The Impossible; part 2.

I am offering nothing new. Yet, it seems that very few people have understood what has already been told. The fact that most people want and expect something new shows, in relief, that a new configuration of terms is needed, but I am quite sure that what is impossible again will be put into good use for progress, if only because it has become possible to do so, because people want new things, especially if it is a new thing that hasn’t been new for a long time – or even a short time.

The ridiculousness of a discussion about the impossible, let alone a constructive one, no doubt has reduced my readership to very close to zero, but this is truly ironic because what is truly impossible, as to our discussion so far, resides just this side of it: Most readers are hardly non-readers and so see such a discussion as so useless and nonsensical – so offensive it is, of course it has to be discussing something absolutely impossible, which is ridiculous. They like to stay in the middle, in the moderated state, in the mediated reality; very comfortably, I’m sure. We, by contrast, are not so comfortable with being comfortable; indeed this mediocre is not comfortable, it is aggravating as it is outright lazy. The being comfortable lay in the couch of ignorance – so much is bliss, so they say. Every comfort is quite possible; one can only surmise that this is the reason why what is new and novel plays in such an assertive attitude for identity. I imagine another thousand years might pass until the impossible becomes pertinent again.

*

In order for there to be a discussion about the impossible, we must be able to find what is possible. We cannot begin with the impossible. This route then must venture to present what is true, and not merely true in faith. The philosopher must be concerned with establishing a ground, for this is the point of contention: Where or what is the basis of reality and what then results for reality when its ground is found?

What we find, though, is contradiction; the ground is paradox. Not that the paradox is then the indicator of what true, is possible , against what is false, the impossible, but that the paradox, the contradiction, what constitutes the impossible, is the ground. We find irony: It has already been found, but something gets in the way. What invariably happens is then another person feels they have to reiterate it. Each next person, because this person has come upon the point of contention, sees it in others before him or her and then draws upon the previous discussions to explain how those discussions have been incorrectly understood, and what they are really saying. This, or these, discussions thus then mark what can be called a quality of history, a historicity, because the discussion is not really moving toward anything, not gaining a more thorough description or drawing upon causes for correction, but is merely reiterating the point of contention for that particular moment in which it manifests. More precisely, the more thorough description is showing that itself is incorrect, but this explanation is contradictory to reality and so is habitually ignored or justified by a need for more study. In this way the something that gets in the way is exactly history, which is the developing of storyline of cause-effect relations of true objects along a temporal scheme of progress. The something that gets in the way is exactly faith. The point of contention is that which distinguishes what is of faith and what is true, and from this, what is real and not real, and what is possible and impossible. We come upon is the existential bifurcation: the impossible possibility that what is human must be not me, the point where the impossible, ‘I am’ the total world, becomes possible, where the quality of the assertion that is history is exposed.

The irony of this the reiterated discussion is that because it can only reiterate due to the apparent temporal change of meaningful terms, it is then represented in time as an extended or extrapolated progressive explanation. The discussion upon the point of contention is seen or understood as gaining a better ability to more thoroughly describe the issue, and appears to be actually getting to the most comprehensive discription yet – as if a progress is indeed occurring (is it?) This is why for many in their moments in history, certain authors have been heard to say how they are witnessing a ‘crucial’ or ‘significant’ time in history – because the quality of every moment is crucial and significant when the observer is viewing from where their humanity has been brought into question due to their ahistorical expression upon the point of contention. Only from the conventional historical view, from the view that sees proper objects to be discerned, objects that dispense or give up information of themselves to our knowledge when the proper method is enacted upon them, do only certain particular moments becomes significant, as these moments work to serve the cosmology of universal structure of true objects as well as the ontology of temporal progress. Particular objects are punctuated according to the teleology of conventional reality as reality necessitates a particular scheme of meaningful terms, the substance of faith, of intrinsic mythology: the structure and framework, the scaffolding, of true objects, how they got they way, what this all means, where humans fit in – the answers to these questions arise necessarily and correspondently from the issues that prompted them, as they reflect, equate and amount to the reality of the possible universe.

