The Independent Object: Metaphysics is Religious Apology. 

The simple standard by which objects can be said to be ‘true’ objects, which is to say, the object that needs no other object against which to attain its object-ness, is merely to say that there is an independent object.

When we read the beginning of “Logical Investigations 2″, though Husserl was working toward a different point, we find, nevertheless, that he makes a quick and simple find that in order for objects to be dependant they must first have an independence; thus the mere idea of independence is sufficient to establish an object’s veracity and integrity of itself without relation, which is to say, without a condition of dependency. All I need to say is “Cup” and the independent object has arrived intact and complete. All I need to say is “independent object” and such an object appears and exists before I ever had to say it. 

Postmodern apologetics is everywhere because modernity, as a mythological platform, is decaying. By this decay, a forensic procedure may be enacted upon it to find out what it was made of. 

Every mythology can be defined by its beginning, wherein Truth is simply discerned, apologetics which arises at saturation of Truth such that it’s effective tenants are questioned within the scaffolding by which they arrive ,and decay, when the Truth begins to precipitate out from the semantic platform. Heresy is the act of noticing the truth of the effective mythological truth.

If you think in terms not of what may be logically possible or probable, but rather in terms of the structure of particular meanings enacted through such logic, then we can have an idea of what might be meant when we say “not allowed”. What is heretical is what is not allowed. In this case what is not allowed by any human being is to extricate themselves from the effective mythology, from the mythological scaffolding. 

Such an extrication occurs only in the significant moment; The opportunity for such a moment arrives with contradiction. , two routes. Where no significance occurs, which is to say where the contradiction maintains a constant semantic level, then no extrication can be made because there has been no manner or purchase upon where such an extrication might occur. This coincides with religious offence, because where is such a significant has occurred when communicated to one where such as significance has not occurred, a break in the potential of communication is evidenced. A communication across this kind of partition never occurs in truth but actually gives rise to the reality of infinite relativity. 


  1. So even postmodernism is a mythology? Maybe that’s why I consider myself Buddhist. Lots to unpack here…as always great. My question is- isn’t this essentially the Nietzsche paradox? If all metanarratives are gone, then the myth of no metanarratives is itself a metanarrative, but that would entail no belief? So, in other words, ideology is inescapable?
    Btw, been really busy lately, what with the hurricane, my thesis, etc. Only gonna get busier. Did you ever send your work to my email? This weekend would be good for me to look at it

    1. I did send it. I can send it again.

      I think I don’t mention N because Kierkegaard and him spell out what occurs with what I call the significant event. I think I do have some N mentions in post a while a go. Maybe..

    2. The reason I like Zizek is because his psychoanalysis is totally inclusive. I have only encountered his type (kind) in books; Derrida speaks of this kind of manner. But Zizek actually appears living it.

      But there are many levels going on I suppose.

      One must admit my appropriation of the situation. I cannot know what is going on with Zizek, really. One must admit limitation: I will never meet zizek not interact with him personally. I can only go on what is occurring. what I can liken to a collapse of wave form would be if I were to meet him and engage with him personally. This type of thing happens all the time in philosophical interactions; one is not always keen to the transition that occurs.
      With most people the move occurs seamlessly, as though what I think, what I read, and what I say in persona to person conversation is of ‘one fabric’, moving in between those arenas a ‘one creature’, if you will, the ideas/ideals that which is the central thing moving/being brought everywhere.

      Now, ziziek may be the only one person I have seen alive in the certain regard, but his significance is that he is not trying to prove anything to anyone; he retains a quiet corner where the ‘one’ stays put, occurring itself as the subject of psychoanalysis.
      More in a bit….My dog is yelling at me for a walk. :))

    3. ….Nietzsche, on the other hand, is not sitting anywhere. He is the ‘end product’ of a certain kind of tension that I lately lumping into labels like ‘modern’ or ‘enlightenment’, but Im finding that these labels may not be up to the task (for example, my post about Anslem.

      Here and there you have perhaps heard me qualify my use of the term ‘belief’; Ill say like “if I am able to believe” such and such, then this is the case… I am still learning from my undergraduate experience when I draw from a department at UCSC called “History of Concsiousness”. and then to bring in Zizek: Human beings exist within states of consciousness that are effective, but not universal. The effectivivity of consciousness is what Im kinda involved with in my work, exposing effects, what is occurring, actual instances of effect, etc.. I think it is my anthro background. But the broad stroke never leaves the psychoanalytical; which is to say, I should not condition utterances with argument: The argument is intact, not so much ‘with other possibilities’. Belief is thereby not a sort of effective subjective placement, not an opinion in the sense of being able to speak From the effect itself, of the world.

      The project that I tend to lump into (European) Enlightenment is a project of fusing or otherwise reconciling what one ‘believes’ with the object of that belief that is always in a position of doubt by virtue of the assessment and proclamation of belief. Hence, due to the inherent motion of effective consciousness, Hegel has to posit a larger ‘historical’ motion to alleviate the effectivity of the individual’s contradiction (of believing): Sublation, etc…

      So while Hegel might have intellectually reconciled the discrepancy, Nietzsche (and K) notices that despite the logical extended reduction, no one is really getting it, the logic is insufficient. This leads Nietzsche to have to not only assert but condemn, as if a more vehement expression of the situation will get people to move.

      So when I use particular terms, they are always qualified within a frame (Zizek). N, yes, was a mythological assertion, but one that attempts to reconcile what is inherently precipitated
      or ejected from the motion itself in its positing. The same with Postmodern; it is an attempt of reconciliation.

      But then we get in to further aggravating situations.

      I see this aggravation as possibly already being situation in the likes of Buddhism and Hinduism and such.

      Mythology cannot escape itself; I think it is merely a matter of going forth in full recognition of what it means to live within or through a mythological arena.


      I sent you the PDF . Do you need for me to send it again? Ill send it.. 😉

      1. When you say this leads Nietzsche not only to assert something, but condemn it, that’s where my logic is going lately. Nietzsche was the first to realize that the Enlightenment forgot the “psychoanalytic” or basically the psychological/emotional realm of discourse. Nietzsche was the forerunner to Freud, Freud himself acknowledged

      2. Yes Yet then we find that the imposition of psychoanalysis upon particular instances of agency does not pan out. I think this coincides with modernity that then finds other solutions, such that psychoanalysis becomes a kind of ‘antiquated’ notion. pA thus falls into as it becomes what is ironically inaccessible.

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