Psychology and philosophy, part five: The issue at hand.

I am not sure that Philosophers Who like to refer to Lacan’s psychoanalysis realize that his theory is based on actual observation and analysis of people with mental disorders. 

Going back slightly, it seems like Lacan Is the psychologist that some Philosophers love to use as a philosophical ground, or at least many philosophers in a certain vein use psychoanalysis as some sort of grounding feature of their philosophy. I’m not entirely sure why this is so; also I’m not entirely sure why other psychologists are not equally explored for Philosophy and as Philosophy as Lacan is.

I’m not really sure. Because there are numerous theories of psychology that are quite philosophical, and I would argue, quite valid for an approach to mental health, existence, being in the world, and just Philosophy, ontology, epistemology, etc…

In a bit maybe I am going to get into what I feel is a more bodily grounded version of Lacan’s psychoanalytic theory. I think Philosophers who would like to use his psychoanalysis, (for example Zizek) but then philosophers who like to stake their orbit around him as well, and Freud, going back to “the beginning” of psychology itself– I think the Philosophers in general like to sit back in their “library chair” and think about how various discourses of things can make sense to the intellect. And I think these “armchair philosophers” never really encountered the actuality of the insane human being. Insanity itself, mental illness itself, and then compounded with the analysis of the psych with reference to these mental illnesses, with reference to how they actually occur, how they actually appear, how people actually present themselves and how they actually act — I think the philosophers who merely philosophically ponder philosophical themes that seem to be embedded in, for example, psychoanalysis, typically miss the actuality of the situation for the sake of the idealism invested in synthetical philosophy and reason.

Indeed, it is easy to get lost in synthetical thought. I wonder now if Philosophy as a discipline could be defined as the partitioning, as the purposeful and intentional partitioning of thought from the world in order to see what comes about.

I wonder if People who then view Philosophy., consider philosophical material get caught up in the imposing of this synthetical reason upon reality, and thereby historically or traditionally miss the actuality of the situation in front of them for the sake of the a priori categories that are invested in such a philosophical orientation up on things.

Indeed, if this is actually the case, if we can or indeed if we have identified philosophy to what it’s actually doing, then I think we might be able to understand where the current trend of realism has come out. But as well, what the problem with phenomenological orientation in philosophy comes from: Because both of these approaches are really caught in the mechanism of reason and thereby viewing the actuality of things through this distinctly separate category of functioning, to them there by make arguments why this separated category should be the priority, should be the basis from which real things have veracity and substance.

But really it is two things going on at once, it seems. On one hand, we have arguments for argument. What I’m Saying is that people use their intellect, use a particular synthesis of logic and reason, and come up with an argument which is really the argument why their method of coming up on reality should be true. In other words, why it should be true that idealist reason should be the determining factor for what is real.  Then on the other hand, we have the view that sees such arguments as indeed addressing the actuality of the real universe. Yet both of these approaches are based in the assumption of Kantian priority. Both of these aspects of philosophy that I just pointed out I really stemming from the same myopic assertion, which amounts to a privilege, a privilege which is always withheld in the argumentation itself, such that all one Hass to do is point out where it is faulty, and then the very act of that rebuttal verifies that the reason from the prioritized argument is valid, and then people spin out in an argumentative effect which pulls further and further away from the actuality of the situation in front of them; they get caught in an idealism that supposed to be able to define itself out of that idealism by using different terms.

This philosophical method is completely the opposite of every other discipline that proposes to work with real things.

For example psychology. Psychoanalysis is not simply people sitting in their minds using logic about why things should be the case because they make sense or they don’t make sense and then imposing that model upon what they see in front of them.

We begin to see where Foucault stakes his claim. Because psychoanalysis, amongst other academic disciplines, such as medicine, such as pretty much any activity that we do in the world, is drawing its categories from interaction with real things first. The interaction with real things happens first and is constantly referred to in the development of theory.

Philosophy as a discipline seems to start from reason and then apply this reason onto what is encountered. As I said, then proceeded to argue why this prior approach, why this privileged approach should be valid.

I think I’ve just explained everything there is about Philosophy. in this post. I’ve explained how it functions. And I’ve explained the problem is inherent to every proposal that it can make, as well as just described what counts as valid philosophical statement.

👽

Huh.  

Would you agree or disagree?



