The blackmail of the social

1.
We are all hostages (cf J. Baudrillard), of asymmetrical relations as well as symmetrical ones. We are each other's hostages. The ethics we follow springs from the blackmail of universal debt, spawning the Social as the consensualist coercion of mutual obligation and control under the threat of different levels of terror: economic, social, political, moral, etc. In brief, the social contract is always a hostage situation and a blackmail relation. Crime dramas are exploded portraits of an already common condition. They are large-scale rehearsals in which the wide-scale condition is framed as the normality of Law, Ethics, Freedom, and Justice.

2.
The promises of utopian good life, simulated ideal of attainable good: health, wealth, mirth, accomplishment, love, family,  peace, assurance, eternity, beauty, value, property, etc. They participate in the blackmail which instills the state of perennial debt. We are held hostage by our fears, desires, love, wants, and needs. These are not primordially objective subjective or emotive states, but are defined by modes of subjectivity informed by historico-cultural forces. Insecurities are manufactured extimacies by which and through which the blackmail ethic of sociality is reinforced.

3.
The various sociotopes of modern life are forms of hypnoses prepping up the enjoyment of a mode of being, rings of ecstasy operating as enjoyment of attainable goods and subjective states. The taste of food, for example, of the sheen of glamor, affordable sensations hiding their manufactured availability, always proferred by a continuous indulgence in systemic consumption. Like all sensations, taste is not a natural experience: it is already a discourse. Here, even the acquisition of consumer leverage participates in the myth of distributionable quantities of individual capacity as transgressive will.

4.
It is equally important to recognize that the problematic of the question is as integral to the question of the problematic of what constitutes the horizon of presumed grounds of inquiry into what is considered points of departure of understanding, that is, the elements constituting the active sensus communis, or the structure of feeling in vivo.

5.
Living ''normally'' means simply living in a state of forgetting of the moral dilemmas which structure everyday life. Each day, we go about in a blissful non-reflection of the moral dilemmas we live in, how living on means surviving, keeping on despite the non-justifiable, the non-rationalizeable, and the non-legitimizeable. Everyday living is at the bottom unethical, must be unethical, to keep pushing on ''normally.''