What is “best”?

So often and everywhere do I hear the idea “best“ in terms that are generally left assumed.

But in thinking about it, most often people use the word “best“ or “better than“ as meaning “more people have access to“.

Or “has more details“, or “has more options“.

And that just got me to thinking. Is best quantity or quality?

And when we naturally want to side on quality, are we really measuring that quality by quantity?

Is something better, for example, in its educational potential if we can reach more people? Is the quality of educational potential in any item better because now more people can access it?

I wonder if a quality of education which reaches only a few people is actually better than an education which meets tons of people.

And then, if we can answer truthfully those two separated questions. Can we then come to a more real and true understanding of what humanity actually is and what it does, and how to manage it towards its best potential?

Author: landzek

My name is Lance Kair, a philosopher musician that is being questioned.

121 thoughts on “What is “best”?”

  1. I remember I think when we first started interacting, that what you were talking about sounded very similar to what I’m talking about. What you were saying sounds very similar to what I’m saying, but it appears to me that we are just using different terms to talk about it.

  2. “… hierarchy …” isn’t that a relative perception, or are there “natural hierarchies”?

    “… negative Nancy …” another position?

    “… low concept of humanity …” Is there only one humanity? I tend to think of individuate beings, never a coherent humanity except as a category in perception. This way, I have no low true view of people, even Mr. 45 (I may feel sorry for him but I feel sorry for those who have to deal with him (including himself).

    Summarising what I had wrote: No Hegelian progress (thesis-antithesis-synthesis) just “sine waves” (ups-and-downs of life). We progress and regress. This way I am positive (optimistic) about the reality and people.

    1. Yes. But I am sure when you’re teaching your class you are conveying some sort of information to someone.

      Sure, metaphysically we can argue everything into nothingness. But there is an actuality that we deal with every day. The fact that you were reading this on your phone does not mean that there’s no phone or that I meaning nothing to you.

      I think it’s kind of a copout to resort to a “nothing metaphysics“ as a kind of escape route in order to not have to deal with the real things.

      For sure I bet when you go out for dinner you pay the waiter money. You don’t just look at him and say hey it’s just all sine waves this doesn’t mean anything I don’t have to eat food.

      ?

      1. Exactly!

        I fully agree with the first part.

        But how you get the second part from the first I do not know. Progress is in the sense of some perfect system when there is none does harm more than good. It has gotten humanity into trouble in more times than any other thing. This is what I mean by being unrealistic.

        How we cross talk I do not know.

      2. Perhaps it is the intelligence which finds nothing happening, only motion, which trickles down to the ignorant people who then do make sense of it, but in a way such that society goes to shit. The potential for believing might be instrumental for a good world. And having “the smart people” tell everyone nothing and no progress and arbitrary attributes points, etc, is really an irresponsible use of knowledge.

        We don’t tell 11 year olds that it’s ok to have sex even though as adults we know it’s fine. In the same way, to tell “the world” that there is no absolute foundation of ethics produces screwed up people and society. The intellectuals just justifying themselves in their own arrogance to say there is no progress and everyone is responsible for their own reality is just a self righteous move.

        Would we say the parent who lets thier 11 year old have sex with a 30 year old is just being intelligent? No. So to argue the arbitrarity of knowledge is just an irresponsible arrogance.

      3. The ideal that there is only profess and them regression and that I have no responsibility in it is missing the point of the view which sees the vacillation. For , it is not zero sum; it is knowledge which functions by an imperative which distinguishes knowledge from ethical foolishness. The foolishness is that which arises from extending out the view to a choice in action, the foolish choice the one which projects the vacillation over all real things and people.

      4. Of course not. But tell children no absolutes does not logically lead to screwed up kids. There are plenty of cultures and societies (Japan included) which do not talk absolutes.

        In fact, I will argue to posit absolutes to children screws them up more than telling them how the world actually works.

        Morality is not the exclusive property of Christianity or religion. There is too much baggage with the word “morality”. Responsibility, accountability, trust are probably better ways to approach the problem. Not institutional “morality”.

      5. But what I’m saying is the intelligent philosophical conclusions are not always the best thing to guide ones actions by when it comes to the world. Not that there is or is not absolutes. We teach our children’s and we protect them despite that “it all means nothing” or history “vacillates”.

        You must not have children, lol. My point is that people are like children. And the religion, ideology etc, despite what may be “true” according to my great smart thinking philosophical mind, is needed for a healthy society. Maybe.

        Not arguments. Because most people are already using a faulty method of discerning what they should do or what is true or false about the world through arguments.

        So it is more my responsibility to carry myself as certain way advocate along certain lines of responsibility for what the world actually is as opposed to what my great intellectual philosophical mind might make of it.

        Because the philosophy I’m coming up with, the reduction, really has nothing to do with the world. And for me to argue that it does have something to do with the world is merely being irresponsible for the world.

      6. I do have children. And they are fine morally without absolutes, thank you. Lol

        So on the one hand you are telling me I must teach content in my classes but you end your replies with “my philosophy has nothing to do with the world”. So you asking me to make sense of your philosophy.

        OK. Fine I am not supposed to make sense of your philosophy. And it has nothing to do with the world. And I am not supposed to teach something useless to my students. So I am not supposed to teach YOUR philosophy. That makes sense.

      7. I am saying that despite the intellectual content, such “relative knowledge” is it self an absolute.

        And perhaps this absolute ideal that it is all relative, that sometimes there’s progress and then we regress and that there really is no ultimate teleology to being human, nor a way to posit more or less or better or worst, is not good for the world. It is not good for society. And if we look at the world and how fucked up it is, maybe we could take responsibility for understanding that the content of our knowledge, even though it appears to be “reasonable“, is actually not addressing the truth of the matter. It is not addressing the actuality of the world. It is being self-centered and “reasoning for reasonings sake“. I am pointing to that these relative ideas that you have about how everything makes sense, is it self an absolute ideal and not actually addressing the world. It is merely an argument that you’re making to justify yourself in the world, but by extension an argument that you’re making about the world and us seeing in the world to justify yourself. That this is an idealism, this is an absolute ethical standard that you were living by which prevents you from seeing the world as it is and taking responsibility for it.

        I think you are confusing content with truth. You are invested in content, and because your identity arises as that and it makes sense to you in a very reasonable way, you are unable to see the truth of things outside of it. Indeed, this is what modern philosophy argues. And this is what you are arguing. And indeed this is what I argue. But the reason why I argue it is to locate a particular object, and idealism, an absolute marker of faith. Thereby get outside of it and find something that’s truly real.

        Well I’m glad you have kids because if you weren’t teaching them absolute ethics and idealism’s, then I don’t think your kids are growing up with the least bit of intelligence at all because how could we know anything if it wasn’t functioning for us as if it’s absolutely true. How would you even be able to teach them Safe sex, if indeed that was not an absolute truth of the situation. Even if you were to argue that there are various arguments about whether or not safe sex should be had, that whole argument and it’s self in the position you come to functions with yourself and interactively with other people as an absolute truth. As a truth. Not as some arbitrary random thing, but indeed functions as truth. . we deal with what is actually in front of us before we reduce everything to phenomenal aesthetic nothingness and relativity because to do the latter is irresponsible to the world we live in.

        Sorry I’m getting on my pedestal. 👆🏾lol.

      8. The ideal that there is no absolutes is an absolute. You May teach your children to be open minded and that we all have different cultures and that everything is relative, but when it comes down to it you don’t let them do whatever they want.

        The idea that everything is relative is kind of like a religious dogma. Indeed, i’d like to use the notions of extrinsic and intrinsic mythology to talk about ideology and a history of consciousness

        Well, that’s why I talk about the two routes. Because like you pointed out in the previous reply, there are two things occurring at the same time. There is a motion for exclusivity and there is a motion for inclusivity. These things happen at the same time back-and-forth. well, that’s why I talk about the two routes. Because like you pointed out in the previous reply, there are two things occurring at the same time. There is a motion for exclusivity and there is a motion for inclusivity. These things happen at the same time back-and-forth. as soon as someone tells me one thing, I’ll argue another thing. And then as we move to kind of nail down things, then we go back and we argue inclusivity or exclusivity.

