as being’ becoming what things are without limit: infinite finite.
(Becoming the whole horizon.)
What occurs as ‘knowing the world’, the things in it, or being in the world, is instrumentally understood and – in spite of ourselves – not otherwise understood.
… The ideal, which is the living moment, will be achieved by money. The thing we want we will be freed into accomplishing - by money. Whatever it is. The thing adequate to itself; the thing that exists as enough in itself. That is, this is supposed even if the supposition, the view about this thing that can be enough in itself is quite fantastic. It stands before us like a line between two points: what prevents us from making the straightforward journey between them - is money, we think. By contrast the infinite, the end in itself, actuality, is random.
All that the actuality of the ideal amounts to is possession. The concept of infinity that we are discussing which is embodied by the concept of things that can stand as ends in themselves, is misidentified with the idea of ends that exist only instrumentally. This sense of possession therefore that the ideal demands just confirming the existence of money rather than any actuality: the thing that obtains the ideal.
Namely, so the idealism that we seem to have which is the idealism of being alive becomes a finitude: and so a kind of deadness ensues since nothing is sufficient to itself.
*
An end in itself is an infinity.
A concept delimited but fathomless.
Now, it is possible to construe this …
*
To what extent ought money to be identified with power?
Someone unfathomably rich is possessed of a power.
– But so, then the wealthy are unfathomably in debt.
“The world of the wealthy man is finite un-fathomably.”
I see so you mean that the world of a poor person is finite fathomably – in contrast?
“At least the poor person knows he lives in a world of debt, and what that means.”
“A wealthy person has the power not to acknowledge the limited nature of his life.”
I see, so money frees you into the illusion. It does not free you. It frees you into a kind of refinement of being where certain sorts of attention become possible that are not otherwise possible, a certain kind of time or a certain sort of space is available along with different new accessories …
*
In other words, what I suppose is a platitude: this is not an argument against money; but its perception as something that can be identified with life whereas …
… for this is the great question of course, the scale of this as a problem is illustrated by the seeming inevitability of human poverty in the world (which is a kind of off-shoot or side-effect of human greed ie is not a money problem). That human power should be power instrumentalised – is our issue.