Direct Tangent: Useless Jargon.

Lets be frank here: Laruelle’s problem is nothing more or less than what anyone who struggles with the reality of duality has dealt with. It is the same struggle that every religion proposes to solve; it is what the early 20th century magician Alistar Crowley also tried to solve with his Magick, no less.

In order to find the problem of L’s problem, we first have to get over the acedemic intellectual jargon; this is the first problem of all what- is-known- as philosophy. Acedemic jargon works to do two things: under the guise of a need-for condensed term, jargon creates a hierarchy of preists who thereby are so initiated and deemed worthy of considering the high problems of the court. Jargon thus is posed under a type of necessary fog ceiling of sorts that distinguishes those initiates as doers and considerers of great things. Hence jargon creates for those not initiated an aura of importance that justifies those big thinkers in the same way a congragation views the clergy, the bishops and the pope: the clergy is working in behalf of the congregation. It is like if I have a computer that does not work, I thank God for the programmers and technicians that I know or can rent for their knowledge and ability. The practicioners of philosophy so ordained in acedamia are viewed in the same way: under an assumption of thinking the big thoughts for the bennefit of humanity, or with skepticism, as if they really are doing nothing of importance. But the fact there are career, or at least ‘acting’ philosophers argues that they must be thinking something significant to the world.

The other thing jargon does is establish that indeed they are doing something important, because they have technical terms that (must) identify some vital disciplinary technolgy, like when physics comes up with ‘ quarks’ or ‘superstrings’ or ‘event horizon’ or ‘uncertainty’. Most people do not know much more that the basic ideas behind these things.

The difference between philosophy, or should I say ‘theoretical discourse’, and science is that science really does have use for much of their contrived terms in that science is dealing with segregated items of technology. Computers as a technology have little to do with the internal combustion engine but both technologies can be used to enhance each other – yet each with their own terminology that identifies particular items important to the technology. No one proposes or argues that a timing belt should have some epistomological relation of truth to a microprocessor, but the two may find harmony and use because they concern individual peices of technology; but what are the ‘peices’ of philosophy?

Philosophy, by and large has taken up this technological approach and has thus segregated itsself into disciplines and these disciplines then can be applied to aspects of reality as if there are pieces of ‘ thought reality’ that have a quality much like the computer and car engine. We have thus ‘ epistomology of business’, and ‘ ontology of civic duty’ and ‘computer ethics’ and like arenas that appear and propose to address particular things so as to procure usefulness in reality.

The problem with philosophy thus has more to do with the difference between bread-and-butter type paycheck philosophizing and the tendancy of those thinkers to synthesize some larger grand scheme about the truth of reality based upon their ventures into crunching the somewhat sketchy but apparently taken-as- practical ideas of what could be called ‘secular’ philosophy. Also there are those purist acedemics who read and read and read and analyze other philosophers who then are in the attempt to describe what those other philosophers were really saying and how significance might be drawn into our daily lives by these new profound insights. You see, it really is quite religious in its activity, the parish preists and reverends, the monks, the evangelists – one is hard pressed to miss the parallels between academic philosophy and institutional religion.

This is the problem Larualle is attempting to address. philosophers tend to believe in their efforts that they are doing some sort of fieldwork and then writing about their findings; the feildwork is seen as everyday life and their findings are philosophy. In this way, the problem lay in how they liken themselves to the other sciences that experiement with items of reality (fieldwork) and then state their findings. The philosophers, though – again – in their motion to combine ‘ technologies’ seem to over look ( or rather, probably forget to overlook) that the combining that they are involved in is Being itself: the human being and the world – and this is really all there is.

The scientists cannot help but be (in a way) humbled by the basic separation involved in their efforts, but the philosophers cannot help but move toward the inherent unity of their efforts. And the heads inflate, and the great meanings proposed in such the way involved in the great meaning tend to arrive the acedemic philosopher at the Truth ( at least this is the general feeling of those who have efforted the great effort that contemplated so intently).

Laruelle has rightly capitalized on this apparency and tendancy of philosophy to come to truths that are debatable. The point is that if these philosophers are indeed coming to the truth of the matter, or, to put it another way, if they are coming to the truths of the matters, then how or why is it debatable? The issue is that if all things are indeed relative such that we discuss, then this feature (the basic feature of debate and debateable things) of reality must not be in itself true but indeed must be relying upon something by which such proposals and arguments are seen to be coming to truth. For, of course, there cannot be a thing without something else, and if there is this thing of debate it must be by virtue of something else that is not debate. It cannot be relative since then we have a truth based upon a non-position that reduces upon itself infinitely and therefore has no substantial quality.