        So it is with how reality comes about. Through two routes. Any argument I would want to make, any discussion I’m going to get into you with relies upon those two routes. Because any debate that we would have automatically is either having you or me move forward or back up, posit exclusive nurse or posit inclusiveness. Depending on the point we’re trying to make. If we stick only in one route, only in one method, but I called a conventional method, then we never get anywhere but relative opinions.

      9. Because knowledge is at the same time, both content and that which is not content, which is to say, that which is the true thing in itself. Hence I talk about an orientation upon objects, I talked about getting outside of the conventional methodology. Because the reductive method of argument presently is not sufficient to get to what is really going on in reality. And hence that’s why Laruelle talks about “sufficient philosophy“ as opposed to his non-philosophy.

      10. Knowledge is the stuff we work with. Truth is the basis of that stuff. Intelligence… is the discernment between the being and the denying of the stuff. lol.

      11. No. I don’t use mind as a foundational term. If everything is discourse, then I don’t defer out to something that is not discourse in order to ground it.

        Because, depending on which term is foundational, the universe will be defined accordingly, along particular imperatives to its object.

        So, I don’t say “mind“, because the imperative behind that object has certain connotations which reifies a fundamental duality based in relative opinion.

        Instead I use terms like “universe”, “reality” and such because these terms are terms that have some of the most largest connotations involved with them. They are words which mean things in the largest and most inclusive sense, similarly “existence”.

        To me, this concords to the affirmative answer of Kierkegaard’s question “is there a teleological suspension of the ethical?”

      12. So, speaking of universe I gather from this you mean the physical and mental universe?

        I am seeing that far more is placed into the terms than I would use them.

        You call me out for reductionism. I call you out for additionalism.

      13. —— in reality there is a physical universe and then there’s a mental universe. But in truth to speak of those differences is non sequitur.

        I’m still asking you logistically how you’re able to discern what is your mental world from what is a physical world?

        What criteria is your thinking or your reasoning using to be able to discern what thoughts that you’re having are incorrect or illusions, and what is actually physically or empirically real?

      14. This is precisely what I am saying. There is no “difference” since the mental world is a product of a thing of the physical world, and not some independent thing itself. What is mental “disappears” with death (end of sentience) while what is physical remains but changes from a being a sentient thing to a non-sentient thing.

        The illusion is that something “appears”. Representation and awareness does not make a mind appear but a thing seem to have a mind.

        ++
        I do not think you realise it but you want 5 but ignore that it can be derived from 3+2, 4+1, 5+0, -234+239 or any such sum.

        Another analogy – film stills are nice, but life is a movie.

        ++
        I do not see a planet revolving a sun different to someone making a decision.

        If planet moves at a certain speed X from a certain distance Y at a certain angle from a sun Z it may proceed to revolve around it.

        If a person has experience X thinks Y makes a decision Z it may react this way.

        Both revolving and thinking are processes of things. One may argue one is more complex than the other but that does not make it any more a thing. Revolving is not more a thing than thinking is a thing.

      15. I like that…. yes I would say 5 is an object and also content of other objects, maybe. “3+2” is also and object. But also the content of 5. But 5 could appear as the content of 3+2. Likewise. Any term one would wish to bring up. But so is ‘term’ an object…

        So is “mind”.

        So unicorn exists as a real object in truth.

        All things arise as real objects in themselves with intention.

        Including “myself”. Or “you”.

        That is example of the inclusive route.

        Exclusive would say that one of the terms can define an actual criterion for the rest of the universe absolutely.

        How’s that?

      16. “unicorn” –> Unicorns do not exist as things. There is a concept of universal unicorns, and there are particular concepts of unicorns. But no unicorn.

      17. They may not exist as a real thing , But they exist in truth. For, how could I even know of a unicorn and less it existed ? The quality of their existence (content) is up for debate, so maybe We could say that what is real has to do with its ideologically negotiated aspects .

        Due to the fact that there is nothing outside of discourse, every thing is knowable and exists in the universe.

        For how could I know of anything that does not exist ? It would be completely outside of any way of defining it, understanding it, sensing it, intuiting it, deducting it, inducting it… If something did not exist there would be no criteria for me to know Anything at all about it. I wouldn’t even be able to have a name for it .

      18. It is not stretching the truth because if I say dog. You know what I mean. If I say God you have exact comprehension of what I’m talking about. If I say truth, you know exactly what I’m talking about. Tell me how you were not understanding when I say I’m walking my dog that you don’t know what the hell I’m talking about.

        If I say I believe in God. Tell me how you are not comprehending what I mean by that statement?

        How is it possible that you could even know what I’m talking about when I say that I believe in God, if you didn’t already know what I was talking about when I say that I believe in God?

        If God doesn’t exist, how could you even know what it was to say anything about it at all?

        What about air?

        Oxygen?

        Unicorns?

        Thoughts?

        Personally I think you’re just being obstinate now for the sake of making argument. You’re not telling me any thing that I don’t already understand.

        Your replies since we already kind of came to a certain agreement, we already just a few replies ago, came to an understanding that we seem to understand one another. And now you’re acting like a first grader again. Lol

        It is difficult for me to believe that you’re not just playing now 😆

      19. Words are not transparent unproblematic. Which dog are you referring to? Are you referring to a specific or universal dog? Every utterance of dog, refers to either a thing (a real dog) or a conceptualised one (universal dog).

        I am not playing but pointing to the problem that resides in language. This is something you have not addressed. We have address ontology and epistemology. I say we start to move on to language.

        I feel there is an error in mistaking how words, concepts and referents work. You are not the first. You are not the only one.

        You are trying to tell me I cannot come up with a new philosophy like anyone else because I am not Laruelle, Latour, Harmon, Derrida. People come up with philosophies. Philosophies don’t exist. People make them. And I am saying even philosophies are concepts.

      20. No, I’m not saying that you can’t come up with your own ideas.

        I am saying that I agree with what you’re saying in a very real way.

        And, I am agreeing with the truth of the object that is you. The inn itself object that is you is being presented to me and I accept it and allow it to be a universal object in all its aspects.

        And over here is a tree. And I do the same thing for the tree. Everything that I can know about the tree, everything at tells me everything that it presents itself as, I accept it as the object that is the tree.

        Or at least I try to of course.

        Here is “and“. And is telling me all sorts of things about itself. It is presenting itself in all sorts of ways. A whole solar system of notions and objects rotate gravitate and orbit around “and“. And I accept it and appreciate it for the object that it is in the universe arising as it is to allow myself to be likewise.

        Discourse appears now. And it tells me all sorts of things. It tells me stories, it defines things about itself. It paints a picture of itself it argues itself against me. It shows me pictures of itself. It defines its own shape. And I allow discourse to be the object in itself with which I have a relationship with, myself as well and object in this universe.

        So it is with anything that you would bring up. Whether it be unicorns, whether it be the book of grandma tautology, whether it be Play-Doh, whether it be Pythagoras. Whether it be math. Whether it be x.

        Whether it be a thought. Whether it be molecules or Atoms or electrons.

        All of these are objects that arise in themselves in the universe. They make arguments to me. They describe various situations of their existence to me. They caused me emotional reactions. I get in arguments with them. They paint pictures for me. They describe to me what they are as actual beings, they present to me the object that is themselves being in the universe.

        There is no argument which can prove to me that this is not the case. It is not a belief, it is not an opinion. It has nothing to do with what choices I make.

        And then there is also this strange idea that thoughts are occurring inside my head and then I’m talking with this person on the other side of the globe through my cell phone which is basically running on a bunch of magical bits of information which somehow allow for this communication to happen. Language occurs in my mind. I am able to speak discourse with various parts of my organs my mouth my tongue my air my diaphragm. I am able to come up with ideas and systems of thought. I am able to have my own philosophy that people can think about and consider. I can think about other peoples ideas, I treat people as individual human beings differently than I treat anything else in the world including my dog.

