The purpose of philosophy

Two basic purposes inform any philosophical proposal:

Self assertion, or, intention toward or upon phenomena.


Tool being, or, intentionality of real things

These represent the only two orientations upon objects that can arise in or as knowledge.

They must answer to Laruelle’s non-philosophical proposal of the unilateral duality, Or they always suffer from The first orientation, that is, human self assertion.

With any philosophy, thus, the first question that must be answered honestly is: for what purpose is the proposal?

It is from this first proposal, which is really a first philosophy which Arises before Aristotle’s first philosophy, which gives substance to religious offense.

This is to say that most often the answer will attempt to defend itself against the initial offense, which is, that self-assertion is taken as the ubiquitous and only manner that human beings may engage in philosophy. But as well, that this conventional way of philosophy also engages with the real world, as there is only one real world. 

This is the offense. This is the inherent blame put off from One Self onto another, into the community, which then gives rise to the basic Western questions upon principles that Plato addresses, such as Beauty, Justice, etc.. 

To be human philosophically without addressing oneself or answering to these “first philosophies” (which we find are actually “post-philosophies”) is considered to be not human, or unethical. Axiomatically contradictory to the conventional method by which all knowledge is posited.

According to the conventional approach to philosophy, we are not allowed to make any proposals which are not, in essence, ethical; this is to say, philosophical proposals must justify themselves to the given common whole of humanity which is oriented upon self assertion ( intention towards) as the basis for the human being in the universe. 

We thus begin to understand what Kierkegaard is entertaining in his works.

This is to say, that The regular mode of being human in the world that is Self assertion is based upon a deontological premise. This premise has no basis but suspension of knowledge. 

Hence also, as I have said in my book “the moment of decisive significance”, we find the true meaning of Kierkegaard’s work when we turn the conventional notion of faith on its head.


Repost: On Jean Baudrillard: Seduction, Hyperreality, and the Murder of the Real

“Philosophy leads to death, sociology leads to suicide” —Jean Baudrillard Today, we shall enter the desert of the real and examine Jean Baudrillard’s…

On Jean Baudrillard: Seduction, Hyperreality, and the Murder of the Real

—- Thanks Bobby.x

Blame and Capitalism

Consider that our global system of trade involved with semantic economy may be based on a system of blame. Or, more properly stated, those who make the most money, the tally of systemic “goodness”, are those who are best able to displace blame from themselves. Titles, invoked with all institutions, thus are a systemic firewall by which the individual is established as a ‘master’ of deferring blame onto another, of using the system most effectively.

We might find theoretical correspondence with Deleuze and Guattari’s metaphysical response: the individual becomes schizophrenic as a means to deal with this ontologically-ethical compromise. Bodiless, or, a body without organs, the agent-identity fully embodied by the transcendent ideal of systemic forgiveness never fully off-sets the existential actuality. The psyche thus “splits” into many pieces, which can be assembled in many ways. An individual never has a body let alone any organs that proceed to do any substantial or viable function in themselves, sense, any of those assemblages can be reassembled to take in or produce or reproduce anything else. Hence, a kind of ordained and permitted psychosis.

The standard method of empirical research, embedding ones position in a proper lineage of other people’s ideas, a method of becoming indoctrinated into believing, exacting, performing the dis-embodiment. As I say, The modern religion.x

A comparison of objects


Comparison of sizes reminded me how insignificant we are in the universe, yet we are full of ‘ego’ and try to dominate everyone! Do we matter in the …

Size comparison of objects

—– I’ll push back on that:

The version you advocate here is along what we might call a “smooth scale” of variance. This scale is a manner by which to view and associate things. Yes. But it is one manner.

It seems like is is common, or foundational to the universe. However, when we really begin to notice ourselves in the universe and how indeed the universe acts or behaves within itself, how objects behave with reference to one another, we find that there is a scale variance between objects and not a smooth scale. Indeed, we are able, we are capable, of viewing things from top to bottom, big to small, microscopic to macroscopic, along with some of the scale, but when we really look at the universe, like I said, things do not really occur that way.

One great example is that gravity, that we think of it as a universal constant that has to do with mass, the structure of all things do not conform to a smooth scale with reference to gravity. For example, the structure of functioning bodies. The smooth scale only works within certain limits. But when we get down to say insect levels, or even cellular levels, that’s smooth scale stops being consistent. We find that different things behave with reference to gravity differently structurally, conform to different rules about how it’s supposed to be put together or how it’s supposed to behave.

I think the idea that myself, or human beings, are insignificant speck in the universe, is really arguing a certain kind of project. A certain kind of agenda about how I’m supposed to view myself, and not necessarily how I actually am…

Or how the universe really is in actuality.x

Flash What and Jordan Peterson

Adored guru and reviled provocateur, he dropped out of sight. Now the irresistible ordeal of modern cultural celebrity has brought him back.
— Read on

—- The oddity intellectual who doesn’t quite get it, all the while saying things that almost say something significant.

The irony of the conflation of drugs, modernity, and pure postmodern intellectualism, all rolled into one.

Chewing gum, blowing a bubble, rubbing his chest and patting his head all at the same time.

The golden ratio versus rationality

The longer-than-we’ve-acknowledged history of the Golden Ratio in design; @audreygbennett unpacks “The African roots of Swiss design”
(Plus- Mary …

“The golden ratio is the key”*…

—– might it be?

Western philosophy, founded or purported to stem from ancient Greek thinkers, who valued the whole number as a representation of platonic forms might likewise understand the world through such “holistic” perfect totalities, so to speak. finite forms through which thought is reflected.

yet perhaps it is this “finite view” which informs the western mind to its activity which can explain what we understand as history in the context of colonialism and the enlightenment, a ‘natural’ view of righteousness that is actually merely an asserted view and enforced to boot as part of its emotional imperative.

