Thinking and Healing

Just pointing out on my post repost of Loenzini’s Paper on Foucault. And with regards to my last post about time for being.

I think it is very interesting how she (But Foucault)  makes the point that Philosophy. used to be about meaning and healing. but lately Philosophy. has just been about definition and evil, or avoiding evil. I think it’s interesting that they make the association of healing and evil. Which then moves to point out how modern philosophy is really a suppression of what is healing, in other words, it makes a Patsy out of healing for the sake of exalting the intellectual spirit, and calls such a healing factor of philosophy, essentially, in effect, evil by insinuation of method. It is not that Philosophy specifically indicates healing as evil, but in the effect of its methodology which exalts pure reason and intellectuality, disclaiming any healing function, any ontological inclusion, thereby the implicit equation is that which is healing of Philosophy should not be abided.

In my work I indicate this barren method of philosophy by the term “conventional philosophy”. But it’s so much as we are admitting and being honest with what Philosophy actually does, which is to say, tries to help individuals position or locate them selves or validate themselves in reality, thereby we reclaim the healing element of philosophy itself..

For sure there is an aspect of philosophy that is strictly intellectual processing. 

However, It may just well be that the mental health crisis we are in-countering now is because of the missed-direction that Modern/conventional Philosophy takes. And this is to say that I believe that human beings read Philosophy because most are interested in Philosophy because they are searching for something. They are attempting to connect their experience with something larger. But what we have found at least in the 20th century is that Philosophy keeps pulling back from that inclusion of being, to over intellectualize it into nothingness, into a sterile intellectualized “pure being” that no human being can possibly match up to.

We find evidence of this in many philosophers and philosophies of dystopia.  it is not difficult to notice this downplay, this depressed darkened version of being in such blogs as “dark ecologies”. For .sure, there is some scholarship going on there, and there are many things to contemplate. But I have always had issue with that blog and its authors because their whole vision is very dark, to just be blatantly honest about how it feels you read them. There are other sites also that resonate this way, toward a bleak future of depressing humanity, of over technology destroying what is human –to briefly sum up my feelings in reading.

If it is true, as Foucault says, that modern philosophy by removing the healing component of it and sterilizing it and distilling it to some sort of over arcing privilege of centralized reason, that philosophy in the modern era is always about the “I”, The subject presuming itself upon all of existence, then I think my point is made here. intellectually speaking such darkened extremities of the conventional philosophical arena do make some points; they are talking to someone, and they constitute a constituency of individuals who likewise have had their views and horizons darkened by the over intellectualization of being and world, but rather than submit and to sub come, I have always looked toward a brighter day. (Perhaps because the darkness I lived through was an actual darkness, not just an intellectual synthesis of a kind of “cool mood” of darkness. Anyone who is actually faced death and it’s depressing and saddening effects does not find themselves intellectually justified by sitting in it. If anything, they use their intellect spitefully, sarcastically, only because they find that they are unable to dig them selves out of such the abysmal pit through thinking about it.) 

I don’t think I’m delusional or putting my head in the sand merely because I see a potential of humanity rather than a dysfunction overtaking the future. 

Just check out the Philosopher Nick land, of which many of these darker philosophies seem to grab hold; a distortion of the previous post modern machine like, Organ-less misinterpretation of Deleuze and Guattari. If there was ever a philosopher who embodied the drug-induced spiteful haze of the 1990s it is Nick land. 


Perhaps it is this discrepancy that is to blame for our present mental health crisis. The discrepancy which suggests that such sterile philosophy is supposed to infiltrate and encounter every possibility of knowing.


Time for Being

I’ve become more and more convinced that freedom references a conceptual ability and not so much an ontological condition.

One of the issues of philosophy which gets reconciled in anthropology is: what constitutes the umbrella condition? is it “meaning” under which everything else finds substance? Is it “definition”? Is there a “being” under which everything else gets organized?

I think specific questions such as these are specifically philosophical, and as such, do not really get to the truth of the situation.