        Those two situations do not represent a single entity. I am at once a single individual real person. And nothing. I am at once this person that you’re talking to on the other side of the globe, and as well I am only your self talking to yourself interacting with yourself.

        I am a real person, and I am nothing.

        I exist in those two states at the same time. And they don’t influence one another. The fact that I’m nothing does not interfere nor influenced the fact that I am a real person. And the fact that I’m a real person has nothing to do nor influences the state of my existence that is nothing.

        There is this unitive being that thinks and has a brain in the center of everything which occurs in the body. And there is this fantasy that something exists outside of myself.

        There is no argument which can reduce to one or the other. It ultimately depends on the condition with which needs arise.

      21. “There is no argument which can reduce to one or the other. It ultimately depends on the condition with which needs arise.”

        Fair enough. But Let me conceptualise that I feel that there is something flawed about this conceptualisation. A non-reduction as you call it that can lead (but not necessarily) to Trumps, racism, colonialism, violence, etc. Give way to a unicorn and you end up with American Exceptionalism. lol

      22. That is Becuase they are involved with “what is to be done”. What is the situation telling me about what I am supposed to do?

        I am not making a statement like that. Indeed people that did work on the item did not intend for it to be used as a bomb.

        And this way when I’m talking about is just description. It is just the truth of the matter. It is just describing the truth of the situation, there is no agenda. There is no implication about what we’re supposed to do with it.

        But, there is another route which understands all things as informing them to make a decision upon what to do.

        This is why I say we need to be responsible for our philosophies.

        I am not reacting to the situation that is truth. I am merely describing it as I would the aspects of a tree, say. It is not a subjective meaning. But, any discourse is left open for people to interpret it however they want to.

        But this is also why in current discussions social context discussions, intention has been downgraded to a lesser value.

        And, this is why people don’t want to address racism. Because, well I will argue in other places, conventional philosophy is inherently racist. And I mean this in the sense that what philosophy understands as subjective intentionality Is exactly what has led to Donald Trump and the situation of racism in general.

        This is exactly what This is exactly what Zizek Has said about Trump. That Donald Trump is just a reflection of the liberal left. It is with the left doesn’t want to admit or see about themselves. It is not that Donald Trump is bad or a bad guy, but that Donald Trump represents everything that the liberal left allows for and its potential so far as philosophical intention.

        So there’s another example of a philosophy that is describing the situation, and I’m referring to most of the philosophy of the last 150 years say, the bigger names, there was no intention behind it, they were merely describing the situation and then people decided or took their discourses as meaning that they were supposed to do something with it. And this is why for example , Lyotard suggested here in there that he wish he never used the word postmodern because people took it totally out of context. Which is to say that they took it is not a description of the situation but has a call to action, as if it was something that was wrong with the situation that they needed to correct.

        Similarly Wittgenstein. So he couldn’t see it: His Tractatcus Was just a description. But then the reaction he got to it made him have to write the philosophical investigations, which is really him just trying to reconcile how no one could just take the description for description. Everyone had to take his description as if he was telling them something was wrong with the situation, something they had to correct, I’ll call to action as if he was saying something was wrong with the world.

        Two routes. There is the intention behind the philosopher. And the works. And then there is the miss interpretation of intention that comes from thinking that discourse is a call to action. That’s really what derrida was talking about.

        All I’m saying is that where the other philosophers felt that they had to reconcile this discrepancy, this difference, i’m actually pointing out or noticing the situation, I am making notice of the problem. I am describing the situation as it is.

        Yes on one hand it can be taken as my own personal philosophical opinion, but when it’s taken that way then everyone else feels like well I have my own opinion I have my own attention and so these words are really telling me something that’s incorrect, and so I feel obligated that I ought to correct it.

        But it is not my opinion. It has nothing to do with any choice that I’m making about some great idea I have. These are just observations. They’re just describing the situation. I’m not calling for anyone to do anything about it. I’m not suggesting that because I see a tree over there that someone needs to go to chop it down and make a house out of it. Undoubtably people probably will. But that has nothing to do with the fact that I described a tree over there

        And so the responsibility comes in in the two routes because what I’m doing is I am describing the situation of describing the tree. And then I am describing in accounting for the situation that sees the description as something more than a description.

        I am not discounting what you’re doing with language and your work. I’m actually helping it. I’m actually contributing to it. But for some reason, which I feel I’m accounting for but you do not see it that way, you were unable to see how I’m accounting for it in the same way as your accounting for mine. You would rather see it as somehow I’m discounting you instead of adding to you. You would rather see me as trying to attack you and saying that you’re wrong instead of seeing me as augmenting and contributing to a greater body of knowledge . A knowledge that I would say is indeed true in that way.

        Because I would task you again when it comes to your children.

        I’m not sure you have why you have such a great problem with truth when what you’re teaching your children is the truth. I’m sure whenever you tell them to do some thing or try to teach them so far as how to be a good B human being, you don’t condition it with well this is just a cultural aspect of ourselves and really you know people in certain cultures still have sex with 10-year-olds. So go ahead kids of mine you can go out and under the street and find some 40-year-old man who will marry you and you can have kids when you’re 12. You don’t say that.

        So I’m also calling out the hypocritical idea that I can have this great philosophy of relativity and everyone gets to have their own opinions, including me, but then somehow I get to have my own opinions as if they are, what? Not true? How are you able to have any opinion about anything if you didn’t believe it was true?

        And I’m saying that also that you have no choice in the matter whether or not you believe any of this stuff is true. It is actually true. Despite what qualifiers you want to make to say well other people have their truth. I say hogwash. I say the idea that other people have their truth is your truth. And I’m not sure why you have a problem with that. Considering that we seem to be using the same basis of philosophers to come to our various philosophical ideas.

        So again I say I cannot understand why are you appear to me to be understanding what I’m saying is in validating you.

        To me that reaction from you points to a pacific kind of psychology, but not only that, but a specific orientation upon what is happening in philosophy, upon words, through discourse.

      23. OK. Maybe we can take it from the other way.

        Do you have a theory. You have a philosophical idea that you’re developing. How would you apply that to what I appear to be doing in my philosophy?

      24. Now here is the thing … I have been telling you my theory and suggestions all along but you have not understood it to be that. lol

        This is where communication can break down. As the speaker I have sent my intentions. As the listener you have not understood my intentions and see them as relevant as such.

        Anywhere, along the chain of communication errors can occur, and do occur on a regular basis, including in the mind/brain.

      25. I can see the google doc will get messy as well. How about a co-authored public blog? Here we can each publish our own posts and converse by comments or reply posts.

      26. Did you get the notifications to work? I wasn’t clear in my explanation.

        1. Use a computer and go to wordpress via a proper browser.
        1a. open up the blog and follow it as you would any other blog
        2. Click Reader (Top left of the page).
        3. Click “Followed Sites” in the sidebar
        4. Click “Manage” botton on the page
        5. Click “Notify me of new posts” in the “Settings” of “prior convictions”
        6. Done

      27. I’ll check it out in a little bit. Thanks for getting all this together.

        Do you happen to own a Mac?

        I make music and so I’m trying to install the digital audio workstation able 10 on my Mac. I have it on my PC but I want to put it on my Mac also. But it keeps not working. It doesn’t start. So I’m wondering if you have a Mac if you might have an idea of why able tan is not booting up after it’s installed. .

      28. So, I think it’s a great idea that we have a new blog platform that we can both post on. But I can’t see what you’re posting. And the only thing I can do with it his comment on it. If I could see it. And so we are left in the same situation as it is just commenting on our regular posts. That is, unless you just want to make individual posts that comment on each other’s posts. But then there’s the original problem that I can’t see what you’re posting, I can only see what I’m posting

        how do we solve this problem?

        Because computer technology to me is just about the most offensive thing there is in existence. And if I had my choice I would destroy it all. there’s not anything more that causes more disgust and anger in me then the use of technology, and especially having to learn new things about technology. It literally makes me nauseous even thinking about it and I’m gonna have to go sit down over here and drink some water and breathe right now . Lol

        So, if you can come up with a simple solution. And just tell me how to do it. That’ll be fine.