Theory of Mind

From Wikipedia:

:

Theory of mind is a theory insofar as the output such as thoughts and feelings of the mind is the only thing being directly observed, so the existence of a mind is inferred.[5] The presumption that others have a mind is termed a theory of mind because each human can only intuit the existence of their own mind through introspection, and no one has direct access to the mind of another so its existence and how it works can only be inferred from observations of others. It is typically assumed that others have minds analogous to one’s own, and this assumption is based on the reciprocal, social interaction, as observed in joint attention,[6]the functional use of language,[7] and the understanding of others’ emotions and actions.[8] 

—- Theory of mind appears to be the active and real default stance of denial that is required for a particular protocol of knowldge to procede to have credence.

“Denial” is in the sense of a common understanding that the argument to substantiate the theory is unneeded and its rebuttal moot or absurd because it is contradictory.

Since the ToM is assumed and not argued in order for it to be the case, it therefore is not inconsistent to conclude that…

…Conventional reality arises due to a faith. x

Survival show and More

The farther one goes back in history, the more intense the question of record survival becomes. The farther away we look, the dimmer things get, not …

Survival show

—— Our view is partial, yet always receding in one way or another.

I ponder if indeed there is a correlate linear idea of human kmowldege and ability which fades the further back in time we go becuase we indeed are progressing in knowldge, or if our idea of this progression is due to a loss of records and an inability to get to the ones we have, or, if we simply are inable to hold a larger capcity than that which we see as historically fading.

Perhaps we are only able to hold a certain amount of knowldge in conceptual organiztion whether it be personal or social or ideoligical.

The physical doorstop

“Is Light Fundamentally A Wave Or A Particle?”: the history and the results of John Wheeler’s famous “delayed choice” experiments
(Plus- alchemy, …

“The ‘paradox’ is only a conflict between reality and your feeling of what reality ‘ought to be’”*…

—– love it!

just a side commentary:

I feel like the solution to all these issues of physics, and probably philosophy alike, is already found.

I’ve asked a couple of my engineering friends, one who is actually an astrophysicist, and indeed I’ve heard it many times in many places, physicist and mathematician’s agree:

There is no such thing as time From a physical standpoint. And then from a philosophical standpoint, there is only time to the extent that it must be involved in phenomenal philosophy. But then we could also say just from a standpoint of actual reality, never minding the physics argument or the philosophical argument, that whether or not time actually exists or does not, regardless of what the scientists want to talk about time, and as well regardless of what the philosophers would wanna argue about: Their discussions go so little to affect my daily activity, it is as though the discussion about what time is is utterly moot at the same time Omni present. It is a discussion of absudity. It is a discussion of the emperors new clothing.

But back to physics: Time is merely a placeholder, it is merely a variable in formulas, in mathematical equations. It has no presence, it has no objective reality. It is utterly a “0” for lack of a better term, A void, an emptiness, doorstop, by which all the rest of the formulas of physics, classical and quantum alike, find their bearings.

Take that conceptual doorstop away, the world does not end. Only a particular manner of perceiving ends. Humanity goes on, progressing as it always has. But under a different ‘universal religion’.

Or, while we perpetuate that metaphysical-physical space, time becomes God, the actual God, at once immanent as well as absolutely transcendent.

If we can come to terms with that….

But ‘we’ never do.

Hence,

x

words and objects

There is no knowledge that is not bound by faith. Two aspects to words arise simultaneously. Words at once refer to an existing object at all times, or, words only encompass part of the things they supporting reference.

Science and real thought is oriented upon the former or the latter. However, since the terms by which we have or come upon knowledge is partial, then The truth is both. The only route to asserting which is the more case is based in an understanding that already informs the view.

Being “open minded” to opinions is thus being accepting of the fact that ones view is indeed the only view, since it is the viewing which is granting the knowledge come upon as not ones own view.

It is faith which transcends the determination of Being, whether it be of the Word or the Object.

How might be determine a healthy stance in this contradictory situation ?

What do you say?

Death is objectivity. It is short. Limit. Definition. It is real.

The discourses is eternal life stem from the phenomenal intuitive realm of knowing.

Both gain thier credentials through faith. Faith supplies the compensation necessary for individuals to have real identity.

Death is not the end. But neither is life eternal. Both terms indicate limit and transcendence. And: both exist truly. They arise in context; but they have arisen out of context.

How do we then ethically assert our identity in the real world without positing an out of either absolute objective truth or phenomenal relativity ?

How do we stay with being true existence in reality?

x

Parlez-vous Parler? And more disturbing comment (for some).

Amazon is threatening to pull the plug on Parler because of the content of its users. Google Play and Apple Store are pulling the Parler app from …

Parlez-vous Parler?

— My mind Goes two places:

* those fear-actors will run all the more silent. The dark web will have plenty of people who will make a platform for their very small minded activism. (Is my bias showing?) and will organize more and more skillfully and intentionally.

*now days, there are too many people and correspondingly too many huge money interests to allow a collapse of anything so necessary to contentment as the huge blissful consumer capitalism. Even the revolutionary/anarchism/hackers rely upon the huge-money capitalism.

Ironic for this antisocial miscreant: i side on Power: We are already past a critical threshhold for crude overthrow ideology to ever work in the way those people imagine.

Freedom is established by the ecopolicial system; if ever there was doubt, we know now. Even the thought experiment of “what if” is merely a mirror of systemic norms: Global Civilization (or Galactic Humanity ??)will not recede; There is simply too much humanity for that to happen.

Yes. Maybe people will get hurt. There will be some insurrections.

Foucault’s implication for the clinical mind is operative: for every human progress, humans will be left behind. What we call “ethical” is a teleological manifestation of a utopian ontology: it is the projecting of being upon and “unknown perfection” where everyone is happy and sings it’s a small world after all for eternity. It doesn’t matter whether or not we “believe” in this ethical maxim, because the simple fact of having some sort of ethics toward the idea that everyone should be allowed to live, that we should not kill anyone, relies upon and notion of intentionality which necessarily an automatically kills people that are outside of that intention. In other words, modern subjective intentionality is a justification of the individual over the death or exploitation of another That is out of view. There is no escaping this in our modern world, whereas, in the past we still had an ability for a reasonable doubt that that could occur.

What Foucault calls ‘the gaze’ is selctive and implicitly avoids the ethical problems of its establishment through knowledge-power.

The gaze, as a means for progress Completely misses the human (body) toll for the sake of its motion of knowledge-power.

However depressing and arousing of revolting ideas, the consolation is that it happens, is happening, and has happened all the time. Ethics itself is a program of selected ignorance: The ideals that ethics forms (as a viewed body) excludes the truth of the existing human (the body itself).

Human activity is based on the Expiration of other bodies, human and nonhuman. Always. Ethics is more a justification, less a prescription for behavior: The behavior is justified by the modern gaze.

So, again, we have the retelling of the ancient story of Arjuna before battle pondering the necessity of killing family members and freinds.

Fortunately, intelligence is also ethically conscripted. Compassion beats fear.

I’ll get shot before I buy a gun; I’m too kind and smart. 😜. I care too much about the well being of others.

It’s kind of sad. In a way…
xx

What is called for is not another reactionary politics. The idea that we need to do some thing “more ethical”, come upon or manifest a better political system, or be ourselves “more ethical in our application of being and doing, Is simply to exclude people that do not agree with that kind of ethics. It is to promote, a search, and demand that all human beings “respect human beings” in a particular fashion, according to a particular belief system. No. that is the irony of liberal politics: any demand of ethics necessarily confines that ethics to something that is unethical and its application.

Hence, a new type of ethical understanding of what it is to be human is required.

Think about if I am in the military, or, in fact I’ve been watching Star Trek discovery lately; Think about Starfleet, since it is like the most idealized version of cooperation and ethics.

The point here is that people who join Starfleet, or at least the crew of the enterprise and discovery, Volunteered their lives for the sake of this ideal of Starfleet, this ethics.

What is radical about this version of ethics is that it is not modern. Now, I’m not saying we all should aspire to the Star Trek idea; I love Star Trek, but, come on people.

The point is is that the modern version of ethics is contained by a finitude that we define as death. Actually, birth and death. This is also the point that Foucault draws upon. It is not that we get to choose to define lives and situation’s in such away; to make such choices assumes that they have already been made for us. He is talking about an unfolding of consciousness as political/clinical identity.  And I would assert that the post modern idealism which says we all get to choose our own reality, define our own parameters and such, is based in an idealism that is already given to us, which is to say, without the type of critical reflection that this archaeologist is posing.

The radical ethics that I’m talking about with reference to Star Trek discovery and Starfleet, is that death has no foundation beyond the mere idea. And I would add to this that the enlightenment ideals of freedom arises for the every day human being in the context that we get to choose our allegiances; this is basically the commentary on the nation-state. But it is this type of consciousness, One where our allegiance is left to Essential choice (how do we even talk about this idea without foreclosing freedom to nothingness?) which brings about the “terrorist extreme ism” that we find going on in the United States in many parts of the world as we speak. 

This new type of ethics is very corporate, it is very Inc. It realizes on one hand that our freedom is already determined in the state, that the very system by which we know ourselves implies a space of unknowability that we associate, or that manifests as a consciousness in freedom.

And it is the irony that is playing out in our moment that will come out on the side of a Starfleet kind of ethics, again, without the idealized reference to some future utopia.

It is simply an unfolding of being human. x