The Collapse of Systems

The truly odd thing about humans thinking is the idea, so vested of (human) knowledge, that the idea can at once be merely an idea and yet also a mark of something that is not an idea. It must be considered the religious disclaimer which marks human thought to its manifestation as a universal constituent.

This redundancy can be noted when we have an idea which at once make a space for itself while denying its spatial component. For example, the common notion that the universe exists as place which is not dependent upon human thought. One should be right to ask how we could know this, for this question goes right to the crux of the issue, for it is a logistical issue, not an epistemological issue; the latter functions to establish the contradictory space noted just above; namely, the idea at once posits itself as a place which avoids itself, keenly functioning to avoid its own dissolution as knowledge.

Again, here is another way it succeeds in its Privileged assertions of status: the often usual argumentative rebuttal will consider that thought thus is being asserted as the cause of any known universe. Here, the logistical question is dismissed out of hand for the sake of maintaining the human privilege; it is automatically placed in the context of the human knowledge, and thus neatly avoids knowledge as such. In fact, this system of knowing is compoundedly idealistic in order to defer its operations to, again, an ontological supposition which is not ideal, thus, for the sake of being able to make statements of various qualities imbued in knowledge as though such qualities arise in the universe as such and yet particularly human (the ratio of the human intellectual ability).

The proposal that the universe is dependent on the presence of thought is not an argument that thus the universe is constituted or arises only as thought as opposed to something that is other than thought. The assumption of common method into any statement derives non sequitur and thus the answering is based in a false positive set of logical options.

As Kierkegaard noted, it is a ideological (religious) shell game, an ideological magic trick, a discursive sleight of hand…

…and then further to posit that there is no knowledge that can arise, be spoken about and discussed, which does not accord to this mandated ideological method for what knowledge is allowed to be. That is, that the answer to our question here, then, must be something particularly spiritual, or, nothing at all, that is absence.

It is the ridiculousness which marks out its space and then denies what it is doing, which then claims any sense which does not adhere to its rules is nonsense, that Kierkegaard calls absurd. He thus posits a knowledge which is not absurd with reference to that method which upholds its own manners as sacrosanct and violation of such epistemological ethics punishable by ideological excommunication and intellectual banishment.

Claims about what exists outside of knowledge still arise in knowledge. However, when (and where) such knowledge ends is exactly the space where everything is possible.

This is what science finds under certain conditions. The limits which define real universal space do not remain outside of those constraints; instead the universe arises in the possibility of having no constrains or, at least, a fundamentally different set of limits.

In so much as philosophy is considered as the method by which constraints are fixed and maintained, there do we have real considerations of what is impossible and possible, and we have the intellectual policing of the current ideological state. I call this reality; we all must adhere to its dictates.

By contrast, or then also rather, when philosophy is the reflection of all that is known as knowledge of the universe as it is indeed known then things are revealed to their truth, and despite what we must deal with in its presence as content.

Object Orientation, Tool Being, and Kierkegaard

Trying to link this to the podcast. Just click the link, I guess? Its not embedding very well.
Podcast episode cover art–Tool-Being-and-Kierkegaard-eutue1–Tool-Being-and-Kierkegaard-eutue1
The Object of the Subject

Outlandish Freedom

In Dr. Faustus, Thomas Mann identifies the inadequacies of thinking of freedom in terms of free will. The narrator describes the paradox of freedom …

Outlandish Freedom

—– And so much a metaphorical enactment of the irony, here is a link to a link where there is the post.

👽 Aliens unite!

I was going to start a group for people with anxiety, but i was worried it wouldnt go well.

Then I thought of starting one for my depression, but then I figured what’s the use.

A discussion about truth and reality

The other day I was talking with a friend and I made the statement “it doesn’t really matter what I do in this life because when I die I’ll just appear in another life having that which has lacked in this life be fulfilled in that.”

And my friend, I’ll call him Miguel, replied, do you really believe that?”

To which I said “what I believe has nothing to do with it. It’s just a fact.”

And he said, “so you really believe that?”

“No. I don’t believe it. It’s just the truth.”

“what do you mean it’s the truth? Sounds to me totally ridiculous.”

“yes it’s ridiculous. But why does that matter?”

I was smiling. And he was smiling but I could tell that there was something way off, he felt that something was disturbing him in this line of discussion.

“dude. Are you being real?”

“Well, I’m not gonna — I know what you’re saying. So, you don’t think that when we die that we start another life which takes up from that whatever was left over from the previous life. That’s what you’re saying to me.”

“what, are you Buddhist or something?”

“you know I’m not Buddhist.”

“it sounds like you’re talking about reincarnation and that sounds pretty Buddhist.”

“are you telling me that I cannot have an opinion without you referencing it to some catalog of named belief?”

“you can have whatever opinion you want.” He said.

“OK. Well, what are we referencing this opinion about? Why is It just an opinion? Sure, I just used the word opinion, but I was just really referencing your responses. It’s also nothing that I believe. It’s just a fact.”