        🤣

      29. OK. So if I go to view the site. Then I can see all the posts that are being posted on the site. Yours and mine. 👍🏾So we can just make posts that comment on each other‘s posts. Is that what you had in mind?

      30. Yes. But also I get notifications from your lancek4.com blog but not on this one I just created. I want it so that I get a notification just like reply notifications. 👍

      31. It is not non reduction. I don’t think this format is very good Bc I don’t think you really read what I write.

        Anyways. Maybe just reapproach from your stand point.

      32. I am reading as much as I can. Are you going to telling me I can’t skim read as well? lol

        You say there is a lot to get through in life. I agree. We cannot possibly take in all the information. We try our best.

      33. Simply speaking: The cutting board that is in front of me and the mouse that is sitting next to me do not become one object no matter how I think about it, no matter how I conceptualize it, even though I am able to come up with some weird concept about how they might be the same or different or whatever. In truth there is the computer mouse there and there is a cutting board there. Two objects. In truth. That’s it that’s it. You either except it or reject it. If you reject it then I have to say that you’re being hypocritical. You’re not being consistent with the philosophical ideas that you play with so far as language games and things like that.

        But instead of calling hypocritical. I just say that things exist along to irreconcilable routes. If you try to reconcile with them it becomes contradictory to the meaning of the two separate things that are sitting in front of me the computer mouse, the cutting board. If I attempt to make any argument whatsoever that there is not their mouth and there is not there a cutting board, I am involved in being a hypocrite, I am involved in a contradiction. So instead of saying that, I say that indeed we can argue whenever we want. But nevertheless there is still two objects there. So there are two routes. There’s the route of argumentation that reduces everything to nothing. And then there’s the route where there are two objects there and I can talk about what’s going on with them.

      34. “The cutting board that is in front of me and the mouse that is sitting next to me do not become one object no matter how I think about it, no matter how I conceptualize it, even though I am able to come up with some weird concept about how they might be the same or different or whatever. In truth there is the computer mouse there and there is a cutting board there. Two objects. In truth.”

        The mouse isn’t one object. It is thought of as one object. There are billions of atoms in the mouse, in a configuration which we have come to think of as a computer mouse.

        The word “mouse” led you to imagine a real mouse and reimagined the mouse pad as a cutting board. Nice imagination. Nice stream-of-consciousness moment.

        Years ago, someone looked at the contraption on his desk, it reminded him of a mouse, he or she called it a mouse. We have agreed to call it a mouse from then on. Language. Abstraction. Metaphor.

      35. There absolutely is a mouse. And you know exactly what I’m talking about when I say a computer mouse. Don’t lie to me.

        There is also a multitude of other objects that constitute the mouse there. Whether they are the table it sits on, the air around which services meet. The color. As well as the components inside of it. All the way down to the invisible Adams that we have faith in.

        Do you know exactly what I’m talking about when I say a computer mouse. To say that there’s not a mouse there is is being dishonest.

        I would point you to the fact that when your three-year-old child starts to play with himself in the grocery store you just don’t let him do it. You tell him to stop. Because you don’t reduce him to just a bunch of random Adams floating in space that just happen to coalesce into a human body and really everything just means nothing it is purely arbitrary. No. You’re lying to me if you said that a mouse does not exist and it’s not an object. You’re being dishonest for the sake of argument. You are not agreeing with me just for the sake of not agreeing with me

        Now, I’m not saying I don’t understand what you’re saying. I’m not saying I don’t agree with you quote also.

        But, I am pointing out the contradiction in this great metaphysical philosophy about the true nature of things. And then the actuality that we live in every day. I’m talking about the actuality that we live in every day. You’re talking about how your great ideas come up with these fantastical notions of history and tradition and time and Play-Doh and Hegel in whatever.

        Now, again I’m not discounting either of those. I’m not saying that one is more true than the other. I’m not saying that the metaphysical Ness is fake or false. But likewise I’m not saying that the actual reality that we deal with every day, guitars computers phones students institutions are illusions.

        It seems to me whenever I make a statement like that then you have to argue against me back into some sort of metaphysical reduction, which I actually agree with but then also AND. AND AND AND AND. AND.

        And so I just hard for me to believe that you’re just not being obstinate. It’s like you’re purposely not allowing yourself to understand what I’m saying. And you’re just saying things back to me for the sake of arguing.

        I’m sure when you put gas in your car you don’t just go out well I don’t have to put gas in my car because of all these metaphysical great philosophical ideas I have because I understand the underlying truth of reality that everything is discourse.

        That is nonsense. And you know it. So I just bring into question the contradiction in saying that there’s this underlying truth of molecules and atoms. And then to say that the guitar that I’m playing right now is a fantasy, illusion of an underlying nothingness of energy.

        But then I’m not just saying it’s a interesting contradiction and then having to resort back to the fallibility of thinking. No. I am saying that the contradiction in itself is a feature of the universe. And that because it’s a feature of the universe just like guitars just like Adams just like energy just like thoughts just like beans, just like unicorns… we can’t say that one is more true than the other. We have to exist in both truths simultaneously.

        I think I’ve said this about maybe 75 or 80 times over and over in our interactions. And then you come back at me with another argument that I already agree with. So it seems like I understand you perfectly and I agree with you. But you’re not willing to agree with me. My question comes up of why that option and see. Why that resorting to my perfect great idea Central south with all these wonderful ideas and you get to have your own ideas too. Why can’t we just agree that we’re both building a computer and you work on the microchip and I’ll work on the screen ?

      36. Okay. Let’s bring to the blog. I think you’re misunderstanding what I am saying. And I am getting really lost on this thread because I cannot see the original replies.

      37. Yeah. I get you. Me too. So I imagine that you can post on there. And then I’ll read it and then I’ll make a post that is a reply to your post. Instead of having endless comments that get all tangled up in the thread.

      38. … to the extent that you see me as expressing my own personal experience, my own subjective reality, whatever you wanna call it, there are you locked into a particular ideological maximum, a particular transcendent ideal of what the truth of the matter is.

        And as soon as I say and describe what it is for you, you dismiss it out of hand, reject it, argue against it.

        That approach to things evidences a particular orientation upon things. It is an orientation which cannot except the truth of the matter, which is, that there’s nothing wrong with you. And that in truth I am not arguing against you.

      39. It seems that do you want to have a philosophy that I accept. Or that is allowed, just like everyone is allowed to have opinions and everyone indeed is able to come up with great ideas and thoughts and notions.

        But yet when I tell you that I’m excepting it, you reject my acceptance.

        I’m not sure what else I can do I’m not sure what else I can say.

        It appears to me you’re not believing me. You say that you want certain things, and when I give them to you if you simply cannot comprehend it or understand it or some thing is getting in the way of you seeing that I am allowing for what you’re asking for. I do agree with you .

      40. I don’t need you to accept anything. Concepts will be “judged” by reality. I am arguing that to the core language is problematic. Again, we have covered, ontology (or metaphysics) and epistemology. I do not agree with the concepts I am hearing because of a problematik in language (I judge that to be a looseness between concept, symbol and referent).

        I am considering concepts while at the same time figuring out the symbols used and referents available.

        Often you give two statements that are seemingly contradictory or incompatible. I will sit and try to see if it is the concepts, symbols, referents or a combination of these that brings about this sense of contradiction or incompatibility.

        So when you say “unicorn” I see concept [UNICORN] but no existing particular [unicorn]. So when you say you agree that unicorns don’t exist in the reality but in the mind BUT still insist on insist on using the the word “exist” I will question whether I feel this is a misuse of language which can lead to dire consequences in the real world. That is my concern, not whether you agree or disagree.

      41. I bet I could describe to you a unicorn, I could draw one I could make one out of various things. And indeed if I say “unicorn” Do you know exactly what I’m talking about. How could that be so if unicorns didn’t exist ?