Here we have then a description of how I might say that convention – the proper scheme of meaning that rules the method by which to discover real objects – usurps what meaning might otherwise find or express truth, a virtual coup d’etat for the sake of maintaining and establishing reality, and this is to say, what is true is routinely and consistently routed back into reality through faith. Again: Reality is founded in faith upon a ground of true objects that contain the potential to convey their inherent truth(s) in terms that are not contradictory of meaning. Terms are taken, seen and understood in conventional faith to be presenting meanings that stem from actual or true objects, true material essences, so that what is conveyed by terms is automatically and innately brought into reality, within or along the temporal scheme of progress.

The reiteration, because it is merely presenting the same ‘thing’ in different terms, thus represents a potential for departure from such temporality. Here also is the point of contention. What is presented is always atemporal, it does not exist in time. The problem with this statement, though, is that it appears in time, just in time, to fulfill the teleology implicit of the scheme of meaningful terms that are used to describe the situation of what is presented. The attempt or effort to overcome the ubiquity of the conventional scheme, and to thus present what is presented, never occurs, because the meaning of time itself is innate in the structure of conventional reality (reality), and what is presented is typically taken to be the same as what is represented in the conventional meaning. Yet conventional reality is always represented, and that, in time; reality cannot be but represented. Hence, reality contains all that is possible in faith, and what is then true, apart from faith, is impossible. The question “If the statement is true, why is it reiterated”, is salient.

Realize that what I have just described is ironic: Its meaning betrays itself, for what I have done is presented an impossible situation of reality using real terms in reality, and this then must be impossible, or, for those conventional realists, because I have presented a contradiction, a paradoxical meaning, its meaning must be not true, ridiculous, absurd. But indeed, this is why I say, the truth is impossible, not real. Yet, because it is indeed true, and I have presented it, it is ironic. If irony means anything, it means that conventional reality is real but it is not true, but only true in faith.

What I have also done is created or indicated an essential polemic, an essential duality. As well, I have presented and it will be represented. Now; reality would not be real if it was held or if its establishment was known only by a small number of people. Obviously, what is reality is held as true and real by a huge, overwhelming majority. But is this so? Is it merely a situation of numbers of people who know what is real? I am also indicating that I am of a minority that knows the truth, and that this truth includes reality but is not real. It is here that we can begin to see the true significance of the discussion of the impossible. The indictment itself reveals how history, what is for all purposes conventional history, moves not so much upon true objects in time, or interpretations of such objects, but upon a quality of existence that includes through exclusion, that what is inclusive then presents the truth as what is exclusive represents reality. And, such a representation then bifurcates unto grounds that at once speaks true human agency, as well as the route to inclusion of socially excluded or marginalized persons. Yet these discourses remain, as an existential imperative, polemically exclusionary.

In a way, it could be seen that I am saying that (conventional) reality is not really real, and that I am attempting to convey what is truly real. This also, strangely, ironically, is not the case, but indeed I could be taken to be meaning just that; I am thus able to extrapolate unto social contingency. If this latter case is actually the case, that I am attempting to describe a more real reality, then, by the bare fact that I know of this ‘better’, ‘greater’, or ‘more comprehensive’ reality, it would seem that somehow I have been able to move beyond the ‘limit’ of what is conventionally real. What is real by virtue of a ‘majority rule’, a majority in which I participated to create reality, and still participate, has lost its power. Reality then cannot be a manifestation, an actual ‘substantial’ arena of objects the nature of which have been (necessarily) agreed upon (as imperatives) such that ‘the few’ are in need of therapy or rehabilitation, as people might be discontent, paranoid, neurotic or plain delusional; the result of an ability to know of a reality that is more real than reality is to see that what is real is a manifestation of a particular assertion of power. By this standard and way of speaking, what is impossible from a social perspective with reference to reality, is that other human beings, particularly members of a marginalized group such as ‘race’ or ‘culture’, have or otherwise exist in a different reality altogether. What is more real in this case must then be indicated not merely by the other reality, but by the admitting of another reality. This turn of what is expected to be true in presentation yielding a truth that is represented, one that remains true to the original presentation while representing something else, can be called transformation. And, though I hesitate to say it, could, in some circles, be called the moment of irony, or the ironic turn.

