The Dog Walks

Proceed as planned.

For a little while now most of my posts, at least most of my commentary, is made when I’m walking my dogs.  I Do you not very often sit down at my computer and type up a blog post. Only occasionally do I feel I need to sit down at my computer and type some thing, edit some thing, write an essay. I would say that 94% of my posts are me walking my dog and voice dictating my thoughts. That’s why sometimes there will be a sentence that doesn’t make perfect sense, or some words miss placed that I missed going back trying to edit in my walking, Or some auto correct that are not correct. Lol

So today it just came upon me that maybe I will start titling these philosophical comments “The dog walks”.

In fact, I think I’m going to change the name, again, of this blog to “the dog walks”.

For a minute or two it was “the Philosophy.” But I am finding more and more that what I feel is philosophically warranted for communication, for Philosophy., for Counseling., that really what I’m doing is in the spirit of Foucault’s Archaeology. But I’m not so scholarly nor motivated academically to dig deep like he did, which is why he calls it an archaeology. Instead, I am going to call it Anthropology. 

Now, much of what I argue philosophically actually moves to deny that Philosophy. is speaking of anything besides it’s self. much of my argument for philosophy is that it is saying nothing at all about anything relevant to my daily life. I’m not even saying this ironically. in fact, I am realizing that what I have to say philosophically is indeed highly philosophical. lol. And so much as I say that Philosophy. has nothing to do with what I encounter in my regular daily activities, I’m really saying that Philosophy. has everything to do with existence.

Even as I am voice dictating this post, I am feeling the tendency to continue on down the philosophical rabbit hole. but I’m not going to. The significant philosophical contribution will be in the form of books and published papers; that is my objective and that is my intention going forward…

However, You readers will get pieces of the philosophy, but in order to really understand what I’m saying this blog will not be sufficiently exhaustive nor satisfying in That regard.

If you’re interested in where I’ve been, how I got here, some snacks, and maybe an appetizer, maybe a glass of wine just to warm you up a little bit, you can read Cedric Nathaniel’s books, as well as my only book which is very large called “the moment of decisive significance”.


but going forward this blog will be about my random comments that touch up on all sorts of fragments of philosophy.

In fact, I think my approach and Philosophy. needs such description that for this blog I’m not sure the word “Philosophy” it’s very effective anymore. I think the word ” Anthropologie” is more effective philosophically because I do not intend to imply what the roots of that word would or might imply, which is to say, the “Anthro” or the “pology”. For the word human itself has become so dissolved and manipulated that it pretty much means nothing to me philosophically. I use the word human because everyone knows what I mean when I say human. But as soon as I start talking about Philosophy., all the sudden no one knows what the word human means and everyone’s waiting for my definition of what it is. oh right there what I mean by the word philosophy is something different then it seems everyone else understands by the word. Hence, I’m going to say “it is anthropology”, If only because that is what my bachelors degree is in, cultural anthropology, and then my masters is going to be in counseling. And in between those 2° was the beginning and end of Philosophy for me. that is, unless I feel like getting my PhD which indeed would be in Philosophy., but it will have to be sometime when I’m not so sick of going to school. lol

so it is, by my use of the word anthropology to describe what I’m doing, I am merely referring to the fact that that is what I did, One hand, despite the root of the word, and in the spirit of Michel Foucault Who said that he is doing an archaeology. and then because anthropology and archaeology are generally considered to be part of the same general discipline of human being Ness.

So it is by the entirety of the anthropology having to do with what is human, it does has nothing to do with the being of human. And this is to say, that if we can find a totality, then we have found its negation. It is from this negation that I tell about this anthropology of knowledge.


so back to my original source of commentary, the linked post article.

In an earlier post of mine I talked about how “believe” itself is an ability of the human being, and not some thing that necessarily a companies being human in every situation.

and here we have the perfect philosophical example of this problem.

for, the issue really Hass to do with making things personal, instead of trying to reach some ethereal transcendent structure of discourse that exist only by virtue of our ability to reason, Which of us makes everything impersonal, and I argue, might be really the source of our mental health problem.


The philosophical issue has to do with whether or not you believe that freedom is something essential to being human, or, whether freedom is something that is directed, maintained, and promoted, as part of a particular system of meaningful organization that we generally call The State.

when I was young, I definitely believed that freedom was something that is innate to the being of human and that human beings do have a connection with some thing that falls outside of anything that is knowable. this is to say that human beings are naturally free by virtue of whatever it is that allows for the human being to exist, whether it be utterly biological or genetic or whatever. there is some unknowable essential component to human beings that makes them act freely or have an ability to do things freely, in the essential sense of the word.

now, I’m not so sure.

But I am pretty sure that people are able to Believe that freedom is something essential to being human. this is to say that it is not merely that people are able to believe something that’s false. I mean in this In the sense that it is able to be absolutely true and effective, despite what any argument would want to put toward that belief or a pond that belief, simply by virtue of the fact that if indeed a belief is occurring then whatever would be encountered by the participant of that belief naturally inevitably and axiomatically would only be understood in the context of that belief. and that this situation is not something that occurs for all human beings, but indeed can be witnessed, people indeed evidence that such belief is in fact in play.

The philosophical conundrum that comes up with this has been routinely denied and shut down throughout the history of philosophy, but probably only recently have been put a point to it to speak of belief particularly:

If the effect of belief is not a universal human trait, but only applies to particular people, how do we discern what is actually true? How do we know which people are involved with only a belief?






Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: