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.



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?


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…

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

Psychology and philosophy, part four

My point of addressing this topic was not simply to go on about my anecdotal development of psychology and philosophy.

I am always embedded in context, in a story, and so maybe that’s why I’m always contextualizing many things I have to say in the story of why I have to say them or why I am saying it in that way. Actually, I’ve had to learn how to be more to the point, as my friends will tell you.

And we could go back to some of my other posts, and a couple of my papers, that talk about the efficient cause as the usual conventional understanding to which everything must answer. And I call this orientation upon the efficient cause reality.

Whereas, what is true of the situation is actually its form, and that these forms constitute every object that exists in the universe. The story to me concerns more the formal cause. I take the formal cause it’s more substantial and meaningful than the efficient cause.

Anyways, that’s not really what I’m making this post about either!

It was actually to talk a little bit about Lacan. I would say 85% of my understanding of this psychologist comes through Zizek. The rest comes through various commentaries that philosophers have made and then a little bit and reading him. So, my version may be a little skewed, but then again, my whole philosophy up on things is that, basically, it doesn’t really matter because every opinion on every author no matter how well Read a person is is always skewed; and, I would argue, it is always the same amount of skew.

But also I’m not here to make an argument about how everyone’s skewed Ness upon a text is the same amount of variation.

Because even if I don’t know by heart all the inns and outs of Lacanian  psychotherapy, I know pretty much what he’s talking about and how it goes. What I want to talk about is that there are no psychotherapists who are Lacanian. It seems like everyone who wants to talk about psychology is a philosopher, not a psychiatrist or a psychologist. Now, I’m sure there are many Freudians and people who like Lacan theory as their basis of practice, I would imagine somewhere in New York and Europe maybe, but for some reason I have never come across one practicing psychologist or psychiatrist who knows anything about Lacan or even cares about Freud except as some sort of mystical founder of psychotherapy, and of course, the structure of the consciousness.

That is very curious to me.

But as of late, as I’m reading Lacan’s ecrits, and as I am getting more into actually practicing psychotherapy, I am realizing some things about the mental health world.

A big one is that pretty much every psychoanalytic theory that I’ve come across in my masters program, Lacan talked about from a theoratical standpoint.

I think that is so weird, because none of my professors and none of my instructors know anything at all about Lacan. Ive asked.

And that, to me, points out some thing that I think it’s very significant between Philosophy and what we know in general as psychology — indeed in one of Lacans lectures that has been reprinted, he basically points out the same curiosity in the field, albeit, much mire subtly than i am:

Namely that psychology as a practice, if I can generalize to include all the other kinds of psychotherapy in general, all the theories, all the practices and approaches, And despite what each approach would want to say is their theoretical grounding, all derive from a philosophical understanding that goes way beyond and way deeper and more thoroughly than the practitioners would even suggest to indicate as their basis of practice and theoretical understanding.

it’s kind of weird.

I don’t mean to say that Lacan had it all; but he does point out how the practice of therapy tends to want to just stick with a system of assertions and not employ those systems in the practice of investigating an uncovering what is really happening. which is to say, people want a fixed understanding of things. And most people, even people who we consider are very intelligent and educated practitioners, do not use their intelligence and knowledge as a basis to investigate what is actually occurring in front of them. Rather, most people use it as a basis merely to assert what they understand is supposed to be true.

Lacan what’s an advocate towards a kind of non-systemization of practice. Even as most of us tend to understand that he has this great philosophical psychoanalytical system. Actually he was just constantly investigating and constantly changing and adjusting his ideas for what he was coming upon as the years went by. 

OK. I’ll do part five in a little bit.x

Speculative Reflection

Always in a process of situating discourses to their occasions, I am Often recognizing discrepancies between what I think and what I come across.

Right there alone is enough to notice that there are two ways of understanding things. These two ways can be said to concern reflection.

