Ontology concerns what the situation can imply for being.

Teleology concerns how it is possible that we may have come to that situation. 

Innoway we can see this situation in the context of what two philosophers have said; Kierkegaard has been noted to comment on how philosophy tends to be too much concerned with the past, and Badiou, Who mentions how the philosopher is really concerned with one thing. 

Now I don’t know if these are exact quotes are the exact terms that they said but I don’t think that really matters except for people who want to argue. But is not difficult between these two views to see it’s coincidence with my definitions above. For if there was any sort of end of philosophy, and this is to say that if anyone even considered the possibility that there may be and end of philosophy or an end of history as we may been talking about for the past 10 or so years, then we might be able to see where this indeed has occured. For those who still might be pondering whether they’re really was an end of philosophy or what that actually meant or the mistake about some and a philosophy or the end of history, it would be probably most correct the place them in a theater of agency, an arena where there is a central thinker that considers things and develops definitions of terms to perpetuallydisplace that central thinker. 

Let’s just take it as an actual event, that at some point in time the end of philosophy and the end of history actually meant something and continues to mean something; that’s all we need. In this case then that moment becomes signifier, A station, A marker whereby ontology is set itself as the chief goal of philosophy itself, I such that philosophy becomes the justification of being, to thereby allow for the precipitation of itself from itself. The ontology whereby such a precipitation maybe noticed has there for diversified, such that no longer Are we residing within a single arena, no longer can we refer to a unitary reality of the common human potential. In fact we can no longer referred to such precipitative ontology as ontology; in order for there to be a difference it cannot mean the same thing nor reduce just some third ontology. We must be speaking of a teleology. We must be speaking of two orientations upon the object. 

Teleology that’s becomes how it is possible that we arrived at the situation of ontology. 


  1. Worthwhile to consider, as well, re: this duality, Might be Rambam’s thing “Guide to the Perplexed”. Haven’t read it yet, but I think I recall that Moses M. has some different remarks on “teleology (of law)”. Don’t know, but this should work v. nicely wrt your Reading Spinoza.

    1. Dude. About 15 years ago I took a history of consciousness class at University California at Santa cruz, it was called myth in religion. It wasn’t what I thought it would be at the time being that I was relatively ignorance of the approach of history consciousness department. But it was a survey of various types of religious thought and one of them I remember in ancient section of the class we talked about this gMAIMONIDES guy . Kinda trippy youd bring him up . I don’t remember a thing about it from the class except the name. I think I’m going to trip out on it now.

  2. An important mental-distinction, is made; it always seems I have to struggle ‘continuum-ously’ to make for myself this exact distinction, just simply so I don’t lose my wits.

    I will say: “teleology” is, it seems to me, necessarily (retrospectively) beholden to the one whose faith has been totally left alone & re-latively unscathed, in the face of these stupidly changing ontologies; and in the other scarier direction, as for your “next order of business”, a sense of teleology doesn’t go away when no ontology is issued forth. That is what it indicates, actually, to say or speak-to, vouch-for, articulate, etc. “how it is possible” to get & “gather one’s wits about” how one is even surviving all this.

    Not qua some continual fountain-head springing, nor some discontinuous water-stream, etc. all those energetic functional renderings, I think, go part and parcel with whatever Western royalties have really made use of the telic, variously in some mass army or regime. It is more “like” this: How is poetry actually written? How does a band of pirates work a ship, sailing? Or a cheiftan & these other rancheros, in the remains of a fire?

    Involuntarily, having no real ontology to grasp, one is “cornered” and has to, is all but invited to, “write poetry” (meaning nothing at all): but again, how? A thousand arrows pointed me-ward? Is it that one is now telling “reality” how to be what it could be? No, not exactly: it’s neither an ordinal (ordinary, etc.) nor a cardinal thing, so no calculated, arithmetic operation finally enraptures it. It contains no serious elements of a coherent story, structured by some ontology, etc. Others may suggest, perhaps, a math-y infinity analogy, negative vacuum effect allegory, or a “black hole” metaphor, etc.

    None of this, as you say, brings about the confrontation, no reconciliation: it would just be more fronts, a frontage of any manner, etc. and not a consideration of people & dynamic choices. I suspect still others will wish to defer to “irreducible complexity”, on this point. I know I’ve done so, many times: and you’ve also previously highlighted this or that capacity for creativity, I think, as well. So none of these answers will do: so let us dispense, here, with questions of adequacy, authority, authenticity, authorization, etc. as being-derivative.

    Teleology is purported, among Christians, to have something to do with Truth, but it isn’t clear what. Sure, when put this way, one could Maybe rely on the available “kindred spirits” aspect: how the daylight is empathy, etc. And yet, if Teleology indeed lies independently of whatever human potential thing, then you are right: we have to grapple with the religionists, first-hand. We have “Laruelle”, & his spiraling lasso, as it were, in conjunction with the discussion about the pocket veto.

