This paper is more an introduction to her kind of new materialism than it is about modern atrocities.
However and further, It is interesting the knowledge and plans for the future that we create for ourselves based on what appears to be an abundance of knowledge and information, but what turns out to be merely a minuscule consideration of the facts.
What we think is actually occurring, for term, that “place” or feature that we call reality…
…Cannot possibly be the case.
I think we should reconsider what The infamous critical theorist/philosopher Slavoj Zizek has to say about the whole thing.
The very notion of “human consciousness“, that facet of reality that extends itself out to everything knowable, is a catastrophe. A point of nonsense. A moment of utter ridiculousness — that is, how we usually understand it.
But, in so much as I can either understand those terms let alone this post, something else must be happening. Through all the theory and postulates which make for us a living, and nothing bad in that much…
What is actually happening must be something else. And, something in deed knowable, that is, which arises out of conventional knowledge yet does not reduce to have to answer to that convention. Some thing which conventional knowledge says is either moot Or beneath consideration, reflects merely a laziness rather than an epistemological truth..
We are not liberal nor conservative. But we tinkle and we go boom boom into those parties overt agendas.
With the liberals, we tinkle into thier open minded and socially conscious margaritas by pointing out that such open mindedness often really comes off as another conservatism, really a closed mindedness idealism under the guise of being able to hear and appreciate everyone’s views.
And for the conservatives, we go boom boom in their trough of religious glory by dirtying up the water of their crystal clear idealism.
This new party seems most appropriate to our modern times. We have a tinkle boom boom party!
I guess there are ignorant people who think that CRT means people are weak ? And that everything unequal or not equitable is always based in systemic injustice based on group/color of skin?
And these are university professors, prep school admin and university policy makers?
Who ever saw that as true?
From where is this dude getting his fuel??
The point has always been that people often do not see the system working in their lives to oppress them in their very identity; ￼in fact people deny it for the sake of idealist individualism.
The point of reason here is not that everything people are held back from is due to systemic injustice.
Seriously. Who the hell are we calling intellectual academics and supplying Dr. of philosophy titles to? For real; this is why just because people have letters after their name should not automatically have denoted to them a certain level of intelligence. ￼
I think very often people get caught up in their own little world for the sake of making a name for themselves and a salary in the name of social justice, or philosophy, whatever it is, and they lose touch with reality for the sake of the method of arguing Theory. And then they demand that reality must adhere to their theory, instead of the reverse.￼
In fact, a professor of American race studies who I think moved to Scotland, Tommy curry, makes a point in his book about how Kantian idealism pervades the American system in the way we currently call “whiteness”. ￼￼￼His point is that we need to drop this particular kind of individual idealism that it’s so linked to American democracy.￼ He draws a harder line than that, but I think his basic point about how people are so philosophically situated in blind theory, what I call idealism, is significant. ￼
But well his points, and indeed many peoples points are that we should change it somehow…
Maybe Badiou is corrrect; The most political move you can make is to stop engaging with politics. Because soon as you step in, you pretty much have to address yourself to idiots, and then by doing so you yourself become an idiot, but compensated for in the very post modern way of making a good living.
Maybe we should go back to the 19th century philosopher is that talk about authenticity. Maybe we should re-approach from that standpoint?
I’m sure it won’t happen.￼￼￼￼￼
…my point is that idealistic individualism is￼￼never gonna go away. ￼Kant was the prophet of modernity, kind of like a Jesus Christ of Christianity.￼
I was listening to an NPR. Something about food stamps and how there is a debate about how giving them encourages people not to work. Then Just crossed my mind…
Why are we caring whether someone works or gets things for free?
I wonder if it really has anything to do with being a good person. I would think that my concern around whether or not a person works has more to do with the power they wield in potential then it does to do with contributing to society.
Think about it. If a person doesn’t have to work and get things for free, what am I worried about ?
If I remove my idealistic sense that everyone should work or else they’re a lazy bastard, then really all I’m left with is that this person will have a bunch of time to get mischievous and might actually do some things with power that would affect my life in a way that I would not want it affected.
Because, why should I care whether or not someone works?
That just keeps rolling around in my head.
What is the idea behind Congress’s debate over whether or not giving people money keeps them from going and looking for a job?
I mean, I seriously doubt that anyone is thinking that someone needs to work so they feel better about themselves.
Somehow I feel that is not the motivation for getting people to be motivated to work a job and make money, that is, so they don’t collect money for not doing work.
Modern human beings live through the ideal that they (we) have an ability to access neutrality of our thinking through insightful consideration of, again, neutral facts.
However, it can be a simple feat to see that no such neutrality is ever come upon.
The difference between the ideal and the actuality evidences the religious aspect of being human.
It is not psychological, simply Becuase the very idea of psychology posits accessible neutral facts against which we otherwise behave dysfunctionally.
It is none of our fabled ideals of intellectual prowess. They function for the religious instance to uphold the theological cosmology.
It is that we are humans and human beings function through religious theological categories. This is not correctable, it is simply true.
The post above, however startling and terrible ethically, shows that despite how incredibly unbalanced our system is, it will not be ‘corrected’. This is likely due to the pervading ideal that human beings are naturally ‘neutral’ ethically, here meaning that even though we might do ‘bad’ things, mostly if we (they) could, we would correct it under a given ideal of fairness.
This is never the case in the whole. It can only be the case in the part. The part is “content”, that part of living as human thinking by theological dogma that uses the dogma to situate ethical categories away from the religious determinism into individual agency.
The difference obtained through this kind of reference is, for any other terms, called “heaven”, or “blessed” if the agental scene unfolds in apparent benefit or according to the theological names, or “Damned” or “sin” if the scheme appears inconsistent.
In both cases the scene always changes to adapt to the religious cosmology, ignoring the injustice and setting it into a new cosmological context as though the sin has been justified or punished. This is modern absolution.
“You can tell when people are losing their faith, because the news becomes more scary and vicious, reporting on more and more terrible things, tightening the fears that are otherwise nonexistent. They know that the fear will put the congregation back in order.”
Liza’s eyes turned down and to the side.
“It’s the same that it always has been. Modern people just think that they’re better than the people who existed in the rest of history. But it’s the same.”
I’m not sure when Tommy Curry wrote this paper, whether he was actually writing it as a direct response to my paper that I published at academia EDU (see my recent post), or whether it is purely coincidence that he happened to publish this paper or it was put out on the platform just a couple weeks after I published my paper that had some commentary with the author (Bloniasz).
In any case, this paper Is a brilliant comment in itself, but also A perfect response to my Comment. If anything, timing is ironic, and actually goes to both Currys and my points.
— ah: 2012. Is his paper. I might imagine then that either Curry or an algorithm placed this paper in my cue.
It seems sensible then that the two routes supplies a correspondence that Curry does not imagine in his orientation upon jurisprudence.
I will be addressing it directly and part three of my series of essays￼￼￼￼￼￼ on Academia.edu
Of all the archetypes and complexes that Jung and Jungian congregants entertain and uphold, throughout his system and work he routinely misses the most significant one…
The modern complex.
In fact, I could say that this lacuna forms the basis why the Jungian approach often misses the mark:
His is but one manner among many. And thus has little significance in this mistaking.
In recognizing the influence of the modern complex, then does Jungian forms become more salient.
Ironically, the modern complex arises with systems of individuation.
Jungian psychology can be understood in the context of modern philosophy that considers all things through totality.
Jung’s system is based in an assumption of all, and thereby presents a very Hegelian psychology, of sorts. Never quite noticing that this all is the assumption of a privileged view upon the world, both the philosophy and psychology work to perpetuate the consolidation of ideological power.
We call this kind of motion, religious.
What actually arises, though, still Quite Jungian though, is never the consolidation but rather always the view of progress and perfection. Hence, the missed component of much of Jungian ideals is that individuation never occurs but is always merely the teleology of the motion.