Whereas, also perhaps, the new materialism, and object oriented ontology is working its way out of this finite conventional view, from and toward what could be considered an “uncomfortable space” with reference to mindsets that must sit comfortably in ideal forms. The new materialism and object oriented ontology may find their grounding in something much more natural and less idealistic: mathematical notions such as Pi and Phi !!xxx

New Materialism

xEvery once in a while I go into the reader and I put in random search terms and see what comes up.

It is interesting to me that in the WordPress search algorithm there is basically zero posts or sites that are associated with “the new materialism”. I imagine that at best the algorithm is picking a bunch of second-bests.It is interesting to me because I thought that the philosophical area of new materialism would at least show up once somewhere in wordPress.


I have been led into The “new materialism” through A series of philosophical detours.

If I might recount my journey, maybe some of you will recount your own:

My first encounter with Philosophy. may have been with Sartre along time ago, in a galaxy far far away. It seems like anyone who is interested in philosophy often finds existentialism first or close to first.

I feel like I must’ve picked up “being and nothingness” at some point in my early 20s and I tried to read it and it just seemed like so much hogwash and nonsense. Even through repeated approaches for probably a decade, it just seemed like pure arrogance and intellectual posturing. I could not make heads or tails about what the hell he was talking about.

So then as I have posted at least a couple times in my blog here, my story of my encounter with Kierkegaard. I won’t recount it here, except to say that somehow not engaging with any philosophy whatsoever for probably something at least seven years, and then coming across Kierkegaard seminal work “either or” kind of by accident, recognizing his name as a name of some sort of philosopher, I didn’t really have an idea of who he was or anything. I didn’t even know that he had anything to do with Sartre. Picking that book out because my graduate student roommate left it on the living room table, I started reading and the whole book made perfect sense to me. I didn’t even have to ponder about what he was talking about; the book literally was it as if I had written it myself and I had forgotten it for years. That was the feeling and experience that I got from reading that book.

That experience made me look into his other books, and then those other books made me start to have to investigate Plato, in particular Socrates, Hegel, Fitche, Schelling, at some point Nietzsche.  Feuerbach eventually. And of course Kant and Hume. These were the main ones, and of course during this exploration I would have a little satellite readings of all sorts of other philosophers.

It was from that perfect understanding of Kierkegaard’s either or that all other philosophers make perfect sense. It is not due to Kierkegaard’s arguments or proposal up about what is true or false or this or that; Rather, it was that I understood what he was talking about. Because I understood what Kierkegaard was talking about, when I read other philosophers I intuitively understood what they were Likewise talking about and addressing, what angle they were approaching this one thing, what tack they were taking upon the philosophical wind, so to speak.

Of course then came Wittgenstein and Russell. And then suddenly, Out of nowhere, Zizek and then Badiou. And, if I had ever questioned it before (my reading of Kierkegaard) , it was this last author that confirmed for me that what I had been understanding this far as philosophy was true.


End game.

Begin actuality.

It is at this point that I started to get online to investigate what other people might be understanding as Philosophy. I entered the Philosophy Now forum, I believe it was in about 2011 ?? Maybe???

And it was after a couple years — again my timeframe is rough — Of going back-and-forth on the Philosophy Now forum, that someone suggested to me that I might appreciate this strange philosophy called “non-philosophy”, by the Philosopher Francois Laruelle. Again, in an odd recurrence, I bought the book “The principles of non-philosophy”, I started reading at the beginning, and I knew exactly what he was talking about.

It was through reading Laruelle that I began to consider that intentionality has nothing to do with what the postmoderns are usually taken or understood to be talking about.

I have to backtrack a bit; at some point when I started reading Zizek and Badiou, Somehow I also became interested in the typical postmodern lineage and critical theory Frankfurt school, Foucault, Derrida, D and G. And particularly Lyotard.

I understood Laruelle’s critique of those post modern authors – or thier typical understandings – that is, I implicitly understood that what most people thought of what those authors were saying somehow did not agree with what the original authors were actually saying. And yet here I was finding philosophers everywhere acting and using references to these authors as if that is what they actually meant. Hence, Lyotard’s “postmodern condition” grew to have significant meaning, ironically. Derrida, eh, his to me still appeared to be stuck in either/or defaults, never seemingly fully appreciating the full implications of teleological suspension. D and G, as well, stuck in the pure transcendence of metaphysical idealism, yet translated into immanence.

It seemed that Kierkegaard’s Philosophical premonition was becoming fulfilled in my sense that intuition does not stem from me. It does not stem only from the human being. It can and does, but only under certain conditions. I began to develop this idea in my writings which begin this blog.

I’m not sure how it happened but somehow I heard of this weird philosophical movement called speculative realism, but in particular, I heard of this object oriented ontology by Graham Harmon.

It is from moving through the significance of Graham Harmons Philosophy in relationship to Kierkegaard and his ironic intentionality (Heidegger-ish authenticity) , that I came upon Donna Harroway. And, once again once again, I picked up her “cyborg manifesto” And I knew exactly what she was talking about. (when I first encountered her in my undergraduate degree I thought she was a wacko! Lol) 

The extension from her work is called “the new materialism”, and, again quite ironically, we find that there is a dialogue between the new materialism and object oriented ontology.

And going forth is history . x

Repost: Nietzsche’s concept of the body as the symbol of the will

The Nietzschean body is complex structure of forces which only active ones should be strengthened for joy and freedom!

Nietzsche’s concept of the body as the symbol of the will

—- Love it! and, what are we to make of this reflection of the body when we consider that there are other bodies that are not only human bodies?