Colloquially speaking, we are always talking about reflecting upon ones situation. And this is good; we want to encourage people to displace themselves. To step outside of themselves. Never minding the philosophies which would place us in an essentially relative universe founded only in subjective views and opinions,  an anthropology of philosophy talks about what we are able to do as foundational. Less the contents of our various fantasies and imaginations projected upon a true reality which forever recedes, Indeed consciousness, however we would come to terms with it, apparently is able to hold a conception whereby subjectivity is essential in the manner I just described.

Hence, what I’m saying is that we are able to believe, we are able to be convinced that subjectivity evidences a human containment, and that this containment moves to grant us an extended relativity. We are able to do this. But it is not that merely because the content which is generated from that ability seems so true that it is indeed true (however we would want to deny this truth by placing us selves in a relative situation eternally), no. It is more that the ability can be noticed, That the confines in which we place ourselves to find our subjective identity is indeed merely an ability — Once this contradiction of our immediate experience sets in to confront our apparent knowledge, it is then that we might have an ability to reflect upon the actual truth of our situation, and indeed become available to understand the truth of the universe it’s self. When we can begin to come to terms with how human beings, indeed, how I indeed a rise in consciousness, again regardless of how we define consciousness – for, a default to linguistic definition merely is a retreat from what is true of our ability – then we can begin to encounter actual true objects which exist in the universe as such. And this is regardless of the subject limitation.

The true reflection is thus an absence of subjectivity: it is the presence of what is other as other, of encountering difference as different. For, if we are able to conceive of a subjectivity which encompasses all that we may encounter, then this must be merely an ability rather than an essence, since an essence is at all times merely a conception of arbitrary causation. If this is merely an ability, then we likewise have an ability to understand what it is to get outside of that subjectivity, to leave it alone, to find it in nothingness. We do not have to be bound to a fixed strata of knowledge.

For, is this not with the great philosophies of the past 200 years have asserted? That, on one hand, subjectivity is founded upon nothingness, but due to this nothingness subjectivity is always founded in a knowledge-power Whereby subjectivity is the definition of being-repressed?

If we give up that power, then what do we have? We have nothingness on one hand, which is utter contradiction, utterly an abyss when faced that derives for us the epitome of existential anxiety; but then the other side is even more scary: We Find that what we call perception and subjectivity is indeed a constituent aspect of the universe itself, of indeed objects in themselves. Grass gives us itself. Trees give us information about itself in itself, the actual objectivity of the tree. Planets as well, consciousness as well, books, discourse, atoms, opinions, leaves, air, Krishna, molecules, bacteria, concepts,Gods, God Goddess, spirits, devils, Angels, psycho killers, priests and goblins, witches, magic and scientists.

We find that all of these things arise in themselves, truly existing, in the universe, the constituency of the universe, all this despite our subjective intentions.

This is what reflection is.

Yes, it is in ability of consciousness or subjectivity or individuality or persona or mind to consider its own situation, as well as to consider itself by virtue of that which it considers within its domain of concept, intelligence, and perception.

So it is not by contrast that we are not able to ever come upon anything else. But on the contrary, it is due to this limit that we are able to come across true things of the universe. Things in-themselves. And for themselves. Avoiding any and every encounter with subjectivity.

When this is realized, then we begin to have an ability to form valid and effective relationships. For we are no longer expecting and demanding things to conform with our own ideas of self, psychology, and intention.


Mindfulness Mythology

In my undergrad I became aware that there are two kinds of mythology.

Extrinsic mythology is what we usually understand is mythology. Like, the Samarian mythology; the Greek mythology; etcetera.

Then there is intrinsic mythology. This is mythology that still functions.

This was one of the first lectures the History of Consciousness class “Mythology and Religion”.

The idea that came across to me after many years of contemplation, is that (1)Intrinsic mythology is not a belief system. and (2) it is not False.

I think the number two of my realizations is the more difficult understanding.

This is because, probably first, we are so taught to believe that mythology is about something that people believe in, which is to say, some thing as opposed to what we know now. However, the meaning to be gained in the fact that there is at the University of California at Santa Cruz, a department called “the history of consciousness” Is that consciousness is true in as much as it is constituted by a number of present forces which arise to knowledge as history, philosophy, and anthropology. Indeed, we could put “religion” in this category, except that religion and mythology are topics against which history philosophy and anthropology find their voice, and actually, vice versa.

The main idea that I’m bringing up in this post, though, is that intrinsic mythology is not False. Rather, it is at once the object against which reality may arise, but also that very truth which constitutes the object of its field. It is not merely subjective meaning. And it is not merely objective fact. Rather, if we might just be able to speak about it in its actuality, it is universal truth in its facticity.


The Mythology that has risen around Mindfullness is not incorrect, regardless of what may be irritating me about it. It is not incorrect inasmuch as indeed this is how people are appropriating it mythologically. This appropriations is often promoted by wealthy executives and spiritual gurus alike:

I watched a mental health movie which is about 45 minutes long, it is called “what is mindfulness”. And leading the instruction is this kind of typical, or what I view as typical, silicon valley, nicely and freshly dressed, bright eyed, obviously erudite, educated and intelligent man. I wonder if he is the person who put together the video, but I don’t know. And he may not even be a silicon type. Lol

Basically he brings together neurological science With “ancient spiritual Buddhist practices” and generally makes the argument that mindfulness is good because of all these cognitive benefits that come out of it, which indeed is probably true. But not only this, he conveys a very distinct and palatable ideal along with It’s benefits: that it is a state of being that one can achieve. One is able through practice to achieve a mindful state, and in this mindful state a person is more productive, thinks clearly, is more emotionally centered, etc., everything that a healthy human should be.


Now, I think it’s great that this guy was once a messed up schmo working in the tech industry (or wherever) as an entrepreneur who then discovered mindfulness practices and it changed his life so now he is a super productive and happy very wealthy dude maybe. That’s great!

 however, what he is conveying is an intrinsic mythology that is actually extrinsic. Or, Maybe more exactly, religious evangelism.

And what I mean by this, the context that I am bringing forth here, is that, at least in my understanding of what mindfulness is, is that there is no such thing as “mindfulness”. At least from the Buddhist standpoint (that inspired these practices) and at least from the therapist, I’m not bringing to mind his name at this moment, who decided to use it as a form of therapeutic counseling, there is only ‘mindfulness practices’.

“Mindfulness” is an evolution, a development of a particular objectified version of what the practices should bring about. Basically, it was people being lazy about using the whole term, mindfulness practices, and they began to call it “mindfulness”.

The issue that I have with how this guy is presenting what mindfulness practices are and or what they are for, is if the point of doing them is to reach the state of mindfulness, is that the way he’s acting is no different than the way that a heroin addict, at least at the beginning of their addiction, behaves towards others.

I mean this in a very real sense of what is occurring. That we should not, that it is not intellectually proper, to segregate behaviors simply because we like one and not the other, to say that they are involved in different activities.

By the way, if you read the history of heroin, the reason why heroin was named “heroin” was because it made the people who did it feel like heroes.

And, even though the use of herion is so misunderstood as to be lumped into a category of disease and disorder, such that people never really want to talk about or encounter what actually occurs as the process that ends in the well known disorder of addiction, At the beginning of using heroin, or at least how are used to be, I don’t know what it is now, by virtue of the fact that people tend to live their lives by what they are told about what life is supposed to appear like– The person who does heroin suddenly feels really fucking good. And life is great. And, despite the social stigma now, she wants everyone to feel this good. Actually, may be a more recent phenomenon of drugs could be MDMA, or what we know of in the drug world as “ecstasy”. Ecstasy makes you feel so euphoric and good that literally you’re telling everyone around you that they really need to do this because it’s really really good.

This is what I see this guy doing in the video over mindfulness. First of all he promotes mindfulness as a state of being   One can achieve through practice. And despite what the fashion of mental health would want to convey, that is patently incorrect.

Mental health and indeed Mindfulness practices have no absolute object; the goal is manifest. Their object is to bring a sense of actuality and intentionality into one’s living and being; hence it can be helpful to practice mindfulness if you are struggling. This does not mean that the purpose of mindfulness practice is to create a state of being whereby one now is able to achieve all their desires and live and have wonderful relationships. It can, yes. And maybe it does help with that, but due to the fact that mindfulness practices are to help an individual become more actualized to what they are as a human being, to direct “mindfulness” to some “mentally healthy human being” is just idealism, religion in another form, or, and attempt to promote an intrinsic mythology.