Now, this is just one way to put the issue, but I have done so in such a manner that avoids the acedemic jargon. It is the issue that Laruelle describes. So I ask: why all the jargon? Why all the acedemic hub bub? To me it is utter pomposity and it reveals that what he and those who step in similar discursive regalia are up to has little to do with solving any real problem but the problem of justifying their academic positions – but there is something else going on with Lauelle.

What Laruelle is proposing reflects upon his current position in reality. He is proposing his exact existential problem as if it is a problem to be solved objectively. He is caught in a way of speaking about his situation that defies the meaning he is attempting to convey and thus solve, which is the problem of apparent reality, which is exactly the problem I have proposed here.

Yet we should see here that this is just the beginning of the problem and that the other facets of Laruelle’s proposition also.hide under a facade of jargon.

So, it is only when we are capable of stating clearly the problem that we can begin to address the situation, for it is only then that we have the actual situation at hand.

35 thoughts on “Direct Tangent: Useless Jargon.

    1. Ah yes! I thought I recognized that name. The art of motorcycle maintenance. Yes. A friend who read my second book said it reminded him of that guy. I have yet to read him though.

      Unfortunately, I have a stack of books to read right now. Lol. They just keep piling up and so I’m trying not to pile them up more. 😊

      I’m kind of on a sabbatical from reading anything theoretical or philosophical anything like that because I’m trying to finish this book and if I keep reading other things then my mind starts wandering and I can’t focus on the point of the book that I’m trying to finish. So I’m only reading science fiction and fantasy for recreation right now.

      1. That makes sense. When you have a free space, I think you might find them compelling. Pirsig only wrote two books, the motorcycle one and the culmination of his work, a kind of sequel, Lila.

  1. After I commented on your post, I googled Laruelle. The thing that struck me most clearly, was his taking note of the unconscious decision, on the part of philosophy, to treat “what is” as something conceivable, known by a knower. That, of course, is crucial to “nonduality.”

    Your last statement, “Philosophy is about what is occurring” is interesting to me. Would you care to unpack it a bit?

    1. Well; what is occurring? If I use the word “being”, what am I talking about?

      I am not sure how familiar you are you are with the western philosophers, (I am fairly familiar with eastern philosophy so far is Buddhism , Taoism, fairly familiar with eastern philosophy so far as Buddhism and other runoffs from that basically Hindu Tantric ideas). but Martin Heidegger under took this very question. He seems to have answered it quite thoroughly and well. There is very little that I can disagree with.

      But there is something more that I can say. So I have to ask what that can possibly mean.

      Phenomenology or phenomenalism tends to arouse similar definitions of reduction to a particular kind of being.
      And I find myself not being able to disagree with very much of Hegel nor Husserl.

      I guess I would have to go through the whole list of authors. Lol. But in many cases in the philosophers I think our significant there’s really not much I can disagree with them about, and so I find myself in a different sort of philosophy than most people consider as philosophy.

      But that’s also why I write books. Because I found for one, hardly anyone wants to discuss anything through the blog format; two, most people read things philosophical on a blog and they automatically think they know better than the person who wrote the essay; three that there’s pretty much way too much stuff to put in blog format if I want to get my point across clearly.

      In short ‘philosophy’ the term is loaded with lots of problems. And I have found one solution to this myriad of problems by saying that philosophy concerns what is occurring.

      1. This is reminding me of what Pirsig wrote about people who did actually philosophize about what is occurring, as distinct from those who just did philosophology. Pirsig wrote, “Philosophology is to philosophy as musicology is to music, or art history and art appreciation are to art, or as literary criticism is to creative writing. It’s a derivative, secondary field, a sometimes parasitic growth that likes to think it controls its host by analyzing and intellectualizing its host’s behavior.”

        My familiarity with Western philosophy is quite sketchy; I suppose that I am more of a mystic than a philosoper.

        Are you familiar with Nagarjuna? Wei Wu Wei is a modern follower, using logic to point beyond its self-imposed limits.

        Pirsig is interesting in that he finds (particularly in his book Lila), a hierarchy of value on both sides of that limit.

      2. What an interesting way to put it. Wow if I would’ve read that book along time ago I probably would’ve saved me at least a few Brain cells. Lol.

        And I like that, yeah. Yet I feel like there is some thing more going on.

        It has something to do perhaps with the “art of theory” then. Because many of these philosophers are not really engaged exactly in a sort of critical position of art, to follow that analogy. The art critics, in a manner of speaking, are not involved in an effort of deception, whether it be self-deception or deception of others.