They do offer up reality. And I think the difference between truth and reality, and how we get to either one, is the central issue for being human. It is not so much philosophy, in my opinion. I feel that philosophy is kind of a “middle player”; I feel that Philosophy. is involved with closing, or the closure of being, but also the disclosure of being; I feel it is specifically concerned with reality, and places reality over truth. The philosopher is able to come up with categorical distinctions so far is approaches and activities, such as, epistemology, ontology, Praxis, Justice., all these kind of categories that we see in the beginning of Greek philosophy.. it is a way to help people who are really just trying to eat and have a roof over their head and raise some kids and go water skiing on the weekends. Philosophy. really never gains, by itself anyways, what is really going on. Rather, it defines a space where everyone else can go along in their lives unreflectively, happily, in the middle, and live their lives.


 I feel along this line of contemplation that there are two times happening, and that how we view this time is reflected into how we approach the universe.

The salient questions:

Am I writing, am I discussing things in order to speak to listeners and conceptualizers and perceivers specifically and only right now? Is my activity and investment attempting to only gain some thing for myself in the world while I’m alive ? Do I situate what might be in the future against this project that is me in the world attempting to affect it in an ethical manner?

There’s probably more ways I could phrase this category of questioning. And, keep in mind in posing these questions, I am not there by suggesting that there is something incorrect in whatever answer would be solicited or gained. For sure the answer is yes to all of them except as they may indicate the only thing that is going on.

I mean this in the sense that philosophers who are not writing for their own time but that indeed are writing for a future that they cannot conceive. That indeed good philosophers are addressing things that they are not able to contemplate. Their philosophy is founded in what is preposterous, what the middle Road sees as absurd.

The Philosophers that we know so well are timeless because, regardless of what they thought about their own projects, they were writing for a situation that they could not conceive of. Implicit to their ideas is a timelessness exactly because they were not placing the objects of their consideration within the Real frame that they understood: Theyre discourses were oriented upon a transcendence in the purest form, what in the 20th century a few author is called “difference as difference”. And this is to say a difference that is never reconciled in present time or reality, but is reconciled at all times in reality.

When we reference truth in this way we have to see that the present fashions of philosophical argument in negotiations are exactly real, and true and as much as indeed they are manifesting now as if they are talking about an atemporal and omni present truth which extends through history.

As Donna Haraway talked about in her video that she put out, I don’t know, 30 years ago, about a ball of yarn. As we approach to talk about what might be happening, we grab hold of one particular string and we begin to pull it out from that ball. Discourse is proceed along that line of thread. But at all times is such a discourse never and always referencing the thread that is perpetually uncovered and undiscoverable.


Human beings make sense. And they act. The twoare correlational and extended no further than the individual body. The true issue is that the body, while the real issue is the spirit. It is by virtue of the spirit that the individual erect a partition of itself to be able to have a world in which purpose becomes manifest. 

Repost: Daniele Lorenzini on Foucault and Descartes (open access) – part of Theory, Culture & Society Special Issue: ‘Foucault Before the Collège de France’

Daniele Lorenzini’s article “Philosophical Discourse and Ascetic Practice: On Foucault’s Readings of Descartes’ Meditations” is now available open …

Daniele Lorenzini on Foucault and Descartes (open access) – part of Theory, Culture & Society Special Issue: ‘Foucault Before the Collège de France’

Psychology and philosophy, part five: The issue at hand.

I am not sure that Philosophers Who like to refer to Lacan’s psychoanalysis realize that his theory is based on actual observation and analysis of people with mental disorders. 

Going back slightly, it seems like Lacan Is the psychologist that some Philosophers love to use as a philosophical ground, or at least many philosophers in a certain vein use psychoanalysis as some sort of grounding feature of their philosophy. I’m not entirely sure why this is so; also I’m not entirely sure why other psychologists are not equally explored for Philosophy and as Philosophy as Lacan is.