The modern complex operates through the belief that such consolidation/individuation will actually occur and will arise at some point.
The main and largely unrecognized model for the human mental being is the Cognitive Model.
In short, it says there is a Situation, we have thoughts about it, These thoughts are automatically associated with particular emotional responses, and we act or behave. This behavior is an interaction with the world, and this interaction is the situation.
Now, the typical approach to mental health from the cognitive model is to eliminate that there is an actual interaction, and qualify it to say that there are things happening in the world, and then we have these perceptions upon them and those perceptions bring about this cycle.
While this model seems very intuitive and indeed it makes for a really good closed system by which science can then default to other situations that fall outside of the cognitive model, say for example, body chemistry, to this justify why we need an over abundance of medication to solve this fundamentally bio chemical problem, The model itself is only upheld through redundant conceptual reinforcement which ignore the actual situations which would otherwise disrupt its cogency.
The actual situation is indeed the human being in the world. The cognitive model therefore is very good for a first step kind of involvement in what is actually happening in a mental situation, or a psychic situation to use a couple words, but it fails in as much as it tends to perpetuate mental issues for the sake of justifying the model.
The cognitive model becomes more and more myopic, discerning to its own categories, and enforcing of scientific dogma the longer it stays around, the less people are actually getting helped, and the more money that is made through psycho pharmacology.
I’m not saying that it is not helpful, nor am I saying that with certain people and with certain type of situation it can be a total system of help and effective. But I am always thinking of the exceptions, and in this case it is the predominance of people with mental health issues that the cognitive model only gets a short way towards helping.
Then, often instead therapists and psychologist Fail to notice that there might be an issue with their basic concept of what’s occurring, and they continue the same method of approach to the problem. The problem continues to be conceptualized within the cognitive model, and they merely decide to intervene differently, use different concepts but upon the same idea that there is this cognitive flow functioning and that ideally it is responsible or at root for all mental health issues.
I feel there is a better way. This better way is to see that the cognitive model is like a doorway into what is actually occurring. It is a way to begin to conceptualize what is going on, but then also a way to problematize that concept for the client.
That is to say through the creating Problems with fundamental concepts, concepts that are assumed, thereby does the problem of mental health, the mental health issue, become opened up to the possibility that it is not really a problem. This is to say, that the problem itself is aggravated in that cosmologically intuited problem that cognition is something that happens within the human being which is essentially separated from the actual functioning world.
The problem here is then within the construct itself. We thus move into process over placating.
Two dynamics are that’s it play in the perpetuation and maintenance of a problematic heuristic towards mental health, and the cognitive model is that route in this.
On one hand, the cosmological separation of the individual from the rest of the world opens up a gap in conceptual space. This gap that can be only filled in one of two ways,
and that these two ways work to reinforce cosmology behind the scenes.
Number one. The gap is filled with this empirical enigmatic phenomenon called biology, but specifically brain and neurons and Nuro chemistry. The cognitive model can always defer the fundamental problem to be that of Nuro chemistry and Bio physiology. And, as these empirical approach never really solve the problem, but then serve to found and perpetuate a resource for doctors and other moneymakers as career and institution, The client themselves, why approached with a genuine compassion is never the less left out to dry. Strung along a route led by a carrot which is always transcendent to their experience. Placed in the hands of the benefit of the doctors and the therapists and the scientist.
Hence two; the other way to fill this gap is ideological. The reason why the default is to Nuro chemistry and biology is so that the ideology is either understood as a fantasy, or Theory, or as just resultant to the Nuro chemistry, which is nothing more than to say that we our individual human beings with Nuro chemical problems that is having an issue of concept and precept upon the world that is separate from us.
The ideology fills the function of a religious cosmology. For, the function of religion is not analysis, it is not that “God is dead”. The very notion that God is dead fulfills the religious function of the modern individual in society and the world. Just as its counterpart, religious theology in the institutional sense, for fills the gap involved in the strictly academic theoretical application of sense.