        Now perhaps Persig writes more on this than just your little excerpt might reveal, of course.

        But somehow I feel, to use that analogy, that some art critics feel as if indeed their criticism is inseparable from the art itself. That there really is no art that you can point to. That is, that there could be a comment upon it. But that this kind of duality is really the significance of the audience, not so much the artist or the critic.

        This is where the question of being comes in and how I put it, “what is occurring”.

        Because often I have to wonder what being is being indicated, or rather if that which is indicated is already a part of the problem of being, what I might say is a sort of “mistake“ inherent of being human.

        Slavoj Zizek Has framed it in a way -actually I think he’s referring to Deleuze, “the impassive surface between being and nonbeing”.

        Now, I have a little bit issue with putting it that way but it’s kind philosophical and more involved in this comment could hold.

        But I like the notion of a surface. I would say that all being is this surface. That the bifurcation to say that there is something Indicated that is not part of the content of or just the plain indication itself, Is being that is “not being”.

      3. I’m glad you found that perspective interesting. Pirsig seemed to be complaining more about how philosophy professors discouraged and ridiculed any student inclined to philosophize for himself.
        When you write about critics feeling that criticism is inseparable from the art, is that akin to the idea that there is no text, only readings?

      4. Lol.

        Well. I tend to side with the notion that there is only text. But I do not discount that there at least two beings. In fact I’m not sure that there is a single thing that we can call being.

        Would you say that there is a single thing called being?

      5. 🙂. Yes. And I’m not being a smart ass or ironic here. I am literally asking what Being is, or how you see it.

        I mean; I read your posts, and I think for the they are helpful and good.

        And I don’t want to intrude under a wrong assumption. Into something that indeed is doing good. As in goodness being enacted. 🙂

        But of course. I like to discuss things.

      6. Thanks, the aim of my blog is to be potentially helpful. I use the terms Being and IS, etc., as pointers, in this case, stepping stones to inconceivable and inarguable “suchness”, for want of a better term.

      7. “I say it frequently, but I don’t believe it. Lol”

        That is an interesting phrase. I’m wondering what exactly you mean by it.

      8. In the blog, I frequently use the terms Being, What IS, what we Are, etc. They are tools used to facilitate a fuller seeing, not an alternative beliet system.

      9. Well it is an interesting sentence. Because I say sometimes that there’s nothing that I believe in. That perhaps I can say I believe I’m going to get myself a cuppa coffee, or I believe that James is gay. But so far as what actually might be, there’s nothing that I believe in.

        I don’t think it is proper to say that I believe in God or I don’t believe in God or I believe that being is such and such.

        But also I do think that people are able to believe, and I’ve coined the phrase “Faith makes true”. As a sort of statement that links or otherwise speaks of the truth of how we must exist, which is to say that whatever I think of God or of ontology has nothing to do with what I believe and what I say I might believe really has nothing to do with the truth of how exist, and yet there are people who do believe things and it informs how they are, how they “Be”.

        And so I kind a make a distinction between types of being in that way.

      10. Usually, I think of belief as a concept in relativity; someone believes something. Metaphysical philosophy points to the Absolute, which has been defined as the absence of relativity. So it is the realm of “direct apprehension” rather than belief in a conceptual object by a quasi-subject.
        That is not to say that the “body mind” named Tom doesn’t appear to have beliefs, what could be called conditioned attitudes and characteristic responses.But they don’t require any self-conscious layer of belief.

      11. We have similar beliefs. 😆. Lol

        Are you very busy person? No hurry but would you be interested in reading my book that I just posted about that I just put in paperback.? I could send you the pdf. Or if you want to spend $10. Maybe you could be a Beta reader. Feedbacker
        ?

      12. That’s fine actually I think I’m going to put it on Google drive and if you want to give me your email address maybe I guess, then I’ll invite you to that file and you can download it. How’s that? I guess I would need your email address either way lol. but I’ll put it on Google drive .

      13. My name is Lance. Btw. So I would really appreciate it if you could give me feedback and if you notice any typos, because I know they’re still typos in it.

        I mean any kind of feedback that you can give me.

        Oh, so by the way it is an alternative reading of the Gospels. It’s not so much philosophy book except that it is kind of philosophy. So I hope you’ll give it a shot and I hope you enjoy it and I hope you can help me with cleaning it up somehow. Thx so much.

        Again no hurry.

      14. … I feel like I’ve heard of those guys you mention. I remember I got out a lot out of Jay Krishnamurthi though. Do you know of him?