    The ‘shape’ of the pocket veto, as this debarring of the “cornering”, is the lasso coiling in the air, and teleology is, what again? Not so much my poetic word against your poetic word, nor this ability/skill against anything else, so much as what could be ‘perceived’ as an attack, a threat, etc. aggressively against the very integrity of the one so mistrustful of one’s own ‘invisible partner’, to actually do & be what one takes this partner to do & be – inviolably.

    So, even the invisible threads of teleology which may serve to connect one to another, “can be” (absolutely) severed & cut out. And yet, how? By “trusting your integrity”? By “the Sickness unto Death”? Well, it’s not necessarily oddly enough a talent thing, either: that which amounts to the telic allegedly, rests & remains somehow, always, above any one’s ownmost “talent”. It’s nothing so prodigious & prestigious, really. And yet it feels necessary, in way of constitution, to the one with no ontology left to collect & be stupid for.

    Do we then want to say & actually claim for one’s own some personal inspiration, then? Or is teleology akin to an unfixable stigmatism? No trust or “pistis” could not stop the “telic” from being what it – inversely qua projection – both emphatically & ephemerally, is not & never is. That’s only in way of a definition, requiring ‘large cardinal assumptions’. But already we’ve done away with those, so it’s nothing about forcing idealized.

    Well, with regard to materiality, then, perhaps a better question goes: what matters? If nothing should be the matters, “the telic” intones: Matter this! Decompose this! The letter T! So significance, even if it is missed, and indeed missed “universally”, does not obviate the “how it could be” of teleology, which for it’s own constitution makes a kind of “U-Turn” without halting its motion & movement. And this makes Me sound terrible, really worse even than any overdue ‘religionist’, since one deliberately pulls the rug out from beneath oneself on the front lawn, as it were, with this complete “divestiture of resources”.

    But does it? They don’t aware it: Thus, “teleology” is precisely this whatever is not avoided in any foregoing account as yet has must been proffered. And, it is also what is, of this same ownmost felt-necessity, actually wished to be left alone “in existence”, not-mattering & muttering forward in the acceptance of only itself. Perhaps it’s, unofficially, but still certifiably, ‘writ writing writ’!

    Now, granting I don’t know if any of this is really true anymore; this could be just a musing, from in the very beginning – and yet forcingwise, ideally, the actual opposite obtains exactly as this forward-thinking consideration of/for this definition concerning teleology (and not necessarily any particular “telos” in itself) so philanderously de-scribes as theoretically “true”.

    1. I am so humbled by your ability: mine seems such a blunt force compared to your surgical precision. Lol. I think that’s why I was so defensive in our first exchanges years ago; and nearly offensive.

      I found myself laughing with joy reading this response of yours.

      You allow me to consider so many aspects of the situation that are blinded from me otherwise. I love the ‘matter This!’ It is such a succinct statement of the situation: it seems to resonate with my analogy of the portal in the Sphinx. Once having passed through… You have said so much here; The U-turn that occurs upon the passing such that there really is no being but that of being itself doing. Indeed this is why I say ‘what does humanity do’ , that this is the formation of science. My suggestion, if you haven’t already uncovered it in my writings, is that there could never be a science so long as we exclude this ‘final feature’ this ‘last instance’. Because it is the very last instance that allows for the return of all seeking into being back into the being distance from itself, which is to say a universal object. In order to make a science feasible we have to include this final object that is perpetually avoiding it self, humanity, and by including this final object through what it does.

      Yet we can’t jump too quickly or too far. This is what I’m saying we need an opening. We can’t say that humanity believes in God and then proceed into dogmas and how they prescribe or affect behavior. I rather so far as what humanity is doing insomuch as we can say ‘belief in God’. What occurs to allow such an idea?

      You do so well at describing the situation right there as to belief and not belief: ones whose faith has been left unscathed. If this indeed be the case then it is no longer faith, but truth; that’s the only thing it could be called because it took nothing to believe it, nothing to hope for, but in fact the belief in the hope that ran through it was already manifested because of the truth of the situation. The distinction is made in so much as one does not have this kind of faith (yes?), such that it is a faith of hope or belief, right?

      For sure.

      So the opening that I’m talking about really is one of failure. Because in reference to the real situation of hope and belief, we do not have a space to talk about that which failed and yet was true. In reality this mean in psychology or trauma or neurosis or some other diagnosis against an institutional norm of distance objects.

      I had no choice in what I was attempting to believe in or attempting to have hope would occur; whatever it was I had faith in failed. Whatever hope I had for the objects consummation in my life failed.

      Yet it is through this failure that now I have a good take upon what faith and hope in reality and such things might be. The question of being was resolved in failure; yet here I am: I did not die, The world did not end — but something ended . Thoughts betrayed me . The only thing left is something that is not ontological; as you say to make a U-turn.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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