I’m not really sure. Because there are numerous theories of psychology that are quite philosophical, and I would argue, quite valid for an approach to mental health, existence, being in the world, and just Philosophy, ontology, epistemology, etc…

In a bit maybe I am going to get into what I feel is a more bodily grounded version of Lacan’s psychoanalytic theory. I think Philosophers who would like to use his psychoanalysis, (for example Zizek) but then philosophers who like to stake their orbit around him as well, and Freud, going back to “the beginning” of psychology itself– I think the Philosophers in general like to sit back in their “library chair” and think about how various discourses of things can make sense to the intellect. And I think these “armchair philosophers” never really encountered the actuality of the insane human being. Insanity itself, mental illness itself, and then compounded with the analysis of the psych with reference to these mental illnesses, with reference to how they actually occur, how they actually appear, how people actually present themselves and how they actually act — I think the philosophers who merely philosophically ponder philosophical themes that seem to be embedded in, for example, psychoanalysis, typically miss the actuality of the situation for the sake of the idealism invested in synthetical philosophy and reason.

Indeed, it is easy to get lost in synthetical thought. I wonder now if Philosophy as a discipline could be defined as the partitioning, as the purposeful and intentional partitioning of thought from the world in order to see what comes about.

I wonder if People who then view Philosophy., consider philosophical material get caught up in the imposing of this synthetical reason upon reality, and thereby historically or traditionally miss the actuality of the situation in front of them for the sake of the a priori categories that are invested in such a philosophical orientation up on things.

Indeed, if this is actually the case, if we can or indeed if we have identified philosophy to what it’s actually doing, then I think we might be able to understand where the current trend of realism has come out. But as well, what the problem with phenomenological orientation in philosophy comes from: Because both of these approaches are really caught in the mechanism of reason and thereby viewing the actuality of things through this distinctly separate category of functioning, to them there by make arguments why this separated category should be the priority, should be the basis from which real things have veracity and substance.

But really it is two things going on at once, it seems. On one hand, we have arguments for argument. What I’m Saying is that people use their intellect, use a particular synthesis of logic and reason, and come up with an argument which is really the argument why their method of coming up on reality should be true. In other words, why it should be true that idealist reason should be the determining factor for what is real.  Then on the other hand, we have the view that sees such arguments as indeed addressing the actuality of the real universe. Yet both of these approaches are based in the assumption of Kantian priority. Both of these aspects of philosophy that I just pointed out I really stemming from the same myopic assertion, which amounts to a privilege, a privilege which is always withheld in the argumentation itself, such that all one Hass to do is point out where it is faulty, and then the very act of that rebuttal verifies that the reason from the prioritized argument is valid, and then people spin out in an argumentative effect which pulls further and further away from the actuality of the situation in front of them; they get caught in an idealism that supposed to be able to define itself out of that idealism by using different terms.

This philosophical method is completely the opposite of every other discipline that proposes to work with real things.

For example psychology. Psychoanalysis is not simply people sitting in their minds using logic about why things should be the case because they make sense or they don’t make sense and then imposing that model upon what they see in front of them.

We begin to see where Foucault stakes his claim. Because psychoanalysis, amongst other academic disciplines, such as medicine, such as pretty much any activity that we do in the world, is drawing its categories from interaction with real things first. The interaction with real things happens first and is constantly referred to in the development of theory.

Philosophy as a discipline seems to start from reason and then apply this reason onto what is encountered. As I said, then proceeded to argue why this prior approach, why this privileged approach should be valid.

I think I’ve just explained everything there is about Philosophy. in this post. I’ve explained how it functions. And I’ve explained the problem is inherent to every proposal that it can make, as well as just described what counts as valid philosophical statement.



Would you agree or disagree?

Theory of Mind

From Wikipedia:


Theory of mind is a theory insofar as the output such as thoughts and feelings of the mind is the only thing being directly observed, so the existence of a mind is inferred.[5] The presumption that others have a mind is termed a theory of mind because each human can only intuit the existence of their own mind through introspection, and no one has direct access to the mind of another so its existence and how it works can only be inferred from observations of others. It is typically assumed that others have minds analogous to one’s own, and this assumption is based on the reciprocal, social interaction, as observed in joint attention,[6]the functional use of language,[7] and the understanding of others’ emotions and actions.[8] 

—- Theory of mind appears to be the active and real default stance of denial that is required for a particular protocol of knowldge to procede to have credence.

