Philosophy seems to be now more about what occurs in a sort of gap. I wouldn’t say though that it’s a parallax gap exactly; it’s more a kind of “ontologic-lax” gap. Is more a gap that occurs as the ontological maxim. And I mean this to indict The intellectual philosopher to its layman thinking: always and at all times there is an object that is taken to be this thing out there that is separated from the central thinking human subject. The issue that philosophy perpetually and routinely set aside is the issue of the central thinking human subject; and this is the say that this issue is completely ignored when they try to situate this essential thinking subject as something different than it is. And this further is to say that postmodernism if not ante-postmodernism (think Wittgenstien) has mistakenly Applied the meaning of their thoughts to some sort of essential lysed reality in the taking of discourse as meaning nothing more than the meaning that it offers through discourse. So it is at every juncture since then we have been able to take any proposition apart by saying that it most likely does not apply to itself. But the most outstanding and blatantly obvious problem of this take, this methodological norm that almost every thinker wants to ignore, is that we are finding that discourse about a thing allows for thing only insomuch as we don’t begin to want to analyze into the essence of that thing; what is occurred in philosophy then is this thing that we call ‘reality is discourse’, when analyzed upon its own methodology, is beginning to behave erratically. What is occurring is the use of the central thinking human subject privilege that finds its reality through discourse, using this privilege and this method to analyze reality has allowed for a contradiction of its method such that discontinuities a rise in the methodological stream. This is to say that the methodological construct is a given, and becomes thusThe ontological foundation from which philosophical analystspropose to critique reality, but this method, having been applied to reality as if this reality is that once a given and as well a distance object, an object of analysis, is now yielding it’s dissolution.
We are beginning to see how mythology and ideology function to create reality, to maintain reality, and presently which is to say currently, what occurs when the mythological ideological constructions begin to confront their own structures.
It is a kind ofMeiosis rather than mitosis. Because inevitably the mythological ideological methods will resist its own dissolution, and this resistance occurs through the saturation of discursive meaning. Subjects of a mythology are in capable of having meaning that is outside of the mythological construct of its ideology. The saturation in meaning that occurs the us is used to discount the dissolution; and this is to say that such saturated methods will continually function in the attempt to work the dissolving structures back into its real concrete application; in short the mythological constructs applied will always yield the mythological constructs. It will not allow a division in a kind of cellular reality so to speak.
This occurs over time over generations. That we may look at cellular division through the microscope and think that is some sort of sudden and easy division of reproduction. But in the field stretch of time these two 300 years are but a moment.
What we are seeing with the partition is the beginning of the dissolution of us cellular mythology. Birth is not painless and easy; though its process is seamless, it is to be set in the potentials of complication, difficulty and pain.
… maybe my cell division analogy is not a great one.
The argument that basically discounts any proposal that can only arise from a position outside, is the same argument that discounts argument or positions that would discount everything but itself. These type of arguments argue the rejection of contradiction for the truth of the situation, and this is the same argument that reifies an intrinsic mythological construction. Hands with reference to the dissolution of a previous mythological construction one can only say that the new proposal is not real but true.
Maybe someone could help me out with the logical fallacy that is involved in what I’m talking about. Because I’m saying that particular logical fallacy, The one that argues a position that doesn’t include itself or accounts for itself, is it significant type of contradictory situation by which we find Real mythological construct.