The issue here with the dialectic that represents the critique of human relations (critical race theory is the politicized ‘human’ critical theory) is, since reality can only be represented by conventional terms, and we have admitted that other realities do exist, but that they exist marginally, or now ‘barely exist’, and this with reference to power, exist only where the effective conventional assertion of power has ‘allowed’ these other realities to exist – the relation of the oppressor to the oppressed: How do we go about ‘breaching’ or ‘compromising’ the rhetoric of power (the phrasing of conventional terms, the discourse of reality), what can be called the ‘priority discourse’, in order to bring such excluded realities and humanities into just relation with the universe of human beings? We might call such an endeavor “inter-relative”, or even “trans-relative” discourse, or simply “transitional” discourse, since all conventional realities find truth in negotiations of relativity and have veracity in as much as they are conveyed or related through discourse; this is difference in conventional discourse because convention is ‘already agreed upon’, and transitional discourse thereby involves the negotiation of at least two faiths, at least two conventional realities.

*

Of course, conventional reality establishes the real in faith; in so much as there may be more than one (not necessarily ‘more real’) reality, this ‘other’ reality likewise is real by faith, hence the problem of compromising the truth of faith, and hence the truth that exists outside of faith. From the perspective of the admittance, the opening in reality that considers the possibility of what was once impossible (the existence of another reality), the conventional one would look out into the potential that lies beyond reality and conclude that the more real reality will one day take form when the negotiations of faith have settled or come to terms between them. What occurs as result is thus not the more real reality, but exactly, again, reality itself. The problem has not been solved, but only put off into another problem. This then presents the impossible as exactly not real, and brings to the front the issue that is delayed in critical human theory. Politics here is merely a symbol, a vehicle for approaching the impossible; social justice, an ‘end’ that must function within the reckoning of marginalized parties, serves a purpose that it does not recognize in its own purpose if it will achieve its purpose. But in the end, if there is more than social justice, its implementation achieves only social justice, since what moves beyond is entirely not real, but is actually, for reality, absolutely absurd.

**

Next up: can it be ?? The Impossible, part 3.

18 thoughts on “The Impossible; part 2.

  1. Being perpetually in-between. The there are two major possibilities of attack on a “mediated reality”. One from each of the fronts it spans: human and divine.

    You articulate one fork of this criticism: namely laziness, and you do so from the position of a more active kind of worldly negotiation. The other fork, or non-fork or non-front as perhaps you yourself would consider it, as if this did not exist in your/our politically-constituted reality (in the sense of a polis), would be from the side of final divine arbitration in the more traditionally Christian understanding of God. The other fork is the exact opposite: workaholic! According to Ecclesiastes, perhaps, the mediator is merely “chasing after the wind”, such vexation, vanity of vanities (הָ֫בֶל, hebel), all of his work and effort ultimately in vain because the mediator is not ever at peace, always oscillating between positions, rushing around all to no lasting avail.

    While your side yells “Laziness!”, the other non-side, realizing that it’s not even a matter of sloth, nor even of virtue-vice, nor of seven deadly sins, suggests that there is something more frustrating at work. The frustration of the soul. That is, the real error is that one is not humbly receiving God’s gifts as good, not accepting the world as given by God, under a sense of urgency, etc. The negotiator and the mediator are both prime candidates of arrogance and egotism, falling prey to the material body to varying extents. Yes, the mediator is somewhat comfortable, but apparently, I’m told, there is an ever greater comfort. (“Come to me, all of you who are weary and carry heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you. Let me teach you, because I am humble and gentle, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”)

    So there is this double attack, from the more body-oriented approach and the soul-oriented approach, and up until now I have been walking the fine-line between them, mostly balanced on this edge, dodging the arrows shot across the battle-field, calling for a ceasefire, a complete stop to all of the shooting. There seems to me to be this cross-fire. You so willingly fire arrows at the divine, at living souls, knowing that nothing “real” will be hit, no bodies will fall, and therefore making for a good target-practice. You suggesting that “its implementation achieves only social justice” and that whatever it is, it is “not entirely real” or “absolutely absurd”. In return, the divine shoots down its lightning bolts, too. Imagine if it were opposite, if the truth was that reality were not of this world, but that this world was, in fact, the impossible which happened through Him, that which is taken as not entirely real or absolutely absurd, and the arrows are shot back at you from seemingly nowhere, or if you, like Job perhaps, his human life unreal in comparison to the reality of his soul, were the target-practice of God. (“And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul?”)

    This requires quite the imagination, doesn’t it? I do not hold to its truth, but for this same reason I also have a difficulty holding to the truth of your reality. In this mediated state of suspension, I can only but self-suffer the arrows launched by both sides, or from your side and the non-side, calling for an end to the wartime archery in pursuit of peace itself…

    1. “Haven’t come all this way not to stick to my guns”, as I look across the field. Here they come to storm the battlements; I will give them a good run.
      What a day to die, a martyr for the cause. So I pray for the One – who will cover me when I’m gone.

      That just came to mind.

      I guess the question that also comes to mind is: what are you mediating?

      1. Perhaps the question is not “what”, but of something else entirely …. hmmm….

        You have no real interest, it appears to me, in deciding upon the “what” that I am mediating, if I am in truth mediating any “whats” at all. In fact, the “what” is very clear to you, and I think we agree on most “whats”. If I said the “what” should not be spoken of as an object (e.g. that therefore it is something non-negotiable that is brought coming into the world or into dialogue) or that it cannot be approached in speech but instead in the sound of silence, then surely you would immediately wish to make it an object or a “what” lest we could not communicate about it. I can respect that, so I will not speak of any “whats” right now. The “what” is a matter of negotiation, yes, but I am negotiating negotiation itself: mediating is a “how” kind of thing, the “how” of these negotiations. Consider this as me dodging another arrow, dancing to the music in the middle of the battlefield as they whizzzzz on by…

        Perhaps you should look at “how” I am dancing here through the “what-field”, listen for the subtleties in the musical harmony, and maybe consider dropping your bow and instead taking a bow. Yes, I am trying to get at a “how”, or a certain posture, which requires that we take leave of the ground of “whats” and climb up into the air of abstractions, theologies, mathematics, etc… I am changing my emphasis from “what” to “how”, because I am usually of the mindset that the “whats” are in the long-run trivial and trivially trivial at that or will otherwise work themselves out as we think of the “how”, and that “hows” can help should we be willing to pay attention to the motifs of the music…

        I am more concerned with motivations, motifs, recurring themes and/or patterns, as they take place and become-concrete “whats” in sound and space, in the topology of life, …

        Means are, after all, everything…

      2. Touché; thank you. Perhaps a tiny bit of violence is warranted at times! (If only due to my offerings) I suppose it is a dance. Of effects, as I say, and not objects; of how not what.

        More in a bit. ( negotiating some very what’s right now ;).

    2. I suppose when the mediation is finally relinquished or played out one will find – what? Peace?

      I am seeing such an interesting ironic motion in your reply here: it is like an oscillating wave: I read a clause in one ‘side’ of your point description, and as you proceed to link supporting clauses in the same ‘side’ to describe it- while I understand, the categorizations associated with each, but one ‘side’ vacillates, so that the clauses you appear to see linked in description of a side, I see here one side, then a characterization that I see as completely opposite it yet you putting it to describe the same side, and then back. (Same side, i.e. Not real. Or. Real. Each ‘one side) Very interesting.

      Parallax comes to mind. More in a bit.

      1. Peace, yes, in perpetuity, but that will perhaps be more collateral… Who knows “what” one will find! Why go forward when we haven’t yet figured out the “whats”, or when we barely know the “hows”?