      42. Is there another platform we can move to keep up conversation? It is hard to follow or go back. It seems once you reach a limit in nested threads they no longer show up.

      43. …But again, I’m not speaking in reductive fashion. I’m not saying that it is more true that unicorns exist as opposed to your argument of saying that they don’t exist. I am saying that yes the truth of it is exactly what you’re saying: unicorns don’t exist, etc. here’s the reason why. And unicorns do exist by the mere fact that there is nothing outside of discourse.

        Two routes. Both are true. To argue that either one is more true than the other is merely to rely on the unitive route, is to rely upon a one universe which everything has to accord an answer to. I am saying that there are two irreconcilable routes to knowledge, and that they both are true .

      44. Example. Does “and” exist? So if you qualify it to say that “and” does not exist, by whatever qualifiers, then to what is the qualifiers referring? To nothing? Are the qualifiers merely being self reflective? During this to an absence, a hole in my concept of my experience or what is real?

        I say that “and” exists . it’s in the universe as an object just the same as a tree, a quark, God, my left finger, my armpit hair, the scent of a tulip, abstraction, thoughts, nonsense…All of these things exist as universal objects. They exist as things in the universe.

        And..

        They are real according to various conditions, true or false, abstract concrete, left right, uptown, existing not existing, true false…

        To argue, again, that one of those routes is more true than the other is to merely rely upon only one route, It is to assert That everything that is possible must answer to that one unitive way of understanding truth.

      45. To think that I am obstinate is a thought, not a thing. It is a concept. And I am not trying to be obstinate, but trying to point out it is a conceptual error between what is real and what is conceptualised.

      46. It takes two to tango.

        You cannot have two leaders or two followers. It makes for bad dancing. One must lead the other must follow. And sometimes you can swap.

        Otherwise people dance solo and that is done all the time.

      47. I’m not sure what else to say. Everything that you’re saying to me back I am agreeing with it. And I’d love to get your model of things. And I’d probably agree 100% of it. But it seems to me that you’re taking what I’m saying, as soon as I say and, as if I’m rebutting or I’m denying I am saying some thing that is somehow negating or arguing with what you’re saying

        I am not.

        But it appears to me that you are unable to see this.

        It’s like if I have two rocks together, me and you, you insist that they are not two rocks. It’s as if you’re giving me this rock and I agree with you that that’s a rock and then I present you a different A tree, and I say look at these two things. And then you say no there’s only this rock. And that tree is just a part of this rock and let me tell you how that’s the case.

        Yes, I agree. It is possible to speak of all things in terms of the rock. What I’m saying is that there are rocks and then there’s grass and then there’s this guy and then there’s unicorns and then there’s Harry Potter and then there’s magic and then there’s physics and then there’s weeds and stones and dirty paws and smelly water and love.

        And you say, nope, those are all qualities of rocks.

      48. Let’s go with two rocks. Sometimes people chisel them to make them fit nicely together. Other times, they happen to be just about right.

        So are you go to make an effort. We may chisel our rocks and try to make them fit. But I have a particular shape that I like, and you yours. That is fine. It would be nice to have two masons who work together to make these rocks fit. But more often than not it is hard to find a partner that works well. That is the reality in an analogy.

      49. I’m not sure what else to say at this juncture because I’m agreeing with you, you’re just not agreeing with me agreeing with you. You are automatically seeing me is saying something that is distinctly different than what your meaning. Where as I am seeing what you’re saying is true. I fully understand and agree with your organization of things and I totally get what you’re saying. Either you believe me or you don’t. But as soon as I open my mouth and reply back to you, all the sudden that confirms to you that I’m not agreeing with you. So I don’t know what else to say at this point. Except that I appreciate the conversation and I’m sure will have more . 😄

      50. ….I say two routes,though, Bc we live a life which has nothing to do with that metaphysical nonsense. A life which indeed moves upon choices and reductive “truths”. Like whether I should put my finger in the garbage disposal and trim it on. That reality is true (exclusively) but it has little to do with “the truth” (inclusive)

      51. I don’t know how you are using the terms exclusive, inclusive and truth. I don’t see reality as “true or false” but “is and is alone”. So for me reality is all-inclusive.

        See how the terms are reversed for you and me.

        This is why I work on language because although we may have some concepts which are similar (but never identical) we also use different signifiers which have different meanings to us both.

      52. Yes, I could see how our ideas are complementary. Perhaps that’s why I noticed from your posts early on that they resembled kind of what I was saying also.

        … But back to my reply I just made, harm in focus is just on the ontology of the object. Whereas I thus say, since what withdraws we can have no sense about, I say the issue concerns orientation upon objects, as opposed to positing another reductive position.

      53. Well, and the reason why I say orientation, is because it’s not like the inclusive route just kind of sits there in space and nothing is done with it. On the contrary, things are actually being done and logic is being applied from the conditions that arise by that other route, but the reductions of that route of reason do not answer to the method of the exclusive route. Similarly to how classical physics or mechanical physics, quantum physics does not answer To classical physics. Quantum physics has its own reason, so to speak, it’s own reductive method and produces outcomes produces and has a fax on real situations. But it doesn’t really have anything to do with classical mechanics, and classical mechanics can’t really say too much about what quantum physics might be doing or how it does it.
        But when it comes to these routes, the exclusive route proclaims that there can be no other way to reason. That it’s conventional method upon knowledge is the only way that knowledge can be applied and used.
        But when it comes to these routes, the exclusive route proclaims that there can be no other way to reason. That it’s conventional method upon knowledge is the only way that knowledge can be applied and used.

      54. … so perhaps that’s another way that we differ. I am not saying that it all reduces to mind. By the exclusive route, yes we could say that it is all arising in my mind and I’m having opinions and views. But in truth, if I’m actually understanding the truth of the situation as indeed truth, then it has nothing to do with my mind or my opinions.

      55. “But in truth, if I’m actually understanding the truth of the situation as indeed truth, then it has nothing to do with my mind or my opinions.”

        The language of logic and its truths are flawed because it is based in language which is a construct of the mind representations or mental worlds if you will.

      56. It is flawed when one is oriented upon things of a unitive universe. As if subjectivity compromises all a person can know. As we all have opinions and different views on things. Yes, the one route have to do with exactly what you just said here.

        There is another route. I sit in a chair. There is no perspective on that. There is no view that is different from me from you. Here let us sit down and eat. There is no perspective, there is no opinion. There is you and I sitting down and eating food. The food, you, me, chair, eating, discussing. There are no opinions about those things I’m themselves. Because all I have to say is sit down and you already know what to do. All I have to do is indicate that chair and you already know. Here is some food. That tastes good and the broccoli is delicious and it has onions in it. Great I love that. There is no opinion on those objects, there is no subjectivity.

        And…

        There is.

        Two routes.

      57. Our threads get so convoluted, and I’m always looking at WordPress through my phone. And so I can’t ever go back to the actual dyad of comment and reply quickly. I have to page through the huge long thread and hopefully locate it. Which as it gets longer and longer I fail miserably at accomplishing .

      58. Lol. Well, I don’t know if it’s any “fault“. In the real exclusive sense, sure I get to make decisions ethically about where fault might lie and then what I might want to do about it.

        But I think in truth the system itself is merely a part of my being. Is that the conditions which arise as “myself“. Being that the system also is a true object of the universe. The universe contains that object that is the system which has intention as a real being in itself, an object in itself of the universe.

        I don’t remember what you said how much you’ve read of Harmon.

        But he models objects like two circles that overlap with a kind of canoe shape in the middle. So the two circles share a space that is the canoe part. Do you follow that picture?

        And then he says, say one of the objects is a human being, a subject, with intention, and typically The subject is understood as say just one circle with intention that goes in places its intention out upon things and this creates a universe, roughly speaking.

