Resiliency: Ontological Orientations

ah Reality is overrated. We think that we make decisions, but that statement is redundant. Do we think ever that is not decision? Is there a thought that is neutral and not a representation of a choice in-itself?

Well, most say no, that they don’t know what I’m talking about. And some say yes.

I’d say it’s both. We make decisions that are based in the decision that is us, is the individual. But in reality we don’t behave that way.

In truth, the individual has decided. But in reality we have yet to decide.

The issue for mental health seems to always side on what decision we are going to make now. Now that we come across some sort of mental thing, some anxiety or worry or bad relationship, what shall we decide, but more properly the question of effectiveness, and thus resiliency, is what are we able to decide.

We like to think that we decide about everything. But for some reason, especially when we’re anxious or depressed or have some sort of “mental issue” that we notice, it seems that our ability to decide out of the situation has been compromised.

It is interesting to me then that many mental health approaches seem to represent an orientation upon what the psyche is or what mentality is, and what might be healthy about it, and is always oriented in making a decision out of a condition of decision that has been compromised.

Of course, we have to start where we are at. And so the decisions, the real work, usually takes place by finding out where that ground of compromise is, what decisions we are able to make. And if we can come to that sense of agency, if we can find that level of ability to make a decision within that condition of a compromised ability to decide, then we work slowly to regain our self efficacy and mental health.

That is the overwhelmingly regular and usual method of any kind of therapeutic approach one will usually come across.

It is what we have to do methodologically, because we aren’t dealing with people usually who want to think about things philosophically.

For the practitioners, though, I like to think that education equals intelligence, but what are usually find, what I think we are finding more and more, is that intelligence and education really only have to do with real skills, and not so much with an ability to reflect upon one’s situation truly.

Nevertheless, I would ask into that approach from the standpoint of the practitioner, from one who is implementing a strategy towards mental health.

Perhaps what the compromise is telling us is that indeed there is some underlying substance that is prevented by the kind of resilience we are seeking when we are trying to achieve through the orientation that we have an ability to decide at some level or condition. 

I think this orientation, this real approach, would take the condition where we really have already decided, and move it or apply it to the “either or” situation that is so real, and then take it as a sign of existential futility or contradiction. What I’m saying here is that most people who are oriented in the substance of reality would take the idea that I am already determined in everything that I do as an intellectual decision of futility upon the decisions one must make in real life.

But what I’m really saying is that the contradiction in itself is a philosophical fallacy, based in a real orientation upon things, and not from a true orientation. That From the orientation that reality holds all the cards, all the truth, every way of thinking that is rational and valid.

So in a way, I’m kind of pointing to the issue of mental health may be the inadequacy of our real conceptual models. The inadequacy of hanging on to a version of the human being in the world that is inadequate and basically faulty, and thus the preponderance of mental health issues in our modern society





, ,



19 responses to “Resiliency: Ontological Orientations”

  1. microglyphics Avatar

    I’m slowly up to page 65. I’m surprised you don’t mention Baudrillard—unless he’s in a forward volume.


    1. landzek Avatar

      I have not read Baudrillard. I think I’ve maybe read a tiny amount, but I read very slowly. What reminds you of him?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. microglyphics Avatar

        With Baudrillard, it’s the concepts of simulacra and simulation—the map and the terrain—, the remnants of the ‘real’ for the remnants, the ritual over the substance.

        I just happened to be reading an old piece of his on Disney World that you might find amusing.

        Separately, I’m sure you’ve already seen this by Latour: (Registration is free)


  2. microglyphics Avatar

    BTW, I found the source of the Grail quote: Evidently, The Once and Future King by TH White. I haven’t ready this one.


  3. microglyphics Avatar

    Interesting. Through page 21, the Holy Grail* quote needs to see more light, and Frost’s Road Not Taken dovetails nicely into my most recent post, . Frost’s point here is notably post-moderm. As you note, this is written tongue in cheek. Irrespective of the path chosen, ‘it [makes] all the difference’. One can’t simultaneously traverse divergent paths.

    * I can’t locate the citation. I’ve read (decades ago) many Grail legends in French and in English, but I don’t recognise this one. Would you happen to recall the citation?


    1. landzek Avatar

      Pretty sure it is from OnceNdFutureKing.


      The point I am making is indeed we can simultaneously traverse divergent paths. Read on!

      Liked by 1 person

      1. microglyphics Avatar

        10-4. haha


  4. microglyphics Avatar

    I hope to write a post on this soon. Evolution favours fitness over truth (or reality, as the case might be). Meantime, sharing is caring:


    1. landzek Avatar

      That’s interesting. But science is interesting.

      And, I would say that everything it mentions actually exists. lol.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. microglyphics Avatar

        I’ll suggest that you are hiding in the ambiguity of language. That I can create a name for ‘something’ doesn’t mean that the ‘something’ exists. What exists is the name and perhaps the notion but not the ‘something’.

        I’d love to make a claim that I’ve got a billion dollars in my hand. I can even imagine it there. But no amount of alchemy is going to conjure it there. Still, we can both imagine my having a billion dollars. But I’m generous, so, here, you have it. lol



      2. landzek Avatar

        I don’t think I’m hiding in the ambiguity of language. I think that’s just what you’re seeing.

        I’m sure you cannot give me one of example of something that doesn’t exist.

        By the simple fact that I’m not sure how you could conceptualize anything at all that doesn’t exist.

        What could be occurring though, as you’re not understanding what I meaning when I say exist. But I am meaning the word exist in a very simple way of saying the word exist. Just as if I say I have feelings for you. My feelings for you exist. The Million dollars in your hand actually exists. But what you’re thinking I mean, it’s not the same thing as I meaning. You are filling the gaps with assumptions. And you’re not just taking what I’m saying for what it is.