        We mediators, “how” people, are sitting here on the unthinkable edge of possibilities, at the edge of all modern physics and higher mathematics, at the edge of all present theory and abstraction, with great uncertainty of what will come; it could well be monstrous! So let us be ready, together, for the future, by looking at the “how” of things themselves, by training ourselves with a certain preparedness, with a certain foresight and wisdom, with the metaphorical “weapons” available through nonviolence resistance.

        Negotiation – “what”
        v ^
        Mediation – “how”
        v ^
        Arbitration – “why”

        “Be ready, together” – does that mean we go back down to earth with negotiation? But then does the negotiator unwittingly take the “whats” to be the same as the “hows”? For the negotiatior, the what is itself the how. But are they not – in reality – different things? “Be ready, together” – does it mean, instead, having “faith”, a kind of religious faith, in what results, in the “why” itself which often escapes us, as humans, whatever may occasion?

        Just as I am negotiating the failures of the “whatty” negotiation, in order to bring us to mediation, you, in this response, are mediating mediation! This ushers us not back into negotiation – does it? – but into arbitration, where there does not appear to be a Big Arbiter available, but where the consequences of our thought and action in negotiation and mediation of possible reality/ies will come to bear in the future configurations of being. Here is where “faith” finally becomes an issue. Or, vacillating a bit, do I have this rhythm completely backwards, and we actually began with a final arbitration on arbitration itself (e.g. …that God Is Dead! And We Have Killed Him!), to establish faith, to mediate mediation, to arrive at last with negotiation in community? I do not follow Nietzsche, you know, I consider myself “non-Nietzschean”, working instead with Novalis, who merely prefigures this move. Dead, yes, but still with us; still with us, but dead all the same…

        Is it a “unilateral determination” in this way? Or is it instead more hybrid, more Dual in a higher mathematical sense? My view on Gandhi is that he is a “non-Laruellean” non-philosopher. It is a rather holographic vision. Is there any way to escape the flows of these three categories, the three potentialities of radical equivalency? Yes, perhaps, I think this would be Zen enlightenment, with all of its irony and koany jokes, which is presumably why Layman Pascal is inviting me over in that thread to drop my stick and take up non-dual communication instead of my non-violent communication, which is of course dual…

      2. On second thought, to be perfectly fair, the “why” should really be the “who”, e.g. who He is, He is “the Lord”, Him, etc. the Prounouns are important. I am being rather egocentric if I say “why”, seeing it from an I perspective rather than a divine THOU (Buber et al.)…. sorry about that, just occurred to me before I went to sleep. Best wishes.

      3. Your replies are quite provocative. Compelling. So much that I am writing a longer reply that may take a little bit. Namaste, my brother in the mines.

      4. Sees no evil – builders of peace
        Hears no evil – keepers of peace
        Speaks no evil – makers of peace

        Have I gathered these associations correctly from you reply? I think so/ hope so.

        I do enjoy the conventional sees itself as speaking no evil, or understands no violence between the term and the object, nor the subject and object, that the term conveys the object. So they seek to ‘make peace’ through the negotiations of True Objects. This is such a good poetry; thanks.

        But I’m having difficulty situating the other two correspondently.
        If you hear no evil – perhaps one could say what you hear of the divine conveys no evil, no violence ? So that you then mediate what you hear into the world, keeping peace through what you convey, or keeping peace through negotiations?
        Or myself – see no evil, as what I am seeing bares no evil, so I build peace through what I convey, or build peace in negotiation? But I think much of my negotiations causes offense, and sometimes end up quite violent from an argumentative standpoint. Some (many many) people are just stubbornly and righteously ignorant and dense.

        I’m not sure how these would play. But I kinda like it.

        I thought I might offer you an anecdote, to help illustrate the issue at hand.

        I was raised Lutheran, so I have an understanding, a certain sympathy for and of religious people, even as I argue against its institution. In my youth I was quite Christian. But when I saw the hypocrites of the Christian constituency and its history, I asked God to show me the Truth, and He It proceeded to show me that He It did not exist. Quite ironic in hindsight. Lol.

        A fictional anecdote. (Maybe you already read it in my comments replies with Bigstoryguide guy) When my grandmother, who was a devout Catholic, was on her deathbed dying of cancer, I did not go to her and tell her of the logics, or rather illogics, of Christianity. I went to her as the Christian grandson she knew. I told her, “God is with you, and Jesus is waiting for you”.

        Some would say I was not being truthful with her, but was being compassionate. But I would say I was being the most truthful I could be with her. I was not mediating anything. I was exactly being her. There was no ‘truth’ of some divinity, per say, that was being conveyed. Yet neither were there two individual humans over which an arbiter was handling the situation. Her faith was not against my knowledge, as I capitulated in human or divine understanding. There was only me exactly how I was in that moment, what one could call, ‘of compassion’, perhaps a true meaning of what you say, non-violence.

        The issue comes down to a matter of terms. Any number of definitional structures, or schemes of meaning, could be applied to that situation; the extent to which one comes to a true meaning, there is faith. But there is a faith, of this sort, correspondent with this meaning I just now give, that requires no faith for it to be true, no assertion, no argument. Rather, in a manner of speaking, it is a kind of one argument that reduces all arguments to itself. Its motion is ironic. For, everyone has that argument, but only a few have it. This ironic situation presents a unilateral duality. Perhaps, in a way, a Hegel-Kierkegaard vacillation, but without the necessity of (non-philosophical?) one-without-the-other, yet both.

        Similarly, see the romance. How can it be spoken about? That is, without contrivance, without deflection? Can you speak about it directly? What can you say of it? Theory. So much that I cannot speak it, I work backwards from it. I re-present the romance in theory. Poetry attempts to speak of it, but it still comes as analogy and metaphor. Theory in this way is yet another poetry; it is only in a particular scheme of meaning that defines theory from poetry, and thus puts the romantic apart from the truth, does the event of the romance become the object of the theory set in history as progress. How do I describe the intimacy, the love, the jealousy, the rejection except through analogy, through stories? Is the story true? How is it true? How is reality conscripted to my romance? When will my relationship of never-forever, become the eternal marriage of always? This is the question of: “how do I know this?”

      5. I enjoy your word plays; I understand ‘to see how the dance’, ‘amidst the whats’. I can appreciate your endeavor. I see it as a move from this ‘human’ Being, say, toward ‘humanity’ World, and in Badiou’s terms we might say that it is a move of fidelity. The question that arises then is answered by Laruelle with his ‘democracy’ of ‘radical agents’, as I have come to put it, who move by or within or upon the unilateral duality. But it is more than a ‘be true to oneself’, perhaps even more than a ‘know thyself’ — The Oracle at Delphi pronounces irony; how can I ‘know’ (a necessary situation) my self (a contingent category); and or, know (an objective category) my self (a necessary situation), or, my (a category of distance from) self (an unspoken condition), and or, thy (a contingent category) self (a necessary category), or thy ( a transcending ‘thou’), etc. The statement itself marks a movement of consciousness that is discrepant with itself, already eternally: a Uni-Lateral Duality. Nevertheless, perhaps we (“all those who know the Truth, hear my voice”) can all dance our dances together and thereby move in a certain harmony that stems from the Event even though we dance differently. Perhaps we can support each other in a ‘radically imminent’ manner.

        How this might come about, we shall see, but in my and despite my dancing, I remain doubtful. 🙂

        *

        If this a correct assessment of yours: Mediated reality: a go between human and divine; or of that which mediates between the human and divine: Human being those ‘things’ of reality, the real, and divine, beyond or not real, so to speak.

        What reading I have done of your essays appears to say what I will reiterate below in the terms by which I situate the same thing (maybe), along with some further commentary of mine; let’s see:

        As you may remember of Direct Tangents, one problem I address of Laruelle is his introduction of the Real; my argument of his Bad Faith is that the meaning of his arguments contradicts its presentation, and if he sees this, then he is in bad faith by an act of deception, and if he does not see this then he is in bad faith because he misses the significance of his argument for the sake of a True Object. This is to say, regardless of how he situates his argument, whether he is talking of a sort of ‘outer’ or ‘inner’, or even ‘neither’, he is on one hand proposing that there is something ‘more real’ than reality as we typically know it, and on the other, a way for individuals to discover this something more real than reality as we know it. Of course, the question driven is: “who or what is this ‘we’?”, but somehow there is this element or feature of being human that concerns a reality that everyone (again, who or what is this) knows of; the next question is or should be, how is it possible for there to be a ‘more real’ reality? I should read more of L, but he seems not to address my latter question. Or, he addresses this by his Real, by the inclusive (non-polemic; non-philosophy) that accounts for the exclusive wherein polemic resides for real meaning, reality, philosophy. Further questions involve: if he is in Bad Faith of the former type, what does this mean, and as well, how can I know this, and, if he is in Bad Faith of the latter kind, which places him firmly of the conventional faith, again, how could I know this. The irony is that in knowing the issue of Laruelle, I address him as I address myself; this is an aphilosophical situation: here, Laruelle’s presentation is my occasion to speak.

        He does very well to indicate what I call the point of contention. This point can be situated in language in different forms; “All those who know the Truth hear my voice”, as Jesus said, and somehow I ‘hear it’ in you as it seems you ‘hear it’ in me. I think Lyotard and Badiou do the most justice to ‘filling out’ the true possibility of the POC, from the logic of language and meaning, and mathematics in general, respectively, but Laruelle has presented its necessary parameters likewise, by using ‘philosophy’ as his occasion to speak. The problem comes from what does not arise necessarily, that is, that which arises sufficiently, meaning, in particular of himself, as well as how I can see this departure.

        I submit, there is a point of departure that distinguishes the POC from that which appears to ‘lose’ the integrity of the condition of the event in what Badiou might call ‘the ordinal’, which can fall into what I call ‘conventional reality’, what Laruelle situates as (philosophical) reality. The movement of departure thus indicates a transformation; each ‘begin the count’ from the ‘evental horizon’, so to speak, and move out into conventional reality. Because of the situation of Bad Faith that I mention previously, this move may or may not account for why a solution must be offered : this is to say, as to Badiou’s formulation, they may or may not have encountered ‘the Void’. If they have, the question is why they offer a solution, and what this means; if they have not, then it is because the particular condition of conventional knowledge (the situation of terms) has allowed for the understanding of how the Void is situated, though they have not encountered it. I am still figuring for what Badiou calls ‘fidelity’ with reference to these aspects.

        Ironically, such discourses are also taken by everyone, that is everyone has an ability, of their own capacities, to have such discourses mean something significant to them. In reality, everyone thus ‘begins the count’ for their own reality, yet, somehow, only a few understand the truth that accounts for all the various ‘counts’. Again, the question becomes about what this means, but the aggravating issue is, how could I know this.

        The recurrent question informs the situation of the not real; it is a discursive situation, a manner of speaking, it indicates, or refers to, what is True. I see that Laruelle calls this Real because it is of his experience of understanding, and thereby places it as ‘more real’ in so much as ‘he comes upon this view’ that sees the problem of (philosophical) reality, and he cannot or will not exclude his experience as primary: the understanding that he is able to convey is of the Real. And, in accounting for himself in this way, he must then account for other valid individual human beings, and allow them the same possibility as he is allowed it. Yet, if he is situating the Real in the way that he means, then he cannot be referring to any ‘True’ other individuals, for all individuals are accounted for by his experience in the event which he ‘re-counts’, yet accounted for ‘outside’ of the philosophical situation of terms (decision) that establishes (small ‘r’) reality, by which he must make accountable his presentation. Hence also is Uni-Lateral Duality. Laruelle appears to view the UD as more real than reality. My situating ‘not real’ indicates that the view excludes the individual as a primary agent of any sort, since it is the agent that finds itself through the terms of reality, big or small ‘r’, against itself as an excluded polemic, as opposed to the Event being situated in conventional discourse, reality. Aphilosophy is a rebuttal to the Method of non-philosophy, but it is the iteration of the, what could be seen as, the marginalized non-philosophical situation, this situation I call ‘ironic’. Thus, I have to question what exactly I may be mediating. What could be seen as mediation is involved in the issue “how do I speak about it”, but might really be more precisely put “how do I situate terms”. What is ironic, in this way, is the speaking of a non-mediated reality, I guess, of speaking of reality as it must be and can only be, which, extrapolated into conventional faith, and the negating-and-affirming thereof, through reality, translates for ‘those who hear’, what Lyotard calls ‘metalepsis’. The basic issue concerns faith in the True Object.