Like I said, this isn’t bad or wrong. So far as indeed it can help people. But it is very possible for me to be entirely antisocial, completely unproductive, contributing to society in the most minimal way, and be perfectly mentally healthy.

I wonder if this dude in the vid is actually mentally healthy, Becuase he seems to be deluded by an ideal. I don’t know.

So, what I’m really saying is, i suppose, it really bothers me when people promote something that is so good for people under the guise, however subtly insinuated and perhaps not intentionally directed, that something is wrong with them.

There is no absolute state of mindfulness, just the same as there is no absolute state of consciousness.

I’ll go back to the very Buddhist parable of enlightenment:

When one becomes enlightened, they realize there’s no such thing as enlightenment.

So it is with some mythological state of mindfulness: it is a fantasy. Only as a vanishing mediator is a state of mindfulness possible. Once it has arrived, one realizes that nothing is different.

so we should be cautious, and very skeptical, of people that are promoting a snake oil remedy for being conscious. As though the state of mindfulness is something that a person can achieve. Yes, people can achieve a state a mindfulness just as they can achieve the state of knowing something, or the state of being hungry, or full. Or the state of ecstasy. Or serenity. It comes and goes. It is not a state of Being: it is Being.

What we seeing this person that is promoting such a state of mindfulness, is someone who is high. And again, not to distinguish between good highs and bad highs. we need be allowed to look behind the curtain.

For sure though, we must be accepting and tolerant however vigilant of those who want to be Christians and prophets.

For, Christ is not a Christian. And Buddha is not a Buddhist. 


The Dim light of the Tech baised mind

I know. We must always broaden our view and accept that things exist, or at least acknowledge them enough to consider that they do exist that way.

I read the post above; I decided to check out the Bloggos on Medium just to get some new words around.

Correct me if I am wrong and it’s probably just me being pissy; looking around Medium I get a weird feeling that there is a certain Medium culture which is oriented upon tech. Like, the kind of people we use to call ‘metro’.

It is a weird feeling to me; it feels like the people who populated the Capital in the movie “Hunger Games”. Weird because it’s like a group of people who enjoy living in ignorance and who have an intelligence based in the very thing-world of tech: surface, fad, skill — like a plastic wrap thought base, thin and transient. Of doing and not thinking. Like thinking and living to them is meaning something else, like something not actual, something fabricated. High School to the n-th degree, institutionalized.

Well: tech. In a very conventional sense.


I’m so

Judge mental.

My comment is really about Mindfulness. I strongly dislike that term; I will use the techniques of course in practice, but, the whole idea has become, well…just tech. It has lost what I feel is a basic meaning or reason. It has become, like everything else for the tech oriented: another means to “be creative” or “to get up do something something” or “make a difference”. Code phrases for: Don’t think! Don’t reflect!

In a way, though, the post is trying to address the issue I point to, but it does so under the presumption that the point of living is to “be productive!!”. I mean, it’s like the whole reason one should listen to this guy or to use mindfulness skills is so you can be yourself being productive, doing things, contribute ! Go do psilocybin! You’ll be more creative and productive ! Go meditate! You’ll get that next raise!!

Yes; that is a nice thing for humans to do, but it feels to me so regular and, kind of, loaded with propaganda. (Ha ha: the company Obey Propaganda is the perfect example of the ironic acquiescence the tech generation adheres to). Not maybe so terrible — but does it have to so reek of ignorance and stupidity all the time ??


I really dislike the word and idea of Mindfullness.

I think the more accurate notion from which Mindfulness as another modern activity has been commandeered is:

Awareness. Without judgement.

….and this is an indictment — not a support — of the linking of productivity to tech oriented living.

The post seems to me to address a distortion with another distortion, which then serves to cue that the distorted, non-reflective manner of living is correct.

