Pondering the limits of what we are able to know. Rp: International Webinar on Sri Aurobindo

Originally posted on Philosophy News in India: Philosophy News in India View original post

International Webinar on Sri Aurobindo

—- We must ponder the irony inherent to our knowledge when it comes upon a knowledge that is not its own. What ate we able to conclude?

This is one kind of beginning into the possibility of object orientation.

Beginning Philosophy: Ignorance

I’m going to see if some people can begin Philosophy.

Of course, there is the usual way which would answer how one gets into philosophy by suggesting various books to read.

I find that when I get with a friend or a colleague who while may be philosophical is not “informed“ to the philosophical literature, and ask them to read one of my papers, most often they can barely get through the first 10 paragraphs without having a number of fundamental questions about various things that I’m assuming the reader knows I’m writing about.

So, I find myself wanting to suggest to them various things that they might want to read so they would have a context to understand what I’m really talking about.

But on the other hand our discussion often enough moves to me merely asking them:

What do you think?

And they usually answer is some sort of variation about “I’m not very well read”, or “I haven’t read so in so…I’m not very familiar with X“. And responses of that nature.

And my answer usually is, “I think you do, and I don’t really think you need to read all those people and all those books for you to understand that you actually do know about these things.”

Then our discussion goes along the lines of how they already know what we’re talking about, how they disagree, and how the fact that we are talking about it, evidence says that they understand what we are talking about.

So I’m wondering if any of my readers who have just followed this post, this particular post right here, and read it, have anything to say about it.

Specifically, what are we talking about?

Innoway, it’s as if there is a kind of bred ignorance going on here. Again, as I will continue to reiterate over nearly every topic I address, there are two things going on around ignorance.

On one hand, there is the assumed, and I would say ideologically natural route into ignorance. It is ideologically natural because the natural way the human being grows is to be ignorant ideologically, ignorant of the social norms and negotiating of things.

On the other hand, there is an ignorance that is built into becoming informed about the ideological norms. This is to say that is one becomes more knowledgeable of the social and ecological negotiations, they naturally and implicitly find themselves more ignorant of how that knowledge is even able to be understood and known. I would say that this is an idea logically enforced ignorance.

I ponder that it is due to an individual’s orientation upon or within the former kind of ignorance, that reveals their orientation by the fact of them being involved in the latter kind of ignorance

When I’m talking about Philosophy., I’m standing in the middle of these two routes towards knowledge. However, most people, once I bring up Philosophy., or I sound like I’m speaking philosophically, automatically assume that we are standing within the presence of ideological norms at all times, not in the middle of two forms of knowledge, but in the middle of the universe itself, mediating the universe to that blank vacuous space called the human being, or, subjectivityAnd that indeed the ideological norms are the only way that we can understand our relationship with ignorance at all.

Existentialism as an internal material description of the subject

Subjective experience only arises in context. This means that there is no subject which pervades any particular instance.

All meaning is containment, and a meaning that is open, is contained by virtue of the fact that we must call it “open”.

The end result of this process of believing in an opening which in itself is closed, is the object itself.

The process itself, as an ongoing informative state, is what we know as existential angst.

The process is not an end onto itself, but is indeed a becoming, and indicates by the notice of what has ended, merely one route into being.

Itself indicating being, but not being,

As Kierkegaard noted in his “the sickness into death“,

In despair to will to be oneself.

The evidence is the knowing of this, the ability to know of this situation. If the evidence is indeed taken as evidence of some thing that arises in the universe, that is, as opposed to merely and folding it self back into the ongoing desperate process, then we can begin to understand that objects in themselves arise in the universe in this way. As an object in the process of angst, the process of the human being unable to reckon itself truly in a universe that arises in actuality, the object that becomes is one of a theological faith, subjective phenomenology, and eternal problem.

Existentialism is thus a process of the attempt to find existence, but that if not encountering existence in-itself. The finding of the object in itself, arising in the universe as such, is the object of Existentialism reckoned as a faith.

See perhaps: https://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com

… and you have a fabulously eventful day!

U.S.O.S. 2

Unexpected synchronous object semantics

The titles of the first three blog posts that showed up in my reader this morning, in order:

Think Big

Fog is Not Mysterious, Fog is the Mystery Itself

Le Temps (which is written in French. thanks Maylynno!).

rp “Some folks look for answers, others look for fights”*…

Grateful Dead plays Red Rocks for the final time, August 13, 1987 Max Abelson takes a break from his (essential) coverage of money and power at …

“Some folks look for answers, others look for fights”*…

—- some folks up in tree tops looking for their kites.

I can tell your future, look what’s in your hand.

But I can’t stop for nothing, I’m just playing in the band.


Keep going on…