        Yet, one can say that it is something of ‘divinity’ and human’, that most everyone cannot see or otherwise denies; indeed my irony against the conventionally faithful, or what can be termed, not real and real. The Satayagra (my spelling is incorrect, but every time I see the word in your essays I try to imprint the spelling in me; I’ll get it soon); I do see this. Your non-position seems to involve a fidelity to the event, or at least, a movement that seeks the fidelity the event imports. “Lord, let me be a channel of your peace…” In a manner of speaking, I could say as much also. [ I am still reading through your essays, btw.] It appears to me that you are attempting to carry the concept (of the Event) into reality (the phenomenon) and situate this by ‘non-violence’, Sataragra (lol, sorry spelling; I’m a dork).

        *
        The move from the Event into reality could then be seen as a mediation if the individual is an agent (but again: of what? The world? Conventional reality? Divinity? Reality?) If this a correct assessment of yours: Mediated reality: a go between human and divine; or of that which mediates between the human and divine: Human being those ‘things’ of reality, the real, and divine, beyond or not real, so to speak. Yet, I tend to see this type of mediation as an ‘incorrection’ of the occasion and Event.

        I still question what it is I may be mediating. I’m not sure if I can honestly say that I am ‘how-ing’ either. But I can accept to see you ‘how-ing’, and that you might see me ‘how-ing’. (What a hilarious sentence!) That which arbitrates I suppose could be said to be that which is me doing with fidelity; I cannot but negotiate reality though; what I do when I speak about truth is situating terms that meet the situation such that the situation remains true to itself. Perhaps there is some sort of arbiter somewhere.

      6. I made a small amendment to a small but significant statement in one of my replies. Irony does not negate conventional faith, it affirms and negates it, at once.

      7. Indeed, there comes at least a moment when I encounter ‘thou’ as opposed to the ‘I’, and this discourse does deserve a proper speaking, an elucidation, unto itself. But is not this event (the ‘romance’) just me thinking or knowing of it? How am I ‘dividing my house into itself’ when I situate it thus?

    3. I have to wonder if you have ever listened to the band “Dead Can Dance”? I think you will appreciate their music. One album in particular is ‘Into the Labrynth’.

      And if you are impatient with music, at least listen to ‘the Ubiquitous Mr Lovegrove’, ‘tell me about the forest’ and ‘ blessed is the man with none’. I think that’s their titles.

      1. I had never heard of them before your recommendation, it seems somebody has been holding out on me! I am very much enjoying the album. I am more of a fan of bands like Beirut because, as a tenor, it is fun for me to sing along.

      1. Peace on peace on peace! We Three Peace of Orient are… we are like the Three Wise Monkeys bashing each other while bashing “evil” together. You are the first monkey who “sees” no evil, while I am the second who “hears” no evil (I often see with my ears, if that makes any sense). Those who are still more religious than I, who are without this damned crisis, are the third monkey who “speaks” no evil (a vision of the tongue, of preaching, etc.).

        A barrel o’ monkeys, as I said elsewhere…

      2. In other words, this is the tension between “peace builders”, “peace keepers”, and “peace makers” respectively … let us say. Do you sometimes feel like a peacebuilder?

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