      15. Yes, I am familiar with Krishnamurti, though I don’t find him that interesting nowadays.

        Nagarjuna died in 250 CE, and is probably the most famous Buddhist philosoper, and is usually credited with formulating the doctrine of Emptiness.

        Wei Wu Wei , died 1986, was a wealthy Brit, and is my favorite writer of what he sometimes called Metaphysical Philosophy, but what I call pointing towards what is.

        ..
        . .

      16. My favorite is Posthumous Pieces, which was his last full length book.The pieces are called posthumous because they are the dead record of living intuitions.
        Also there is a website called the Wei Wu Wei Archives that contains roughly the first third of each of his eight books — plus some photos, etc.

      17. That is very cool! I am kinda I’d surprised; maybe I had heard his name. But I never heard anything about him. Thx.

      18. I wikied Nagarjuna. My investigations into buddihism and eastern type was mostly in my early 20s. I’m almost 50 now🙂. That was when a friend had a few books by Krisnamurti. So it’s been a while.

        I like the wiki of nagarjuna.

        Interesting. I was just recently re-acquainted with an old friend from high school and he is extremely Christian and so we’ve been discussing things through emails. Him and I used to be such the pondering philosophers back then, (not based on any printed philosophers; just because we smoked weed). Lol.

        But he flipped out on acid really bad and then we never spoke again. A little bit of my fault maybe a little bit his fault.

        Anyways, he became extremely Christian I guess.

        But he really doesn’t want to know about anything that I think about,—did I mention that he’s very Christian.

        But he was also worried about his more what one might call “superstitious” beliefs, that I would judge him.

        And I told him that I am not here to judge, I am a conduit, I arise in context.

        It’s interesting that the wiki nagaruna and wei way wei seem to express similar notions.

    2. Oh… but I am not suggesting that you need to read all these philosophers all these western philosophers to understand what I’m saying, or what I’m suggesting or what my point is. I suppose that it helps because that is just the route I found myself in and seeking answers and having questions come upon.

      Because I don’t think there’s very much difference between Western and Eastern philosophers, but I think western philosophers might be a little bit behind and how they speak about things in the realizations that come through general experience.

      But I think it’s becoming close enough that someone will be able to take eastern thought and then take western philosophers and see where they are really saying the same things.

      But I feel like that still some time off I don’t feel like that is the moment that we are in right now.

      You know I don’t know if you’re familiar with Shambala. I guess when the first Buddhists came over from China in the 50s or the 60s or something like that they realize that the west would have no ability to conceive of their teachings.

      Shambala is a school of thought or certain manner of teaching made for the west.

      But still I think the western mind even as some people may walk around and robes or whatever, still are not comprehending the commonality involved in being human. Sure there are teachings but somehow I feel like even the most rigorous teaching often fails to communicate it substance.

  2. Okay, that wasn’t too difficult, and I share some of your mistrust of unnecessary jargon. When you wrote about the debatable, etc., I was reminded that Liquorman’s teacher used to say, “A concept is something that can be debated.” In my blog, I’m generally trying to point towards “what” is inarguably “here,” but not conceivable (“being” prior to the division of conceiver and conceived).

    1. Yea. I like that. In fact, I think François Laruelle of the non-philosophy that I begin my blog with in those posts, is also in a way trying to talk about, Or otherwise situate in discourse something similar to how you say “inarguably here”.

      Back then , which I think may have been what 2013 or something? I had just encountered Laruelle. And when I read him it seemed to me so obvious what he was talking about.

      but then, there are all these philosophers and people that see his work is something very complicated. And he even put out a “dictionary of non-philosophy” to help people understand what he was talking about.

      You can look it up if you want , it’s called “the dictionary of non-philosophy”.

      And I thought and still think that it is so astounding to me that people cannot understand what he saying or find it extremely difficult. And also – this is so strange to me – that those people who feel that they understand what hes saying often enough cannot tell me in plain words what he is saying; they always refer to his jargon. And then if you ask them what any particular term means, they refer you to more definitional jargon. And in the end, for someone who is trying to have a conversation with someone else in an effort so both people might learn something, you end up at a stalemate because that other person requires of you that you have the same definitional access to his lexicon, as though he has identified something so particular and so unique that the only way to talk about it is through his exact dictionary.

      I think that’s ridiculous. 😊. And so do a number of other people. But the fact remains is that he is talking about something very simple at least in my mind, so simple that I only had to read it all his stuff one time through and I knew what he was talking about. It’s kind of stupid. 🤖👾🤣. Lol.

      And so then those first however many posts in my blog I really am talking about why he has had to use such jargon to talk about something that is so simple.

      ——

      To me Philosophy is about what is occurring.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s