Category: immanence

  • Awareness: part 2

    Some one posted a comment to this post of mine, to which I replied, but then I made it into a new posting. You can check the comments of the original post  here:  “We will find, inevitably, as a kind, that the only things that change are the objects of our view, and not any […]

  • Post-modernism’s Worth. 

    When we are too close to an event, we talk about it as from a distance. That is, what we say is automatically distanced from the event, a maximum distance. The event is thus, by this occurrence, an object. As opposed to our psychotherapeutic model, the closer we are to an event, the more dishonest […]

  • Repost: The Significant Event, part 1

    [it appears that the most recent wordpress update has strung all the paragraph breaks together.  So its like one long run on paragraph now. But the *’s  do indicate a break.] Significance. What we can call the Romance is based upon and or around what I call the significant experience, which falls well in line […]

  • The Impossible, part 4: Spiritual Oneness and the State of Incorporated Reality.

    The operative question that motivates the essays on the impossible can be formulated by the questions of determinism and contingency: Is the random aspect of the physical universe of science responsible or otherwise enacted or present in the random aspect that involves human choice, such that choice is determined by the state of the universe, […]

  • Further on Faith; A Reflection.

    Im gonna step a little closer to home here, just for a moment, and offer what could be considered a fictional account of life in experience. A word on faith. “Where I am offended, I have faith.” I have difficulty with a faith that must be worked for, as if some times I have faith […]

  • Direct Tangent 6.5: What I Think Is A Pretty Good Indication of My Position.

    If I am saying so myself: this title is pretty fkg great; hilarious. Anyways…. My reply to a comment by Mr. Adkins came out pretty good, so I’m posting it (with some editing): Mr. Adkins: – “”There is no contradiction where there is radical duality”. Also, the excerpt above is interesting, the one about there […]

  • Direct Tangent 5.31: Radical, Immanence and Faith.

    I hope you have a good appetite. We are at a table in a restaurant. Laruelle is my dinner partner in the seat next to me. He is having non-philosophy as his main dish; ironically, I have have opted for the buffet. There are others at our table but they have not been introduced. Many […]

  • Direction 5.18: Recant and Reoccasion.

    I am a bit hard-headed. I think most critical thinkers/philosophers are. I find this the best basic method for my endeavor, which is a grounding of my experience in discourse. In this effort I have come across, what I could call, using the most true, and possibly non-philosophical sense of the term, guru that have […]

  • Tangent 5.16

    TANGENT 5.16 I figure it prudent and sensible at this time to take a tangent, aside from the direct Laruelle-nonphilosophical discussion. And back up.. What am I doing here in this blog, these posts? What am I addressing? I have said the basic issue is duality. But though this can appear as a beginning, at […]

  • Tangent 4.19: what gives? The possibility of Communicating.

    What gives? This is the question. In partial thanks to Mr. Adkins, his site translation of some of Laruelle’s writings, that these came up rather early in a Google search for ‘non-philosophy project’, as well his willingness to actually read a post of mine and then to comment on it, I am lead to more […]