        So he says that all objects have that same organization, all objects share that same kind of intention. So when two objects meet we have that picture of the two circles with the overlapping space of the canoe. There is the intention of the one object, say myself which is on the left, and then we have the intention of the rock say, which is represented by the circle on the right. The rock is having just as much his intention for itself as I am in myself, both of us of objects, such that the space of intention is shared by each of us contributing to the relation. And he says this space is sensual space, space that makes sense. But then he also says that the real object actually withdraws from view because it is not part of that shared intentional space.

      59. —— but I’m not adding anything at all. I am taking everything that there is and noticing it for what it actually is. There is no edition at all. And there is no reduction. It is a noticing and then the spelling out the repercussions of the situation. I’m not making an argument because it’s like arguing that the tree is there. Or arguing that I don’t need oxygen. It’s like arguing that you don’t need to push the keys on the computer in order to reply to me. It’s just ridiculous to do so, it makes no sense. So the two routes again: one route is viewed as if I’m making an argument. The other route is just a description of the truth of the situation. It’s not a subjective truth. It’s not my own reality. It is the actual truth of this rock that I’m going to go throw through this mailbox. There’s no argumentation about the truth of that situation. and, the only way that it is an argument is to be locating one’s self or identity or basis of truth ones criterion from which one carries oneself into the universe, upon the content of things, as opposed to the things in themselves. I’ll say it again: there is no reducing one to the other, no argument that can be made which reconciles the two routes. One is established in the absolute truth of the object, just as if I take that login I bash you over the head. And one is located in the relative meaning of real subjectivities, for example why did you do that, what is the molecular constitution of the log, the color of blood, did it hurt.

        All of those things reside ontologically within two errors reconcilable routes , which reflect two particular orientations upon things. And I’ll say it again. There is no argument, any argument that you would want to make against it merely confirms what I just said.

        So the question, like Zizek implies. Is, can you see it?

        If you can’t see it, then there’s nothing I can really say to get you to see it. And the reason is is because, as I would actually argue, you are invested in one orientation, as if you are a unitive being, constitutive of the universe however good when I said, it is because you are oriented upon things in a particular truthful Manor which grants you the truth of the situation as a subject.

        OK I got to stop because I just keep rambling the same stuff and so I got to stop sorry I’m such an idiot. Lol

      60. “—— but I’m not adding anything at all. I am taking everything that there is and noticing it for what it actually is. There is no edition at all.”

        Neither am I. But I am not under the illusion that I can do without reduction, since I also know what kind of object I am. There is a self and an other, not just other. That alone would make other unknowable. And to deny my self would be to deny the other as well.

        We probably saying the same thing, but I do not agree you are not reducing yourself, only that you are under the illusion that you are not. After all, that is what an illusion is.

      61. Yes. The two routes allow for reduction. And reduction. Two routes. Two manners where reason stems and works upon truth, but where the criterion for each route arise (Laruelle) Non-philosophically: (but Badiou also talks about inclusion and exclusion of sets). that is:

        One excludes: what I call Conventional. The One Universe that reason is involved with absolutely. Proposes upon one method of reason where everyone has access in potential through argument. This route does not consider another route possible as it “sees” its manner as sufficient to account for all that is possible for human knowledge. This route only includes that which accords with its method.

        One includes: here the exclusive route is also included, but by this inclusion accounts for it in a manner that the first route is unable to reconcile. The exclusive route does not admit that it is unable to account for everything knowable. This inclusive route includes everything that arises as knowledge, which therefore includes the exclusive route.

      62. I had a quick look at Laruelle (but not Badiou). All three seem to be reductive positions, no different to any other philosophy.

        For we can never escape taking a position. I am happy with that. What I am unhappy about are those who pretend they are not taking positions (The Enlightenment, Colonialism, Imperialism, Modernism, Marxism, Fascism, etc). In short, I am asking for honesty and transparency when you take a position. No position is perfect. A position can be better for one time but not for another, like a pandemic virus. It is successful because it is conditions suit it.

      63. You asked me about Harmon.

        I went straight the overview at the back of Object-Oriented Ontology: Flat ontology; anti-mining; OOO not materialism; objects withhold; fracture in things; aesthetics as first philosophy; objects act because they exist.

        Perhaps a post critique on these.

      64. Yes: Harman is involved with an ontology of objects strictly. But he includes the objects called the human being. But he does not get into that specific object. I talk about the object of the subject.

      65. ——- But honestly, from what I’ve heard of your description of the situation, I don’t think that I’m saying much different. For some reason you think that I am. And that is interesting to me.

      66. When I speak of content I mean the stuff that constitutes a thing. There is the thing in itself, and then there is the content of the thing. I guess one kind of Hass to get into Harmons discussion to really pull out the ontological situation there.

        But in short if I hate you with a stick it has nothing to do with content. Likewise if I say that relativity is an irresponsible manner of proceeding into the world, I’m not talking about content, I’m talking about truth. But, two things appear at the same time; that’s why I talk about one’s orientation upon objects. If I am orientated upon words as a conveyor of content at all times, then I will argue that everything is relative. But if I see that the stick that hit me was indeed a stick and it did hit me and my skull is cracked and there’s blood flowing, then there’s no relativity in that at all. And yet, I am able to take that discussion about the stick, perhaps the actuality of me bleeding in my skull hurting, I am indeed able to see that as filled with content. This is why I say we are no longer in an “either or” situation where it must be content or it must be the thing in itself. Because such an argument is always oriented upon the content to see things.

        If I say that you teaching your children to have an open mind and that everything is relative is an absolute truth, is based in an absolute ideal of truth, it is because you don’t let your children do whatever they want. You have definite truthful notion’s about how they are to be as people in the world and how they are to act. And you communicate that to them in no uncertain terms. Even the uncertain terms are certain because you’re not dealing with content here. If you were dealing with content at all times in the raising and teaching of your children, you would get a child who is severely depressed anxious fucked up probably sell farms and grows up to be a really messed up individual or maybe even a drug addict, because they have no sense of substance. And so I’m saying as a good parent you were not teaching them relative things. You were teaching them truthful things, even as you might say that the truth of it is relative.

        It seems like I’m going back-and-forth, but this is why I talk about the two routes. Orientation upon things.

      67. I am not an academic philosopher. I’ve read a little bit of luck. I’ve read some things that Berkeley wrote and a couple things about his philosophy. But that was years ago and I barely remember anything about them. But I would say I’m more like Hume. In as much as I read that one main piece that he wrote. Which I can’t bring to mind at this moment. lol.

        But my point is that when I say reality, you know what I’m talking about just the same way as if I said the computer on my desk. Do you know what I’m talking about.

        When I say universe, likewise you know what I’m talking about. It is real, it is not only real but it is a true fact of our existence, it exists, there is no disputing that except if we get into content. All content is subjective content, this is why I talk about orientation upon object. Where a person is orientated upon content only, they will view things along a certain either or mentality, as if they’re orientation upon things is the only possibility by which any thing else is able to be.

        Another way to look at it, another orientation is to look at that rock over there and to understand that I exist only by virtue of that rock. In the context that that rock is giving me to exist by is the totality of my existence at that moment. And just the same as I look around the room and there’s a binder and there’s a table and there’s a phone and there’s a carpet and there’s some salsa and there’s a cup, I am existing by virtue of the true reality of those things coinciding in my ability to formulate any type of thought whatsoever.

        These two types of ways, these two orientations are mutually exclusive. They exist and they occur at the same time, they are true in parallel. Hence the orientation upon content, or the orientation upon the thing itself that involves content. That is the essence of difference in the sense that the postmodern to talk about.

      68. Let me rewind back to “realities”.

        When you say realities, you are talking about mental (and physical) realities.

        Is this a fair reading of your definition of reality or realities?

      69. I think it to make a distinction between some sort of outside world and an internal mental world, wow useful, does not really get to what is actually occurring.

        You and I have a understanding about discourse
        Ok. So, how I put it Aligns withLyotard A little bit so far as “Clausal universes”. The postmoderns use it in terms of still kind of a dichotomy going on kind of a self other, whatever kind of structural kind of dichotomy that we would want to posit. So I suppose from where I’m coming from, like I keep saying this Hass to do with an orientation upon things and there are two routes by which people can orient themselves upon things.