“Denial” is in the sense of a common understanding that the argument to substantiate the theory is unneeded and its rebuttal moot or absurd because it is contradictory.

Since the ToM is assumed and not argued in order for it to be the case, it therefore is not inconsistent to conclude that…

…Conventional reality arises due to a faith. x

Survival show and More

The farther one goes back in history, the more intense the question of record survival becomes. The farther away we look, the dimmer things get, not …

Survival show

—— Our view is partial, yet always receding in one way or another.

I ponder if indeed there is a correlate linear idea of human kmowldege and ability which fades the further back in time we go becuase we indeed are progressing in knowldge, or if our idea of this progression is due to a loss of records and an inability to get to the ones we have, or, if we simply are inable to hold a larger capcity than that which we see as historically fading.

Perhaps we are only able to hold a certain amount of knowldge in conceptual organiztion whether it be personal or social or ideoligical.

The physical doorstop

“Is Light Fundamentally A Wave Or A Particle?”: the history and the results of John Wheeler’s famous “delayed choice” experiments
(Plus- alchemy, …

“The ‘paradox’ is only a conflict between reality and your feeling of what reality ‘ought to be’”*…

—– love it!

just a side commentary:

I feel like the solution to all these issues of physics, and probably philosophy alike, is already found.

I’ve asked a couple of my engineering friends, one who is actually an astrophysicist, and indeed I’ve heard it many times in many places, physicist and mathematician’s agree:

There is no such thing as time From a physical standpoint. And then from a philosophical standpoint, there is only time to the extent that it must be involved in phenomenal philosophy. But then we could also say just from a standpoint of actual reality, never minding the physics argument or the philosophical argument, that whether or not time actually exists or does not, regardless of what the scientists want to talk about time, and as well regardless of what the philosophers would wanna argue about: Their discussions go so little to affect my daily activity, it is as though the discussion about what time is is utterly moot at the same time Omni present. It is a discussion of absudity. It is a discussion of the emperors new clothing.

But back to physics: Time is merely a placeholder, it is merely a variable in formulas, in mathematical equations. It has no presence, it has no objective reality. It is utterly a “0” for lack of a better term, A void, an emptiness, doorstop, by which all the rest of the formulas of physics, classical and quantum alike, find their bearings.

Take that conceptual doorstop away, the world does not end. Only a particular manner of perceiving ends. Humanity goes on, progressing as it always has. But under a different ‘universal religion’.

Or, while we perpetuate that metaphysical-physical space, time becomes God, the actual God, at once immanent as well as absolutely transcendent.

If we can come to terms with that….

But ‘we’ never do.



words and objects

There is no knowledge that is not bound by faith. Two aspects to words arise simultaneously. Words at once refer to an existing object at all times, or, words only encompass part of the things they supporting reference.

Science and real thought is oriented upon the former or the latter. However, since the terms by which we have or come upon knowledge is partial, then The truth is both. The only route to asserting which is the more case is based in an understanding that already informs the view.

Being “open minded” to opinions is thus being accepting of the fact that ones view is indeed the only view, since it is the viewing which is granting the knowledge come upon as not ones own view.

It is faith which transcends the determination of Being, whether it be of the Word or the Object.

How might be determine a healthy stance in this contradictory situation ?

What do you say?

Death is objectivity. It is short. Limit. Definition. It is real.

The discourses is eternal life stem from the phenomenal intuitive realm of knowing.

Both gain thier credentials through faith. Faith supplies the compensation necessary for individuals to have real identity.

Death is not the end. But neither is life eternal. Both terms indicate limit and transcendence. And: both exist truly. They arise in context; but they have arisen out of context.

How do we then ethically assert our identity in the real world without positing an out of either absolute objective truth or phenomenal relativity ?

How do we stay with being true existence in reality?