“We’re all just different!” How Intersectionality is Being Colonized by White People

Working in student affairs on a university campus, I feel like I hear the words “intersectionality” or “intersectional” said out loud at least 20 …

“We’re all just different!” How Intersectionality is Being Colonized by White People

—- Aaaand my comment:

The nature of society as an imagined symbolic fantasy is to commandeer and distort for the sake of maintaing the known (real) universe.

Intersectionality, regardless of who puts forth the ‘original’ definition, is the ‘indivisible remaider” where the imagined world coalesces around symbols.

All objects constitute points of origin and markings of relation to other objects. Intersectionality, as a reductionary descriptor for social relations, is a “weighted” object of social concern: It grants the symbol, as a point of deconstruction, or the fantasy, as a ‘vanishing point’ or ‘master signifier’ of the oppressing reality.

The True issue presented by this post is: Will we be permitted to see how our reckoning of change, itself is changed by the force of this argument that is imvolved in real social change?

Reposting of C.S.P. is Doing it again… Interview with Lance Cares

C.S.P. is Doing it again… Interview with Lance C.

— Read on lancek4.com/2017/12/07/c-s-p-is-doing-it-again-interview-with-lance-k/

—– Again and again. This is really good! Check it out. Philosophy in such vastness, it expends itself to leave itself as something that it is not.

By the way the original post I think was slightly wrong: you’ll be able to tell who is the interviewer (Jonesey). I think the interviewer is actually in italics, and then Lance is in plain text. But you’ll figure it out. 

Truly. Good shit.

the Modern Real Method

I keep coming back to what I see as a basic and fundamental issue in philosophy.

Why must we reference others to support the veracity of a proposal ?

I mean this in a de facto sense, not de jure. For, of course most modern philosophers we know of make implicit to thier argument the necessity for reference to other authors.

My question is: Why?

Why is Plato and Aristotle and whoever is ‘basic’ not required to reference for thier proposals to have veracity ? And yet no one currently is allowed to propose truths in the same way?

Why is no appeal to truth permitted to thought?

Any ideas?

Normativity and critical race theory


 The renowned and infamous critical social theorist and Philosopher Slavoj Zizek Develops a notion somewhere in one of his books about the significant issue of reality in the context of philosophy is not simply change, but a change in how we are able to reckon what change is– and whether or not we can notice this kind of change.

This is all I’m gonna say right here about this post of this black person denouncing critical race theory.

I will let the reader Come upon the truth of this real development herself.

With one hint: What else supplies normalcy if it isn’t that which guides us to what is normal?

To Deconstruct the term “normal” to then say that the term does not identify anything that actually exists is merely to say that the term itself, ie normal, is identifying the very operation through which deconstruction is operating.  

Juneteenth. The Issue of the Two: Reality and Truth


The United States’ Second Independence Day!

 Ive heard opinions that while this moment should be officially recognized, we should’ve named it something different because it’ll confuse everyone having two independence days.

I think it’s fabulous. Yes, fabulous in that we are recognizing a significant truth in the real history of this country, but also that there are Two recognitions that ultimately inform the truth of the actual situation.

This resonates so incredibly well with my philosophical notion of the Two Routes upon objects.

In thier individual truths, they cannot reduce to the other in fact. They can only do so in real reductive argument.

Yet, aside from that method of arguing, one always excludes the other, while the other includes the exclusion. They both, as real non philosophical aspects, constitute the truth of the situation.

The Difference Between Mental and Physical Health: Peak Performance

Physical health: bodies and parts of bodies, or organs, that function how they should.

Mental Health: a human thoughtful life that functions the way it should ??

Ppl Peak performance is desired and implicated in physical health. We want our heart,say, to pump blood with out hindrance throughout the body.

Mental health is not always about peak performance.

An idea of Mental health that implies peak performance is only a particular goal for mental health. Due to the promotion made by the discipline of psychiatry and psychology, the notion of peak performance is very often assumed as implied in the usage of the term. However, The assumption of likeness actually more often contributes to poor mental health than it does to a persons benefit, or even societal benefit at that.

Yet the notion of peak performance in the scheme of similarity between physical and mental health is not a bad thing. Indeed, there are many aspects about mental health which do appear to coordinate with the same notions of physical health.

For example, various types of problem-solving; skills of peak performance of mental health can be achieved. Think of playing chess, or think of organizing one’s house or place of living. Problem solving skills so far as having good relationships can also bring about a sense of peak performance as it relates to one’s health of their psyche.

