What is actually wrong?
Does it need “fixing”?
What is actually wrong?
Does it need “fixing”?
…. 😝. Zizek refers to human existence as “a catastrophe”. Something has gone terribly wrong in any estimation of intelligible existence. Becuase, in the last instance, we are having a conception of things that should not exist in the way that our conception gives us. Which is to say that if the concepts that we have of the world the universe existence actually arise in someway according to those conceptions, etc., then the result is that those conceptions should not exist in themselves, which is to say, as a necessary part of the universe, which is to say if we reflect upon what we know what we can know as history and philosophy and etc.
But also, inasmuch as we might be acting upon such knowledge, all we create is more problem. And every solution that we invent to address that problem just makes more problems. So it’s a catastrophe!! Lol
Right. This is why context is everything, and nothing can be true outside of this context.
Fun Fact: 3 + 4 = 5
When isn’t 3 + 4 = 7? When context changes.
When I studied Physics as an undergrad, we learnt vector maths. As minuscule as it might have been, I had an epiphany when I was summing perpendicular forces. The sum of a northward force of 3 and a westward force of 4 is an equivalent force of 5 to the northwest.
And, neither so ,despite popular belief, is 1 + 1 always 2.
Context is everything.
Yes, I agree with context.
I would say that to say that everything arises in context Is True. But the rising itself is real. When I’m walking my dog, there is a whole set of true situations that are actually occurring in reality. But “the reality” of the situation can be taken apart and any number of an infinite ways such that I am never walking the dog and I’m always walking the dog and only sometimes not even walking a dog or walking. This latter is real, but it is not true. The truth of the matter is that I’m walking my dog. There is no amount of intellectual dissection which would ever convince me that I’m not standing on the sidewalk. Regardless of what language I use. Regardless of what poetic transformations I want to juxtapose over this truth. “In reality” I might indeed find myself in a number of contacts, but the truth of the matter always remains the same. I am wearing a hat. It is true in any instance that you would wish to bring up.
It is only in my intellectual justification that I could wish away and argue away the truth of the matter. If I hit you with a log, and your nose is broken and you get a concussion, the meaning of it, the context in which it Rose, matters little, even as the context may have real repercussions.
As I say: A rose by any other name would smell as sweet because it is a rose. I could call it a tire iron, and still the truth of the matter would be that there is this flower called a rose that no matter who encounters it they’re going to get stung by its thorn’s and it’s going to smell great and it has roots etc.
« There is no amount of intellectual dissection which would ever convince me that I’m not standing on the sidewalk. »
Paging Timmy Leary. Perhaps you need to meet Ayahuasca or her friend LSD. They have a reputation of convincing.
My late brother was schizophrenic, and he not only swore that Jesus his brother, alive and well, but that he was at times sitting beside him. If you took him at his word, Jesus was the favoured son, and no one recognised him for who he (my brother) was.
Off his meds, he held dialogues with Jesus, God, and any number of other figments. They were 100% real ‘to him’, but there was no concurrence.
Idiomatically, facts and truths operate are synonyms, but for an academic conversation I feel it’s important to distinguish between the two. It may be a fact (or not) that you are standing on a sidewalk, but there is no truth content to the statement.
Speaking of terrain-mapping reality, I’ve always been intrigued by quarks, who don’t comply with our ordinary sense of reality. Quarks have a quality termed ‘spin’. In our usual world, things have a spin of 1. If you are facing me and spin around 360°, you are again facing me. Some quarks exhibit this behaviour. Others, have a spin of a half or one and a half; respectively, the first spins 180° to re-show it’s face and the second 540. Imagine if that happened ‘in reality’, beyond the level of quanta. Imagine if this was not just some idiomatic anecdote.
…But still I have very real things to contend with, and then they all just fly in the face of whatever ideas I wanna have about what is true and false. Because ultimately I can only be however I am in that instance. Any analysis I might have about why or how will fall short of what I am trying to prove, except that I proved it.
There are no mental health problems unless the person thinks that there’s a problem. The idea that there is “people with problems“ is merely an ideology. If I have schizophrenia, say, and yet I am able to somehow feed myself and not get arrested, then what is the point of saying that something is wrong with me such that I have schizophrenia?
Why would I say that Bill Gates or Zuckerberg or whoever might have autism or be on the schizophrenia spectrum if indeed there’s nothing about them that would ever bring them into any sort of mental health clinic or whatever?
They are not asking for help. Any proclamation I would have over them about what might be wrong with them is merely me attempting to justify my situation according to some rules of mental health, and denying the fact that these people have no problems with themselves whatsoever at least in the context of mental health.
Responding to your two questions instead of the video, everything is contextual and relative to the defined and accepted context. In this sense, nothing is inherently wrong—or right, for that matter.
Analogously, games have context codified by rules. One can’t play baseball on a football pitch or tackle an opponent in basketball. These would be ‘wrong’, but only because the agreed-upon rules have been violated. In a social sense, rules, regulations, laws, and mores have been developed the world over, and these are not universal in any sense of the word. Certain rules favour power structures, and so these rules seem to propagate in most such situations.
Similarly, the fixing can go either way, perhaps playing hockey with a wiffle ball could be interesting. Traditionalists will insist on a puck. In any case, wiffle ball hockey would just be a different game, as is arena football or women’s basketball. The rules are slightly tweaked. When does a rules change render the activity different to that of the original intent? My recent post on the ship of Theseus threads this ground. Hockey on horses is polo, right? No harm, no foul.
Leave a Reply