the Divergent Proposal, part 4.

Part 4

It would seem that at least one term in a philosophical reduction would have to be able to transcend the discursive limit. But it is just his limit that defines the conventional faith, because it is not commonly understood as a faith; rather, is not seen as faith because no limit is noticed, or if it is noticed then it occurs as a pass. This is the effect of faith to grant a true reality. In this, then, there is no ‘at least one’ term that is not limited, but indeed no term is limited in this way because terms are understood to naturally always reach the object of their reference, such that it is the contingency of clause that shows what object is being reached and whether the clause is true or false. This is the meaning of the True Object of faith, of conventional reality itself. The pass can be noticed when the two situations are juxtaposed; but first we need be able to view what lay outside of reality, what we are terming not real. If what is not real cannot be ventured, then we have the mark for divergence, of the necessary departure, of the absolute withdraw from the relative world. We cannot move everyone, nor indeed anyone from their orientation upon objects. We simply describe the necessary ramifications of the situation at hand.

*

I suppose that there should be a primer of sorts for this undertaking.

I have already attempted to draw out a logical necessity for what is not real as a precipitated truth by showing where passes occur in conventional reckoning. The argument is that where there is a pass, that is, where a contradiction indicates an absolute end, and absolute limit, there is where we ought to see the indication of the fault of that method of reckoning, rather than an indication of where we need stop and suspend investigation as a sort of anchor. It is this latter process of staking out various ‘ends’, of ‘marking’ the ‘ends of discourse’ that is and had been the philosophical progress as reconnaissance, but that now marks philosophy, as it continues along a certain vein, in a certain mode (of denial), as correlationalist. But also see that such a move cannot be made by everyone; in fact, such a move will not be made by most, and it is for this reason that we do not argue that there is some truth that is more real than reality. We are not in an effort to prove a route that disproves real estimations of things. Instead, because we are involved in a proof of verification rather than proof of convincing, involved in a description of truth over an argument towards truth, we cannot decide that any proposal discounts or negates the overwhelming commonality of reality itself.  

In a quite Foucaultian manner, we see a real stratum, a horizon, upon or within which such that an archeology might be enacted. Yet the only way we can see through to an archeology of this sort is to not engage in the real estimation of things wherein and whereby all dimensions are in play. We cannot enact an archeology upon a dynamic of relative objective networks due to the simple fact that within such a network no strata can be viewed; this is the ironic redundancy that Zizek exclaims at every turn of his prolific rhetoric. In this regard, we can only then see Latour rightly oriented and acclimated as an ethnologist, as a cultural anthropologist to this sort of plastic dynamic landscape.

Thus we have part of the reason why, upon admitting that there is nothing beyond discourse, that we are not speaking of subjects and some subjective spiritual truth.

But there is another more practical reason: Why would I need to rehash and respeak spiritual ideals that everyone already knows, or can hear from hundreds of other people way more versed in the in’s-and-out’s of spiritual-psychological jargon than me? It would be like singing to the choir and preaching to the clergy. But it is not that I am uncaring or unfeeling; I try to be kind to people and to help the ignorant and needing as and where I can, and likewise be open to help that I might need in life. Here, though, I am involved in a critical venture, not a religious one. Indeed; by some of my essays and points it seems I have gathered at least a small group of individuals who apparently see in my writing an advocating of spiritual endeavor. While this may indeed be the case, that perhaps there is a spiritual dimension to my ideas, and I am not here to dictate upon people what they may get or use of my writings, but in this critical endeavor I do not find a use to reiterate spiritual-psychological ideas or ideals. As I just said: Everyone already knows them. Everyone already knows all the Zen-type Buddhist-Hindu Tantric reductions, already the ‘oneness’ of Hurserlian phenominalist groovyness, of enlightenment-speak, of fear-and-anger-is-not-the-way-to-go speak, of praying, of meditating, of look inside yourself, of subjective appraisal, of psychological categorical mish-mashing, of Lacan-Zizek negative-positive-self-reflexive-ironic distanced ideological posture, of ‘Christ consciousness’, of Bible Christianity sectarian propriety, of Yogic discipline, higher planes of existence, pagan or Wiccan ritual cleansing, psychic and astrological coordination, Islamic submission, Jewish obeyance and celebration, et cetera, ad infinitum naseaum. And if you don’t know them, there are plenty of places to go and people to talk to a read to discuss a multitudinous of possible interchanges of things and spirit, of symbol and psychical ascension. In my view, every object and series of objects can be related to symbols to achieve various sorts of spiritual meaning. Once I was quite interested in assembling, aligning and proselytizing about these linkages and exchanges, but with an open mind I found that any and every chain of reference leads continually to other chains in a cycle of meaning that excludes the possibility that any one is true. I tend to see spiritual growth and metaphysical truth as necessitating and requiring an adamantly defended limit, and often a position of bias that usually contradicts the intension behind the very spiritual ethical advocation.

Further; what need have I to posit psychological solutions to metaphysical existential issues? If I am to say anything about such ideas I would have only three things to say: One, see many of my earlier post of Constructive Undoing if you want my post-modern Christian-Vedic take on it all; two, see above, everyone already knows them and it only matters what denomination you already subscribe to as to what will appeal to your sense of righteousness; and three; I just plain cannot take myself that seriously. There is nothing wrong with me; in fact, I would have to say that there is so much wrong with me, so many myriads of ways I can take apart all the non-sense and sensual appropriation that goes on in my appraisal of myself and my daily encounters with people, situations and things, that anything I might offer as to how one is to best go about making sense of themselves, how they might relax or be calm, or confess your sins, or some sort of contemplative introspection and self reflection, or activity of service, while they indeed might be good practices, and thousands of people throughout time have been advocating such practices in every conceivable form, I simply see that these ideas and practices are merely real, and that – if I can say it – the spirit of meaning behind all these ideas and practices have lost their significance. We need to begin again in order re-contextualize them to their proper sphere, for their meaning has been usurped by the conventional faith, what Zizek, and Max Weber for that matter, might call the spirit of capitalism.

Hence we should see that when I say that I am not talking about or otherwise advocating a subjectivity, I am serving two purposes, two masters. For one: The reader should be unseated, should at least be surprised if not totally offended. In my early post I wrote, even as I tend to forget my plight, that hardly one will be up to the task, and as I gain readers I will probably lose twice as many, such that if there is one person in a thousand years who can hear such blasphemy then I have done well enough. And two: Discourse is a strategy. The predominance of philosophers and critical thinkers, but particularly our latest breed, find their purpose in a common humanity of inspiration, and so they capitalize upon this inspiration to advocate for the enlightening of the individual to their inspired purpose. What is occurring then is nothing less that a modernist proliferation of ideological phenomenal structure; this is exactly where Latour takes his cue. I call this strategy, as a mythological imperative, the conventional reality. Reality occurs in this way, according to this structure of meaning. This manner, the mode of developing a strategy for the purpose of establishing an ideological identity, is patent; it is manifest. It is the lens through which reality is viewed. Thus, I cannot propose to navigate around this; rather, I must simply set it aside.

I must do this because I am not concerned with advocating some proper reality; I am not interested in propagating the repetition of ideological categories; I already do that. I am interested, the point of my endeavor, is nothing less that the exposure of the basis of all religion. All spiritual categories; all religious ideals and dogmas (or at least all that I can discern or am privy to). I propose to explain how and why all religions arose they way they did and have. And in order to do this, I have to relinquish any stake I have in the outcome. In short, and in a manner of speaking, I have to make reality my object through disconcerning myself with it. I have to make or otherwise rely upon an essential segregation in meaning.

How might I do this?

Well, the description of doing that ironically becomes the description that destroys all positions that rely upon a transcendent True Object. It is a forensic effort over an argumentative effort. All the evidence had been brought to the court. In order to make a case we have to now sort the evidence. The trial has yet to begin; or, the previous trial was ruled a mis-trial.

One thought on “the Divergent Proposal, part 4.

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