        Because it exists. What I just said exists. And what I didn’t say, it also exist. What I’m thinking exists. You could qualify those in whatever ways you want to say, oh they’re only thoughts, oh it’s only language, oh it’s just a fantasy, but I would further add that “yes, and all those things exist .

        It’s difficult to have these discussions because I feel like I’m talking from a different area. I’m always speaking from the standpoint of the two routes. So, it’s difficult because if you don’t understand that kind of initial framing, then it’s hard to really speak to what I’m saying.

        I understand what you’re saying, there isn’t actually $1 million in your hands cash right now. OK. But I am saying that that actuality exists. Yes and no. Not either or. Yes and no.

        Yes and…

        Not, either this or that.

        Rather: either this or that and not either this not that. Both exist.

        And they indeed exist in the universe. In both states, and only in those two states.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. microglyphics Avatar

        Lkawuejdgfsad doesn’t exist. I could associate this term to some concept or non-existent ‘thing’, but this thing is a complete fiction.

        I’m not following, but I think that what’s missing is confluence. In my billion dollar example. A billion dollars exist and my hand exist, but in no reality does that billion dollars intersect temperospacially in my hand, so that a billion dollars could conceivably exists contemporaneously ‘in my hand’, never rises to the requirement of actually being in my hand.

        You write that the ‘actuality exists’, but as with physics, it may ‘potentially exist’, but it is never actuates. It never moves from potential to kinetic. Even worse, it doesn’t even get to ‘potential’, it barely qualifies as speculatively potential. It in very improbable that this condition would ever flag to ‘true’.


      4. landzek Avatar

        Yes, I agree and…

        I don’t agree.

        All those things exist by the mere fact that we would have no manner to talk about them if they did not.

        It is not merely linguistic.
        It can be linguistic. But it could also be conceptual. Or empirical. Or fantastical. Or magical.

        Can you tell me exactly what is granting you this great ability to discern what exists from what does not?

        And yes: “Lkawuejdgfsad” does exist. There is it right there in this text.

        Just the same as a unicorn exists. And the billion dollar in your hand

        I think you are conflating existence with reality.

        Not everything that exists is real. But everything that is real. And not real. Exists. And vice versa.

        Liked by 1 person

      5. microglyphics Avatar

        Exist: (verb) to have objective reality or being

        So, this is the realm of Heidegger (as opposed to Sartre). Lkawuejdgfsad has no objective reality and certainly no being. The ordered sequence of alphabet characters is the only being, but we never advance beyond the signifier to the signified—primarily because the signified has yet to be defined. If I define my (extant) automobile as ‘Lkawuejdgfsad’ then it tautologically exists. As for now, it points to a NULL set.

        I feel you are reverting to Platonic ‘Forms’ as opposed to that captured by Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, but even here, Plato viewed these as transcendent rather than existing. They are a locus of properties.

        In any case (or if this is the case), I’ve long disagreed with Plato’s account. And Aristotle’s is simply mundane.


      6. landzek Avatar

        Yes. And no.

        Yes. You are correct and I 100% agree with you.


        No. You are incorrect.

        Both. Are correct.

        Liked by 1 person

      7. microglyphics Avatar

        Arriving at the mention of Latour, I have to admit I had not read him directly, so I detoured (Latour detour? Coincidence? I think not. lol) for a spell. I downloaded it but quickly realised that 600-some pages may be too long of a route, so back to the source of my distraction…

        I’ve reached page 46 to Zizek on ‘dishonesty’, but I have to work past the point that I don’t put much more credence in the notion of honesty than I do ‘truth’ or ‘authenticity’. For now, I’ll employ it roughly idiomatically so I can continue.


      8. landzek Avatar

        Latour is very dense reading sometimes. The Latour detour. Yeah!


      9. landzek Avatar

        Well. And thx for giving my small book a shot. Actually, it’s only the first part. And I published the first part and the second part. But there’s actually six parts. It was kind of a marketing strategy. I don’t know if it worked or not lol.

        What I mean by honesty is that instead of taking the easy route and just saying, oh well it’s a paradox, or, oh it’s a relative, or, oh, that’s just one argument among many. I think whenever I use that kind of phrase, “to be honest”, or “if we are honest”, and things like that, I’m referring to taking the statement at face value for what it actually means, instead of deferring the contradiction to some excuse for why it shouldn’t mean what I’m really saying. 🥸. I don’t know if that really makes sense. But maybe it will:

        With Latour , in his “an investigation into modes of existence”. He talks about how “passes“, of which he delineates I think 14 different kinds of passes, allow us to make sense of things without having to entertain that the contradictions evident of understanding a particular situation are indeed an integral part of the ability to understand the situation as real.
        So I use his notion of the ppass as a way to direct our vision, to point our ability for understanding to include what seems contradictory at first sight, what seems “sensible to reality”, Which is to say, to indicate that reality not giving us the whole picture is just a facet of a particular type of understanding, and not an existential or absolute maxim.

        My point is that we are able to see what is actually occurring in its truth despite the limits of subjectivity ; that subjectivity is a kind of “religious belief“, a kind of dogmatic faith through which we view everything according to various passes through or over “sensible” contradictions Which divert us away, or, along a certain path of reality to miss what is true of existence.


      10. landzek Avatar

        … but don’t get me wrong, I enjoy theconversation. Because I get to think. 😜.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply to microglyphics Cancel reply

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

You are commenting using your 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

%d bloggers like this: