Trickle down economics

Trickle down economics will always be the way because intelligence itself is viewed as a trickle down arena. The individual, the very idea that there is a secular intelligent individual, is based in the rest of the world trickling down from this intelligent individual, or we could say, trickling out. Going back to enlightenment philosophy, everywhere they speak of “higher orders”, spirituality and religion speak of “higher” ideals.

Everything that we are able to think is ordered from the sense that what is higher trickles down and brings up what is lower.

Our institutions now are so inundated and idea logically infused with this imperative that there will never be a correction from underneath. Indeed, revolution is a fantasy of 100 years ago. And the 20th century could be seen as human beings coming to terms with the fact that the very ideal of revolution is a modern fantasy of capitalistic dimensions. It keeps people in order.x

Reposting How To Save…the world?

“The function all expressions of contempt have in common is the defence against unwanted feelings.” – Alice Miller I read something the other day …

How To Save Democracy

—- very thought-provoking. The content, but also that there is 200 likes.

It is a compelling argument, and very psycho analytical, to say that it all comes down to our parents. We could fix society and indeed democracy if we could just face and come to terms with the issues that are parents essentially instilled in us, whether intentionally, incidentally or otherwise.

As well, it is very interesting that there’s 200 likes for this post. Of course, it could just be that this guy has a lot of followers, but then as well it goes to support the idea that many people feel that there is some sort of individual that is themselves that own or otherwise is manifested by a psyche that is affected by developmental procedures that parents most directly are involved with. Yes, it is a very common psychological approach that began with at least Freud.

It’s a very common approach to understanding cause , but it doesn’t go very far into how we should deal with it. 

I think it is a deceivingly simple idea which pervades modern people in our society. The idea that “if we could just…” Then that confronting of issues would go along way into improving society.

As an example of the faulty reasoning behind, perhaps this post, but at least the books authors proposal: just because I might know what caused me to get a flat tire, doesn’t mean I know how to get back on the road. The cause of the flat tire doesn’t really help me to fix the tire. Such Knowledge could contribute to how I might go about fixing the tire, for example, pull out the nail. As well, it might inform me about what I should or should not do in the future to avoid getting a flat tire. Overall, though, knowing the cause of the problem doesn’t help me to find a solution to the problem.

It is interesting that such an anachronistic belief in individualism and secularism still pervade common knowledge today. As if psychology holds all the marbles for what goes on with the individual, and as if mental health can only be addressed by psychology.

It indicates a sort of sad myopia that most people who consider themselves intelligent are involved with.

For, all one would have to do is instead of reading the pop-psychology, step over and actually use their brains a little bit and read some philosophy and critical theory. There is well-known evidence in academia and in intellectual sectors that do not see psychology as a domain which pervades over all other domains are, and evidence which suggests that it is not merely the parents which influence thebchildren in these particular ways, rather, it is Society. which is affecting parents which then move to affect children.

A more effective kind of analysis actually takes a little bit more responsibility than saying “we need to confront” or “if we could just” type of thinking. It is this responsibility that begins to see systemic oppression at work, and popular psychology indeed –in a way evidenced by such popularity of this kind of approach to what is going on with the individual –supporting the systemic oppression.

Along these lines then we could even say “if we could just” get people to look at what’s actually occurring, instead of just gobbling up and consuming tastefully concocted psychological spreads on their organic wheat bread and grass raised cows.

Lol. Sorry, my attitude is showing. 😝

For sure, we need to approach people where they’re at and begin to ask them to ponder and reflect and to think about things in the way that they are able to think about things.

However, I think that it is therapeutically irresponsible to allow those people to stay there as if that small reflection is all that needs to be done in order to change themselves or even approach to be able to changing our country or the world.

Of course we need to start with popular psychology. But it is just catering to ignorance to let people think that that is the whole solution.

What does it mean to start within oneself?

Why do we need to confront anything there?

It may well be that all we need to do is deal with what is actually occurring.


Yes; unconditional love for our children, but then how do we instill discipline in them without also imposing trauma?

How do I even begin to approach my issues while I’m simultaneously attempting to raise a child and insulate them from those issues?

There is reason to believe that even as I might be confronting my issues that are inside of me, I am further implementing a trauma that is occurring within me in confronting those issues, that’s aggravating the problem all together under the intention of love.

What are we to do? 

I think it could be that I’m just jealous that I can’t get 200 likes on any post 👽.

I ponder what I would need to change in order to get more than 60 likes. I’m sure some of it is just the content; most people don’t really enjoy thinking too much about things. And my blog is really about the reader confronting oneself. My posts are just an occasion, they are just an instrument of reflection.

So really what I’m pondering is how could I maintain the integrity of such a venture and reach proportionally more people such that I would get 200 likes ?

The true thing about truth

This guy breaks down the problem of “truth” nicely.

I am re-posting this because my work posit that there is a truth that is not real. I speak of what is true in a distinction to what is real, and I qualify this in a non-philosophical manner,aka the unilateral duality.

You can look to my other posts and papers about that.

I like how this guy breaks it down, but I also have to note that he is assuming a common strata, or underlying or overlaying truth that is not being disclosed in his assumption. For a loose term, we can call his assumption of method analytical, but then In the attempt for people to figure out what I mean by analytical we get into the same problem between truth and reality that I talk about with reference to a unilateral duality. 

also it is notable that there are philosophers that talk about how we must have to agree upon some strata that we cannot talk about. If Any of you readers happen to know of a Philosopher or philosophers who talk about that if we are to accomplish anything in Philosophy. or wherever, there has to be an assumed ground that we never touch upon, Please let me know because in a paper I’m writing I talk about this idea but I don’t know of an author to associate it with. To me it seems self evident, but, of course, if you’re writing an academic paper you have to be able to reference it to some other author in order to have credibility, even though all you have to do is think for about five seconds and you can tell that this statement is true. (Again, the problem between truth and reality.)

Cure and mental illness: of ‘cure’ in mental health

In the past years, political theorists, philosophers and historians have increasingly studied changing mental health diagnosis and placed them in the…

Cure and mental illness. A short reflection on the conceptual analysis of the neoliberal characterisation of ‘cure’ in mental health

— Nice.

I had never really thought about how political labels might be involved with mental health and its labeling. Does that mean I am a Neo liberal?

From reading his short essay, it makes me think about imposed categories. It looks like he is saying that a conservative is someone who defines themselves and figures that everyone else should define themselves, and that it is only natural to label oneself and to fit into categories. Whereas a Neo liberal is someone who is defined, who resists definition. It is as though this author is saying that a conservative understand the human of being as involved with a natural rights to define things, and this definition, this act of defining is what makes one human, but it also reflects the actual truth of the universe.

Then, by contrast, the Neo liberal understands the human being as that which is not defined, and problematizes any universe which is defined, locating the human being and it’s essential activity, namely freedom, as the natural activity which arises outside of being defined.

I feel like this precipitate of what the author is saying mirrors what he has described as relationships with the market economy.

Also, this points to the inherent irony involved in neoliberalism, whereas conservatism would find irony merely in particular situation, as defined, rather than irony as an essential part of the human being existing in the universe at all times. The irony being in this case that the differences in political situation is that one defined itself essentially, that the essence of being human is to define and to be defined — there is no irony in this position– while the other find irony everywhere in the fact that it is being defined and having to use terms which itself does not admit it is a part of, or only vicariously a part of.

Wow. So much going on there.

It is interesting that the author notes someone else who says that neoliberalism poses to be defined by acts rather than by definition, but then the author goes on to use that definition to make their arguments, as if by fiat arising ironically within an irony that it wishes to set aside. Similarly my comment as well.


As to a “cure” for mental health. I am not sure that I am a Neo liberal list, but that probably makes me a Neoliberal by default.

I think our new paradigm of mental health doesn’t really make distinctions between being mentally ill and being mentally healthy categorically. Rather, referring to an earlier post of mine and a paper that I am developing, The general ideal of mental health is conservative, and this conservatism sees the human arising naturally in a set of definitions that are universal, that arise naturally in the universe because that is the nature of being human in the universe, along with everything else. It thus sees and promotes as natural everything along a smooth scale of determination; that there is this human being who owns or has a psyche located in the brain, and this brain can manifest itself as a conscious agent in the world along the continuum of mental illness all the way to mentally healthy.

On the other hand, and this is more my view, for an example of the opposite, there is no good faith comparison between someone who is psychotic in general, what we could associate with the spectrum of psychosis (namely schizophrenia, bipolar one, schizoaffective are the names that we put along the spectrum) and someone who is anxious because they think they’re going to be fired from their job.

I feel that society as a general motion tends to lump together psychology, psychotherapy, mental illness, and mental health, into a continuum that is assumed while still working out the actuality of its parameters and distinctions.

I feel that is a weak and, actually, bad way of doing science (which is really what the whole history of psychology is based upon). 

I am not so sure that there is a smooth rule which extends through the human being and it’s arising in the world to place them on a continuum of mentally ill or mentally healthy. For someone that suffers from depression, say, the idea that they are mentally ill, To my mind, is saying something different than to say that someone who suffers from schizophrenia is mentally ill.

Recently, I watched a portion of this movie that a friend offered me called “Zietgiest: moving forward” (you can watch it free on YouTube). The first hour of the movie is basically a very compelling argument how the idea of a foundational cause called genetics, or biology, which is responsible for mental health or mental someone’s mental well-being is not correct an accurate way of portraying what is actually occurring in these situations. 

However, because I do see that certain types of psychosis, the kind of psychosis that lie on the more acute side and chronic side of affect and form, are indeed measurable to a physical diversion from what is “normal” brain appearance, as being “curable” in potential, which is to say that we can give people medication and they definitely stop being as acute, similarly to disease of diabetes, say. 

Yet, in the context of mental health, although we like to think that schizophrenia, psychosis and depression exist along a continuum of mental illness and mental health, the disease of depression does not respond in the same way as psychosis or schizophrenia does to approaching it from this medical model standpoint of curing a disease.

Indeed, we could talk about “curing” depression, but the way that we are going about it is based on a completely different set of protocols and notions then those used to address the disease of acute chronic psychosis.

Because of this actual distinction, because this is what is actually occurring despite what anyone would argue (for sure, though people will continue to argue that medication’s for depression are curing depression, the statistics that would back up that assertion are utterly miserable, while the statistics which go to say that certain medication’s can cure acute chronic psychosis, are much much better) I am not sure that using the word “cure” in all mental health contexts, as if to apply mental health to this assumed general standard, without actually looking at what the standard even is, is an irresponsible way of treating mental health.

There is a further issue that I have with the idea of “cure” as well as the idea of “mental health”, But that is outside of the topic of de Cock’s essay.x

Repost repost:The survival and future of philosophy

Is academic philosophy dead?  Is philosophy itself dead?  Is it even worth bothering about? Rep. Rick Santorum, R-PA, argued years ago that the study…

The survival and future of philosophy

I just keep re-posting your re-posts Maylynne!!!

Here’s how I see it.

No. 😄

It seems to me that people worry about the end of philosophy primarily as a career. At least, people worrying about or contemplating about “the end of philosophy” I see are really stressing on the idea that the career of philosophy might melt away into a general name for a bunch of other topical approaches.

In another sense, I think this concern about the end of philosophy is a manifestation of the contradiction of the modern philosopher’s activity. This is why I tend to advocate, or sort of suggest, that we stop referring philosophical
involvment to other peoples’ opinions, what other people have said (with a caveat that I don’t go into here really).

I see In The re-post re-post that one of the benefits of Philosophy as an academic discipline is that we don’t have to rethink the wheel every time. However, I think that sentiment also really puts a finger on the problem with modern philosophy, modern in the sense of that I’m writing this right now, not modern in the sense of 100 years ago, say, because: don’t we have many Philosophys which discuss the paradox of Philosophy attempting to get outside of itself, to address some thing that is “not” philosophical?

Anyways, I think that Philosophy has died or is in danger of dying because people don’t think anymore. Indeed, and yet, I think this is what Heidegger was referring to, but then everyone reads Heidegger and then stops thinking because they’re referring what they think to what Heidegger thought about thinking. they are told and instructed implicitly, the message that students get communicated is that they do not have to think anymore. This goes to my point about how words are not consistent, they do not refer to a actual singular object no matter how thoroughly and specifically we define it. 

And so what happens is that a “end of philosophy” becomes a concern because people have stopped being philosophical in the sense that the rest of history is understood philosophical: The kids, and even their instructors, are so enmeshed in a society of career philosophy, of referencing authors who referenced authors who reference authors, that the only novel thought that can come about is to not to do philosophy: they got to do something else! That’s what they do, exactly, they stop thinking philosophically (they actually stop thinking).

Instead, they just emulate what other people do.

I’m not sure this is anything new, and I think what is being revealed; in the same way as my last post talks about gun violence: Gun violence and murder and people doing shitty things to other people has always existed. There is not a resurgence of gun violence, nor is there a way to make it be less or make it go away; there is just violence and the news is promoting certain kinds of violence in order to make money.

What we have now is a bunch of people who want to make money. (Read: make a living in what they want to do). And, there’s nothing wrong with that. Indeed we got to make a living. And academics and Philosophy seems really nice and people are moved in that way, but ultimately they’re trying to have a career. And how do you do that? You have to write papers that refer to what other people are saying. And really this is my argument here, that through this modern conventional philosophical process we have achieved have you into what is already happening. We can no longer deny it. And this is it: despite the letters after peoples names, despite the prestigious academic chairs and positions that people might hold, most people, and let me include everyone in the most potential, if I wasn’t clear, even the people that might be esteemed emeritus PhD doctor, do not think (philosophically), that is, unless thinking philosophically is just a kind of thinking that you do while you’re involved with something else. Which, again, there’s nothing wrong with doing something else and saying that I’m approaching it philosophically, but that is different than Philosophy; being involved with philosophy is different than merely thinking philosophically about things. So, what are Philosopher’s actually doing? This is a significant question that I continue to ask an advocate others ask as well. 

Ultimately, what I think this big fear about the end of philosophy is is that people who have historically given lip service to reflecting upon themselves and the world, who really have just been reflecting idealisms within their own sense of ideas, are now realizing through the philosophical motion, that their method of approaching Philosophy is not about thinking.


And as most of my points usually end up: Ever since Kierkegaard we have been slowing down. The response to slowing down, as we find in counseling and mental health therapy, is usually anxiety, an increase in anxiety. (This is not the point of therapy, but indeed people who come in for therapy most often will be or are involved in a process of slowing down, and initially at least, what happens is exactly the opposite.) 

…and what is anxiety? what is the visceral somatic experience of anxiety? what do people Who encounter anxiety report?

They report that their thoughts are racing, they report that they are racing inside.

Let me just drop a term on your lap that seems so popular nowadays: accelerationalism.


What is true is available to everyone, but not really. One has to adjust their orientation upon things, consider the purpose of their activities, and be honest with themselves.

… and these are truths of themselves and the world that most human beings simply refuse.

But Philosophy. is alive and well and going strong. 

Feeling Blah, and then slightly worse…

We are languishing.
— Read on

—– Languishing. I like this article. I like that it gives us a new word. And I was feeling a little better Because the “we’re all in this together” thing, and then this happened:

We still have a lot to learn about what causes languishing and how to cure it…


…and where I was starting to feel better, I was suddenly disgusted. That phrase just revealed a really depressing ideal that underpins peoples sense of mental health things. It is really a kind of Mindlessness, as opposed to the great fad-of-mistake that we generally define as Mindfulness.

Awareness, without judgement is key.

To be honest, I see a mental health fad-idealism catalyzed by the pandemic as the main problem. It is the problem that is the problem, and less the idealized content that ‘problem’ supposes.

The propaganda of mental disease that pervades the ideal of ‘mental health’ in our modern manner is clearly evident in that author’s very casual manner he speaks of how to cure this languishing disease.

All I really got to say to the author’s support: Thanks for helping my job security.

Sure, we totally can frame everything in the context of problem/disease and solution/cure.

No problem folks!

But it’s kinda depressing.


WStay tuned for my papers on the issue.x

The Nation Faces Onslaught Of Gun Violence

6 Shot At Child’s Birthday Party As Nation Faces Onslaught Of Gun Violence | HuffPost
— Read on

—- It is astounding and so terrible and sad.


I wonder though if the “onslaught of gun violence” is just media hype.

I wonder if people just do random shit. All the time. People kill people. All the time. For every reason and no reason.

I wonder if it’s not new at all, but just that the news has to make money, on one hand, we have now the media ability to capture all these events (that have been happening since forever), and…

And we want to believe there is such a thing as a civilized and ethical human being.

I wonder if the reasons are just justifications, that ‘people’ need to have a reason why some one is screwed up to do terrible things.

I wonder if people just do stuff. Good and bad.


cant have that, now, can we ?

Deceleration, Rationality and Singularity


The problem with the big worry about what is generally called Accelerationalism, a philosophical idea which spans modern knowldge lately, is that its figures and worries are based in the “y factor real Ubiquitous Assumption”, that I’m calling it right now. lol.

The X factor is taken to be a sort of ground or a sort of stable place from which Y is measured, and so from this perspective things are accelerating as the graph with us represent; that is, the rate of things is getting greater as compared to the nonmoving ground of x. The graph is taken to reflect a truth of reality which corresponds with the view that is already given And assumed of all things knowable from the human perspective.

Yet if we change how were viewing what is occurring then we can see that the Graff is actually representing a deceleration. It is not so much that technology or the world or whatever sort of frame you want to put to it, which everyone seems to love to do nowadays, is accelerating, it’s probably more likely that it’s decelerating and what is actually occurring is that people are getting more anxious because the world is not corresponding with the way that they think that things should go.

This is to say that the “here-now” on the graph is always in the same place. That the graph shows what is always occurring with reference to what is knowable.

This is to speak to a theory that I’ve been having run in the background. this is the theory that what consciousness does is culminate. It’s function is to make semanticculmination, to have things mean, and to have meaning culminate into something that makes sense, and then to have some thing that makes sense culminate in a “grand scheme of the universe”, which ironically Graham Harmon has termed “undermining” and “over mining”.

As we begin to become aware of our emotions as not some passive thing, not as controlled by a rational mind, but rather that the view that is rational, the rational mind itself, is always in effect by the emotional engagement with the world, and that rationality is like riding on a train that’s going 100 miles an hour, or riding on a train that’s going 10 miles an hour. From the perception of the rider it seems like there is “rationality” but in a see ctuality their situation is going faster or slower. Or various awareness of existential anxiety, or what they used to call dread. Rationality is the response of consciousness attempting to keep itself fixed in its reality.

Deceleration, by contrast, looks at the graph from the standpoint of the Y-axis. And this is to say that if you look at the graph from that standpoint, it is not that things are accelerating but that the rate of motion is decreasing. Things are coming to a halt. The relation internal to time ands it perceived rate has been slowing down so far as how “quickly” we are moving into the “future”. It is not that worrisome then that we might be accelerating to some unknown singularity where we become so fast that… I don’t know? What are we worried about? As Kierkegaard: Where are they going so fast?

well; from my perspective, they are going nowhere fast, but indeed to get anywhere we want to really be, anywhere better fit everyone we could say, they are always going slow.

Somehow, I have a suspicion that in the same way that we thought that in the year 2000 there was going to be some cataclysmic computer Internet collapse and everything’s gonna go to hell, this idea of acceleration It’s just a point of worry, and has no true basis and what is actually occurring. 

It is, for a word anxiety informing what then appears real and rational, rather than what is true informing those things.


I a speak of rationality as an ability of consciousness and not an aspect of consciousness.

it is the difference between saying that Red is some thing that exists inherently in the universe such that Red appears as such, and Red as something that is able to be discerned Oh there is really nothing that is ever actually Red in itself.

but note, I’m not making an argument about whether or not Red actually exist in the universe. Indeed, I would say that Red actually does exist in the universe, and I am also saying that rationality exist in the universe, as well as consciousness. But then I am also saying that given any particular instance of one of these universal objects, they likewise must arise under certain conditions. These conditions are known, and thus have relationships with one another. And so when we talk about consciousness we are able to understand it in a different manner than we usually do, in the same way that I’m talking about what exists and what conditions actually are.x

Object Orientation, Tool Being, and Kierkegaard

Trying to link this to the podcast. Just click the link, I guess? Its not embedding very well.
Podcast episode cover art–Tool-Being-and-Kierkegaard-eutue1–Tool-Being-and-Kierkegaard-eutue1
The Object of the Subject

Idiots Rule


The art world, disrupted by crypto: @deankissick on why that’s a sad thing: “The Downward Spiral: Popular Things”
(Plus- Picasso)

“What strip mining is to nature, the art market has become to culture”*…

“What strip mining is to nature, the art market has become to culture”*

The idiots rule: intelligence is what we think it is.

👽 I am an alien.x