“A fact? It’s hardly a fact. Sounds to me like your fantasy.”

“well, again, what are you referencing these opinions, these fantasies to?”

“are you kidding me man? Reality. I’m sure you know what reality is right?”

“OK. Reality. All right. Well let’s put it this way. So, we are all allowed to have our own opinions and beliefs, we can believe whatever we want to believe, but all of those opinions and beliefs are merely opinions and beliefs. So, again, what are you referencing these to? What is this reality by which I am able to have an opinion or be able to believe anything?”

“that’s the question isn’t it? Isn’t that the philosophical question?”

“Yeah, in certain contexts, for sure people would have to reference it to the philosophical question, but still I would push you further and ask you against what is Philosophy referenced?”

We went on like this A little while, back-and-forth, referencing ideas that various philosophers had or have, getting a lot of the names screwed up.

And then I said, “look, regardless of what we’re arguing about, I’m sure we both admit that this is the problem. Sure, we could call it a philosophical problem, but ultimately were left in this world of discourse, right? And ultimately the discussion that we’re having right now really has no basis, except to rely on something that neither of us are ever approaching, nothing about anything philosophical, nothing about our discussions here is reaching what we’re trying to attempt to reach. Doesn’t that seem odd to you?”

Miguel chuckles, “it’s all discourse, man. It’s all negotiation of various subjects”

“Yeah, and, so what? This is why I say that’s a significant philosophical issue has to do with what we are trying to achieve in the discussion, and then at root, what project are we trying to assert? Yeah, OK everything is negotiated in discourse. That just leaves me no reason at all to continue this discussion. It just basically says, hey bro let’s go drink some beers and smoke some weed and go back to work picking weeds or fighting the oppressive ideology. But this is not what’s occurring. Obviously we’re talking about shit, we are discussing some thing. And, as we find in our discussion, we are never finding any substance to even the discussion, not even in ideology; our talk has no substance. So, if you want to know where I get the truth of the matter is that when I die I’m just gonna have another life that continues off from where this one left off,  It’s because the discussion now we’re having occurs in reality, and ultimately only has to do with reality. I’m not saying I believe it, I am saying that any conclusion about what occurs after life, this life, follows from what is known, and that life arises in the discussion. Again, to what am I referring when, say, I speak of ‘when I die’? So, given this real situation, this is true, and not merely real. The analysis falls out side as an accounting for reality while also arising in reality as only real, already compromised as belief or opinion, or whatever. There’s nothing else we could say about it, Except so much that I believe, that I have an opinion, about what this reality may be and what we are referencing as real things. But, it is not true. What is true is true. So I say that if we are going to begin to be responsible for what is actually occurring, Instead of always deferring responsibility in the real discursive negotiations, then The issue becomes how we are oriented upon things. Not so much about meaning. Orientation upon objects concerns what is true of the universe, and thus what is true of reality.”xx

The purpose of philosophy

Two basic purposes inform any philosophical proposal:

Self assertion, or, intention toward or upon phenomena.


Tool being, or, intentionality of real things

These represent the only two orientations upon objects that can arise in or as knowledge.

They must answer to Laruelle’s non-philosophical proposal of the unilateral duality, Or they always suffer from The first orientation, that is, human self assertion.

With any philosophy, thus, the first question that must be answered honestly is: for what purpose is the proposal?

It is from this first proposal, which is really a first philosophy which Arises before Aristotle’s first philosophy, which gives substance to religious offense.

This is to say that most often the answer will attempt to defend itself against the initial offense, which is, that self-assertion is taken as the ubiquitous and only manner that human beings may engage in philosophy. But as well, that this conventional way of philosophy also engages with the real world, as there is only one real world. 

This is the offense. This is the inherent blame put off from One Self onto another, into the community, which then gives rise to the basic Western questions upon principles that Plato addresses, such as Beauty, Justice, etc.. 

To be human philosophically without addressing oneself or answering to these “first philosophies” (which we find are actually “post-philosophies”) is considered to be not human, or unethical. Axiomatically contradictory to the conventional method by which all knowledge is posited.

According to the conventional approach to philosophy, we are not allowed to make any proposals which are not, in essence, ethical; this is to say, philosophical proposals must justify themselves to the given common whole of humanity which is oriented upon self assertion ( intention towards) as the basis for the human being in the universe. 

We thus begin to understand what Kierkegaard is entertaining in his works.

This is to say, that The regular mode of being human in the world that is Self assertion is based upon a deontological premise. This premise has no basis but suspension of knowledge. 

Hence also, as I have said in my book “the moment of decisive significance”, we find the true meaning of Kierkegaard’s work when we turn the conventional notion of faith on its head.


Repost: On Jean Baudrillard: Seduction, Hyperreality, and the Murder of the Real

“Philosophy leads to death, sociology leads to suicide” —Jean Baudrillard Today, we shall enter the desert of the real and examine Jean Baudrillard’s…

On Jean Baudrillard: Seduction, Hyperreality, and the Murder of the Real

—- Thanks Bobby.x