And indeed, ironically, that is what most people want.

And indeed indeed, is it a conventional reality that we have to account for and deal with, in order to get on with the actual living of life, truly?

Yes. 🧑🏾‍🚀
a practice of awareness without judgement. less mindfull than compassionate.

The Global Hospice

Passion and compassion.

Reality and truth.

Philosophy and anthropology.

Either/or and And.

These are counter-partial horizontally, and correlational vertically, at least in this post.

  WE ARE ABLE to contemplate significant relationships With things other than human beings. And, Yes, a human being is also a universal object.

And, it is also a subject. Modern subjectivity is the current ideological formulation of being in the world, otherwise known as the global religion. This is the case such that any argument which would bring rebuttal or exception to the statement merely argues that what it’s arguing against is the case; in other words, any rebuttal to the statement is telling us that it is a modern subject. At that, involved with an alienation from itself. 

This is not wrong or incorrect, nor does it indicate merely a condition that we must reject, otherwise known as contradiction. It merely shows us some thing that is true of the universe. It is true of the universe; it must be true simply by the basic definition of what we understand is true, and regardless of how we define the notion of truth, because of the condition I just stated. That is, any rebuttal to it merely exemplifies the case it is trying to dispel. This is a truth, and it is a truth under a particular condition, and we call this condition modern.

To decide upon different terms, and define those new terms in different ways in relation to the term that is supposedly indicating something that is problematic or that is in need of changing or adjusting, is what we know of as the modern theological apology That we call postmodern.

We have the parameters of our condition. Because we can identify parameters truly, we are able to identify an object that arises in the universe.

From a subjective standpoint, which is to say, from the unreflective condition of being where a human arises to its occasion in the world to use its intellect for skillful application, and only use during that moment of living, Life is supposed to be, and it is indeed demanded by the individual involved with a passionate existence.

Such passion is particularly individual. It is particularly self-serving. It is possible therefore to define the global situation of humanity, in a general sense, as the negotiation between individuals. And, it is due to this orientation upon universal things, that is, the subjective or phenomenal orientation upon things, that’s the problem in the relationship  with the world is occurring. In other words, it is the and self righteous proclamations and assertions of self-centeredness upon the world which evidences the dysfunction that is our current global situation. Pandemic, post truth, social discord, etc. arise because of this particular manifestation of the human being it’s relationship with the world.

And, somewhat unfortunately, the head or leading proponent of such cosmology is philosophy itself.  it is an orientation upon the transcendent spirit of the human being as the designator an arbiter of all things, such that anything which arises in the world is understood to be arising only within the human being itself. And the problems with this orientation are manifest. 

Anthropology is the honest look at Real universal objects. And due to the constraints which confront our conceptions, and inform our perceptions, the way forward must be compassion. Less the self righteous imposition of propriety upon oneself, as well the grace given to others for their self righteousness, we need compassion for the passionate exercise of excess.

Going forward we should see ourselves in global hospice. 

 Folks, we are dying.

…As usual.

Everything exists.

Nothing is something.

This statement holds all the possible ramifications of the assessment of Being to its orientations. And from the dual meaning that arises in this statement, all problems and solutions exist.

It is not merely meaning, because that represents only one of the two orientations then.

But meaning is the main issue through which, if the truth is to be understood, must be confronted.

Something is always something else; nothing is always something.

It is the question of orientation upon the universe. Less what meaning is made, more when that meaning is challenged.

Orientation upon things concerns two basic questions;

what are we dealing with?

What are we trying to accomplish?

If these two questions are not stated, then they are assumed. We thus have one thing we are dealing with: Reality is thus the teleo-ontological assumption of a common sense of being human and the universe.

Without this assumption implicit to every statement and thought, no reality arises. It is then just a bunch of things doing stuff; reality is complicit with an agenda.

So then the next question involved in that truth — it is a truth because no argument can be made against it without implying that its meaning is operative:

What are we trying to accomplish by the assumed common arena ?

For this:

We are dealing with the truth of reality for the purpose of Being mentally healthy.

This is a anthropology of philosophy.

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