        One of the routes is and “either or” orientation. This is the reductive method, the conventional philosophical way of understanding whatever.

        The other route I guess I would have to say is “and”. So here, I tend to locate what I’m talking about around foundational terms, around common foundational terms, one of these foundational terms is “reality”. And I tend to point to the fact that if I say a photocopy machine, you know exactly what it is. So I don’t need to go and talk about all the various facets of a photocopy machine in order for you to know that it exists as a real thing.

        You know exactly what I’m talking about.

        So it is when I use the word “reality”. You know exactly what I’m talking about before you even think about it. Sure I can say photocopy machine, and then you can start to ask however many questions you want about the photocopy machine, and through our discussion about the photocopy machine completely deconstruct it and will completely lose the photocopy machine as an actual real thing, and often enough we will start to believe that there really is no photo copy machine in front of me that I’m photocopy and hundreds of copies of policies upon

        So it is the same way when I say “reality”. You already know what I’m talking about before you even ask a question into it. And so I’m talking about the thing itself called the universe, the thing itself called reality. As soon as you start to ask into it then we get into content. And so at some point we need to orient ourselves upon foundational terms in order to understand what a universe might be. Similarly when I say universe. You already know what I’m talking about when I say the universe .

      70. I think it is useful.

        I now see where your ideas are coming from – that of the mind. A clear rejection of the importance of the physical reality.

        We differ in important ways like the difference between psychology and psychiatry.

        Sure we talk about about relative and absolutes, but it seems for you from absolutes come relativity. For me, it is from relativity that absolutes come.

        Another analogy: Plato and Aristotle. You like innate ideas, I don’t.

        Like language games (this is my interpretation of Wittgenstein) we have things called games, but some games are more game-like than others. Not because of some innate ideal but because of the various games we have come across and categorised. Of course, it is different for different people because of experiences, but nonetheless they share the same the same space we call the physical reality.

        I do not believe in different mental realities. Different “experiences”, yes, but not different realities as you call it.

        This is why I talk about tennis. Federer does not beat Nadal because he has a different mental reality to Nadal, but because he has a better understanding of the same physical reality we all share.

        I am also saying that you prioritise the mind over body, which is shows in your lack of concern for “global news” as you said you have. Limiting your view of the space to the local does not make the rest of the world and the rest of the problems disappear. It just makes you less aware of the world.

        I will argue for what you call “absolute” in the opposite fashion to yours. Relative knowledge, to me, isn’t absolute. Absolute knowledge is relative. And, in fact, do not exist. Neither does relative knowledge exist. Things that seemingly make knowledge does.

        So, yes, when you say there is no difference between a rock and a person, I agree from the point of view that the “absolute” is the physical reality, not the mind, even though the mind is the site of our knowledge and perception. Nonetheless it is based upon the physical. I have concluded from observed evidence “there are bodies with with mind, and bodies with no mind”, but “there is no mind without a body”.

        Harman dismissed the body. Are you sure you’re not influenced by this, that you have not just accepted this without question as truth? Again, Harman and OOO does not seem to engage with the (physical) world. I question the value of a philosophy that suggests we withdraw (in the conventional non-OOO sense) into ourselves, into our own minds.

      71. I do not privilege the mind. But, I am able to say certain things if I put mind as the basis of everything else. I do not discount science I do not discount physicality I do not discount empirical reality not one single bit.

        I’m not talking about “my reality”. I’m talking about reality. You know exactly what I mean when I say reality.

        If I tell you or ask you to talk about reality, you’re automatically going to start saying things about it that I intuitively understand as having to do with reality.

        Because, I don’t say the photocopy machine and then you start to describe to me a tree thinking that you’re talking about a photocopy machine.

        The photocopy machine is absolutely a real photocopy machine with empirical qualities, physical qualities, true qualities that we interact with. I’m not reducing everything to my mind or your mind or a bunch of subjectivities. I am absolutely talking about the real truth of the object that is right there in front of me, as it would be for you too if you were in this room. lol

        The reason why I don’t really think that we need to know global news, is because it affects people in bad ways to have too much information.

        It has nothing to do with what I am because I’m reducing everything to my local reality or something like that. It has everything to do with I don’t think I really care about whether 50 people died of coronavirus in China. I don’t think it matters to my reality, in this case. It indeed may be real, and indeed I will talk about it and indeed there is this thing of 50 people dying in China. I’m just saying so far as my mental health goes and the mental health of the people in the world in general, I don’t think all these global occurrences really help in anyway. They just add an element of confusion because in general people don’t know how to handle all this stuff, or if they do know how to handle it then they become people who are generally unethical and have screwed up opinions because their mind simply is not able to process such global information in a local way without having some sort of mental issues, some sort of ethically compromised manner of behaving. .

      72. “The reason why I don’t really think that we need to know global news, is because it affects people in bad ways to have too much information.”

        I agree there is a lot information out there. But I don’t agree you have no control of which you can filter, choose, highlight, limit, etc.

        “It has everything to do with I don’t think I really care about whether 50 people died of coronavirus in China. I don’t think it matters to my reality, in this case. It indeed may be real, and indeed I will talk about it and indeed there is this thing of 50 people dying in China.”

        Again, how you deal with that information will be telling.

        I may ask. Given the China had 80,000 cases in Wuhan and almost none elsewhere I would have to ask what did they do right? Or is it disinformation they are doing by controlling flow of information. I would ask are they hiding more numbers? I would ask is it in a particular region like Western China where they are using it as a biological weapon against a minority? I would ask how would this import of goods from China? Is there a chance of infection from Made In China products given that over 60% of goods comes there? I would ask which information sources can I trust on this?

        I would ask why has America have 4 millions cases? Why Japan has only 30,000 cases? Given Japan has 125 million people and US 350 million Japan should have 1 million cases given similar conditions.

        True, if you don’t think this helps you then it doesn’t help you. But it helps me know what kind of person you are and how and what kind of things I can talk to you about.

      73. I think you’re really evidencing what I’m talking about with the two routes. Because if I start to talk to you about philosophical ontology and what’s really going on, you basically give me a metaphysics of that I have no reason to care and that history is going to do it once anyways.

        And yet here you’re talking about some sort of responsibility I have to this discursive world that really has no basis in truth, according to your philosophy.

        All I’m doing is noticing these two different ways of being that arise in a situation where we usually want to say that it is all consistent and makes sense together. From my eyes, the philosophy that you’re advocating doesn’t make any sense to why I should be concerned with whether or not the government is holding actual statistics from me.

      74. I do not make a distinction between the inside and outside world. The inside world is an illusion, for one. Secondly, the inside world is inside the physical reality like a matryoshka doll.

      75. In truth, there are no illusions. In reality, people are able to believe many different things and have ideas about things that may or may not reflect the situation they mean to addresss.

        The Russian doll, analogy. Yes.

        Objects reside within one another. If I am talking about a Cup, then all sorts of other objects arise to exist in accordance to Cupness, the Beinf of the cup. If I am talking about Coffe, then the object of coffee arises and the cup becomes an aspect of coffee, likewise.

        This is discursive one the sense that discourse likewise is an object which exists in the universe. What is the content of discourse ? Only words, or are cups and coffee it’s content also?

        And if I find the object in itself that is up, then it exist the extent of that discourse is a part of the Cups being.

        If everything is discursive then there is nothing that is not descursive. There is nothing that we can ever say that is “actually” more true than anything else. To say then that the mind makes discourse, is merely to describe the object That exist in the universe as mind. If I say that everything is a cup, likewise I can describe the existence of all things as companies, discourse just being another aspect of cupness.

        The fact that everything is discursive does not take away from the existence of things in the universe as actual universal objects. In the same way that to say that everything is of the universe does not take away from the fact that everything is discursive.

        When the extent of the reality of the situation is come upon, then we have to admit that the things that I encounter in my every day life that I deal with in my every day life has nothing to do with the philosophical reasoning that would want to say that this argument is the case, or that argument is the case, because all those arguments or just a rising in existence as objects in themselves, doing things universally just like every single other object is. It doesn’t matter if it’s mine or if it’s dog or if it’s car or if it’s tree or if it’s Atom.

