Festering Consciousness

The Plague of Consciousness

——- and my comment:

While the premises might appear to be sound, the conclusion toward advocation of action shows an orientation upon things where, not exactly wrong, is nonetheless possibly incorrect.

The universe in itself and as such — qua universe, if you will — can indeed be known.


The assumption in the subjective orientation upon things, which leads to an assertion that one should not worry about abstract thoughts such as the meaning of things, or whether or not we can know the universe truly, shows that one is oriented in thinking in a particular manner. This manner is generalized to what I call “conventional“, or what other authors, such as Slavoj Zizek, the “common”. It is ultimately ideological, and also psychological, but in the end, in large religious.

The conventional manner, or orientation, reveals a certain logic that identifies a manner of understanding oneself in the universe through the psyche. This particular kind of logic is usually emphasized and reified through such conventions as psychology.

However, I am not indicating or suggesting that psychology is wrong or it’s estimations should be corrected or adjusted. On the contrary, I am suggesting that it reveals an inherent, one could maybe say, ‘natural’ way that consciousness, human consciousness in particular, automatically comes upon itself. This is to say, it indicates an ability of the human being, and not a limitation that absolutely corresponds with what is “natrual”. Here, what is natural is what arises without any intervention. It is the way that if nature takes it’s course what inevitably will happen.

So it is ironically it is not towards the subject that we need to focus our attention when we find the failure of abstract and meaningless concepts, an inability to know these things for sure such as the linked post reports upon.

No. It is when we conclude that we must resort to subjectivity that a particular natural orientation upon things is revealed, that an orientation can be noticed. This subjective trope (word-sense-act) understands itself as essentially separated from the universe, such that knowledge, and it’s logic or sense, — it’s epistemology — argues it self into the world as a separate entity reflexively, that is, as an automatic reflex. By this, reason it self is transcendentally separated in an absolute sense, such that it must approach the world in these “either-or” manners, and no other manner, if it is to comprehend things.

When we indicate a limitation of this epistemology we are essentially saying that there is a certain type of way of being human that can be known objectively, or universally objective. This is further to say that it, this object that is the subject, must then coincide with the equity or the equality of objects as they arise in the universe in themselves, in relationships with other objects.

Subjectivity, the action thereof which moves understanding internally, hermeneutically, is thus a kind of ‘natural’ disease of the being that is human. It represents a particular kind of traumatic response of organic existence, but here manifested as the natural human being.


This “objective” way of understanding ourselves in the universe verse ruptures or defies the natural tendency which concludes that we must resort to subjectivity because we cannot truly understand the universe and its objective sense.

Again, this is not to indicate something ethically wrong, or something that we need to argue about. Rather, it indicates or describes what logically must conclude given the situation of the revolt from “existential emptiness“. As opposed to revolting back into subjectivity, when we respond to the call that is the emptiness of freedom, ultimately we come upon the object that is ourselves in the universe as such.

It is against the ideological standard of religious absolutism that we must revolt if we are to find ourselves truly in the universe as such.

Pondering the limits of what we are able to know. Rp: International Webinar on Sri Aurobindo

Originally posted on Philosophy News in India: Philosophy News in India View original post

International Webinar on Sri Aurobindo

—- We must ponder the irony inherent to our knowledge when it comes upon a knowledge that is not its own. What ate we able to conclude?

This is one kind of beginning into the possibility of object orientation.

Beginning Philosophy: Ignorance

I’m going to see if some people can begin Philosophy.

Of course, there is the usual way which would answer how one gets into philosophy by suggesting various books to read.

I find that when I get with a friend or a colleague who while may be philosophical is not “informed“ to the philosophical literature, and ask them to read one of my papers, most often they can barely get through the first 10 paragraphs without having a number of fundamental questions about various things that I’m assuming the reader knows I’m writing about.

So, I find myself wanting to suggest to them various things that they might want to read so they would have a context to understand what I’m really talking about.

But on the other hand our discussion often enough moves to me merely asking them:

What do you think?

And they usually answer is some sort of variation about “I’m not very well read”, or “I haven’t read so in so…I’m not very familiar with X“. And responses of that nature.

And my answer usually is, “I think you do, and I don’t really think you need to read all those people and all those books for you to understand that you actually do know about these things.”

Then our discussion goes along the lines of how they already know what we’re talking about, how they disagree, and how the fact that we are talking about it, evidence says that they understand what we are talking about.

So I’m wondering if any of my readers who have just followed this post, this particular post right here, and read it, have anything to say about it.

Specifically, what are we talking about?

Innoway, it’s as if there is a kind of bred ignorance going on here. Again, as I will continue to reiterate over nearly every topic I address, there are two things going on around ignorance.

On one hand, there is the assumed, and I would say ideologically natural route into ignorance. It is ideologically natural because the natural way the human being grows is to be ignorant ideologically, ignorant of the social norms and negotiating of things.

On the other hand, there is an ignorance that is built into becoming informed about the ideological norms. This is to say that is one becomes more knowledgeable of the social and ecological negotiations, they naturally and implicitly find themselves more ignorant of how that knowledge is even able to be understood and known. I would say that this is an idea logically enforced ignorance.

I ponder that it is due to an individual’s orientation upon or within the former kind of ignorance, that reveals their orientation by the fact of them being involved in the latter kind of ignorance

When I’m talking about Philosophy., I’m standing in the middle of these two routes towards knowledge. However, most people, once I bring up Philosophy., or I sound like I’m speaking philosophically, automatically assume that we are standing within the presence of ideological norms at all times, not in the middle of two forms of knowledge, but in the middle of the universe itself, mediating the universe to that blank vacuous space called the human being, or, subjectivityAnd that indeed the ideological norms are the only way that we can understand our relationship with ignorance at all.