        Hence, we likewise cannot say that the reductive philosophical method is incorrect. Because we use it all the time. But we do have to admit that there’s something else going on that does not answer to the philosophical reductive method. So I say that the conventional philosophical method concerns the content of things, and that’s the reality of things, but not the truth of reality.
        Whereas the other route has to do with the truth of reality, of things that are truly in themselves objects of the universe. To reduce and argue to say that one route must be more true than the other because of such and such, is merely to deny that there are two things that are simultaneously occurring.

        Someone Hass to ask: What am I trying to do?

        If I’m trying to argue something, then why am I doing that, for what purpose is my argument taking place?

      76. Everything are objects. But to not differentiate between a cup and a person is not to be human. And to not see that see have similar properties is to be without empathy. But let’s leave it at that.

      77. “Everything are objects. But to not differentiate between a cup and a person is not to be human. And to not see that see have similar properties is to be without empathy. But let’s leave it at that.”

        You are using a reductive logic to come to some sort of conclusion that I’m not implying.

        Knowing that there is a true chairs sitting right there next to me says nothing about what I believe.

      78. —- and actually I would say, that the only effective counseling occurs when I allow that person to be the object that it is in itself regardless of what I might think about them or what is going on with them.

        I know this is particular to being a counselor, but the job of the counselor is to allow the person to be. Whatever I might think about them is left at the door, and whatever I might think about the truth of reality or whatever philosophy I have, is entirely moot.

      79. There is no distinction between saying that the sun is the center of our galaxy, we’re saying that the earth is the center of the galaxy. Which ever one I want to say has necessary repercussions. So likewise if everything is Discursive, then it is not my mind that is making it so. And yet it is not not my mind, it is reality. It is the universe doing universal things. Because I am not separate from it. But indeed in my being not separate from it my mind also has an ability to behave as if I am separate from it.

        Two routes. Two orientations upon things that do not reduce in knowledge to influence the others outcomes. Two truths.

      80. Neither are the centre of our solar system. Our solar is not the centre of our galaxy (the Milky Way) either.

        All I am saying is one needs to be careful of what the words mean.

        There are literally hundreds of thousands of stars (suns) in our galaxy. And there are literally millions of galaxies in the universe.

      81. Yes, but if I say galaxy, you know what I’m talking about. If I say the sun is the center of our solar system, you know what I’m talking about. You know what the sun is, you know where the solar system is. They truthfully exist in that space such that we know exactly what each other is talking about whenever we bring them up .

      82. When you take a bath. It doesn’t matter what philosophical meaning you have. It doesn’t matter what operations of reason that you use to come to some sort of metaphysical truth about you taking a bath. The simple truth is that you turn on the water eventually becomes hot you put the drain down and you get in the bath. There is nothing that exists beyond that truth. You are interacting as an object with other universal objects. It is not mind. But it is not an outside reality either. It is a consistency of things that are being in the universe coming together to create the situation. It is exactly reality. When I say reality you know what I’m talking about. If you start thinking about what is actually going on. Then that’s real also.

        So what I’m saying over and over again is as soon as I say chair right there. You already know done. Truth.
        There it is the object in itself the chair. The one you just thought of when I said chair that’s it. That’s the end of South object, has nothing to do with your mind, it has nothing to do with thoughts, it has entirely to do with the reality of the chair interacting with the reality of your being as well. there it is the object in itself the chair. The one you just thought of when I said share that’s it. That’s the end it’s up to object, has nothing to do with your mind, it has nothing to do with thoughts, it has entirely to do with the reality of the chair interacting with the reality of your being as well. Both arise in themselves within the universe despite any other argument you would wanna make about it. That is the truth. There’s nothing else you can say about it. For as soon as you start to say anything about it to argue anything differently you’ve done something else. Do you take another route, so to speak.

      83. …lol. For if really everything is arbitrary, and I know for sure that there is really nothing substantial which grounds knowledge, then it becomes my responsibility to the world not to advocate or argue but that is the case.

      84. I guess my point actually is coming back to the idea that I am not sure why I need global news. Because, sure if I look at across the world I see that everyone has different types of realities, different cultures, different beliefs etc., But that only moves to compromise my culture, my world. And reduce anything I do into inconsequential nothingness. The solution might be to go back to having news of only in the small region. Get rid of the Internet, get rid of me being concerned About what people do on the other side of the ocean.

      85. My opinion is, to say that everyone has different realities is to not participate in the same reality, that you have decided that we have different realities.

        I don’t see it as so.

        You commented that you paper was about inclusion. But what have described is exclusion.

        Different individual private thoughts does not equate to different realities. If you ask me what I describe is more inclusive than your description. But you will come back at me to say that is my opinion, and keep up the exclusion.

        This is interesting. I think I am coming to understand where you are coming from.

      86. I think when we met a while ago it struck me that we have very similar ideas upon everything, we are just saying things slightly differently. And so I think it’s more of you and I figuring out the differences in our terms.

  3. I agree.

    absolute-comparative-superlative

    good-better-best

    I would say good is also problematic. The idea of an absolute existing “something” comes down to perception. Reality has no (or does no) judgment, no perception. This is why I call it ‘process’ or ‘activity’ to highlight the fact that it is a quality or quantity of matter. Secondly, they do not “exist” in themselves.

    To me there is no good-better-best other than my perceptions of them. And perceptions I can never do away with, except in death.

    1. Well, OK. What brought it up for me was I was listening to this thing on NPR about comicon. They have to do the comicon convention online and they were talking about how they’re doing it etc.

      So, one of the guys they were interviewing was some graphic artist that basically he was saying how education, people are best educated really through popular media. And so he was making the argument that, it’s a good because it helps educate people about the issues in about whatever.

      In particular they were talking about this guy’s booth which in the actual live, cons with those booths, he would have like a little talk in some room somewhere in really hardly anyone would show up. But because it’s online they have hundreds of people that want to come to his booth and hear his talk .

      and so there was some comments he made about how it’s better because more people are getting educated.

      And it really crossed my mind that, I’m not entirely sure that more people getting educated is actually better.

      Philosophically speaking, I tend to think that there is always a sort of hierarchy of knowledge intelligence in any given moment.

      We like to think that people in general are more intelligent and educated, as if those equate to the same thing, now than they were 150 years ago. For example, Nietzsche say and his Uber matched, or Kierkegaard or many philosophers who commented upon some sort of “future humanity”. That was better than what we had then when they were writing.

      Today we tend to think that this kind of Uber Mench or this kind of awakened individual or enlightened individual has kind of permeated society such that we have so much more so many more educated and intelligent people who are enlightened to this kind of superman being.

      But I think we’re in exactly the same condition that we were then. That the “education and intelligence “is just a kind of ideological way of positioning one S. such that, for our society now, as a general global society, or maybe just Western society, everyone can kind of join in the “educated and intelligent” ideal that we are so much smarter Then we were. But I think it’s exactly the same except under a different idea logical formation. Which is to say that most of the people still are stupid Cattle. Lol. Yes, what has happened is our quality of life has gotten better, but the way people go about and perceive the world has not changed. People still just wanna fuck drink beer be entertained and water ski. The ideas that a bunch more people might be thinking critically, that’s just another cow way of joining the ideology that says that everyone is free and better because of the way we think.

      But I think humanity is not getting better so far is intelligence. Because education only goes to quality-of-life. It doesn’t go to the human being “Being” any differently than it always has. Which is to say, that there are very few people who understand and are actually intelligent. Education is just an ideological sort of indoctrination into the world religion, whatever period We’re talking about.

      I know. Aren’t I such a negative Nancy!! Lol

      I have a very low concept of humanity. I don’t think that humanity has any noble aspect about it whatsoever. And that there are very few people in the world that would deserve the title of “noble”. Lol

      Anyways. I’ve unveiled my true self!! Ha ha ha!!

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