The problem with the equation between physical and mental health lay exactly in the fact that in order for us to understand what physical health is, we have to use our mental faculties. So it is that when we try to approach mental health in the same way as physical health we have the problem concerning the strange reductionism of a mind attempting to understand the mind.

It appears that mental health, or being mentally healthy, coordinates more with what a person thinks about themselves, and less about what outside psychological interventions we might impose upon a person.

This is at root the main issue with the psychiatric or psychological promotion that mental health is or acts the same or responds the same as physical health: that mental health extends to something more than the individual, that is, to a common human ideal.

There are many books and papers and a whole lineage of criticisms about psychology and psychiatry, how they are “soft sciences“. There is an abundance of history which shows clearly that early psychologists and psychiatrists wanted their discipline and practice to be on equal footing as the newly moneymaking and prosperous physical sciences. It is not difficult to find everywhere arguments of why this should not be the case, but as well, psychology began an intensive PR to approach mental health through “the disease model”. This is still the same approach that we have today that informs the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental illnesses, called the DSM, for short.

Probably the best and only thing that the conventional psychological and psychiatric approach can offer people that are suffering from the “mental illnesses”, and people who suffer from “poor mental health“, is to get them strung out on managed addictions.

Again this is not necessarily bad. Nevertheless, we have to ask ourselves, truly, what is it that we are after, and what is it that the client is actually after. For many people, the answer is “I just want to feel good”. So great. Why not let these people smoke pot their whole lives. Or put them on some medication that allows them to feel good, whether it be Xanax or Valium or Wellbutrin or Prozac?

Despite the fabulously logical and sensible idealistic Systems that degreed professionals like to develop in their libraries brought over from their clinics, Most people are often only helped in the sense that they “seem better” from their own subjective standpoint, but alas, mainly in the clinical setting with the doctor or the therapist sitting there giving them a barrage of surveys and interview questions so they can present the material to insurance companies for reimbursement.

We find even though I may be able to achieve peak performance in categorized and segregated aspects, in artificial designations and coordination of what the psyche is, structures of the mind, etc. Correlations with various parts if the brain or nervous system, Still depression will persist, and not just in some people. In fact, with most people who suffer, conventional psychological approaches fail for the psychological ideal. Even with the numerous applications into parts of the brain or parts of the structure of mind or the attempt to fix relationships between parts of the mind or the psyche or interfere with the physical functioning of the brain, people often enough still battle with wanting to kill themselves. People will still be depressed and anxious and hate their life. People Still suffer from the supposed mental illness.

However, if we are working in mental health towards this concept of peak performance, if indeed the mind is functioning like the physical body, and we are allowing this kind of intervention to solve the mental health issue, then we would have to reflect back upon physical health and ask ourselves why I can’t do opium all the time, or why I can’t athletes do steroids. Just a thought.

Again, this is not to whole heartedly knock and attempt to negate or destroy psychology and psychiatry and all the mental health attempts to help people.

This is a call to be more discerning and observant against what seems so naturally logical, or what appears to make sense to our Kantian-Hegelian reasonable consciousness, as it is indeed presently translated into all our modern approaches to health.

The Irony of Modern deferment

Overheard of two people while waiting in line to buy groceries.

“The actuality of a situation is beyond anyone’s ability to be ethical.”

“That’s right. I pay someone through taxes and school fees to deal with the greater problems of the world. Right now I have a career to advance.”


When you think about it, You are really the only one thinking about it, you and then a few other people who like to think about things. when you think about all the other people you encounter that you don’t talk about these things to, probably a minuscule number of those people would have any interest at all, let alone the capacity to comprehend what you might be talking about.

That little conversation got me thinking about what I’m thinking about, and how what my little group of friends might be talking about, can’t really be addressing what we think we’re talking about.

And the reason is very philosophical. The challenge is this: Think of a scenario in a closed system or something in that closed system, some thing that came up only Due to that close system, by the mechanisms contained entirely and functioning within that closed system…

…Ponder how anyone of those elements would be able to do anything that isn’t inherently involved with all the other things in that closed system.

And this is to say, not that I am inherently involved with manifesting my own world including my involvement with other people and things.

Rather, it’s more to really think about what is actually happening when I think that is the case.

The facts of the matter is that— I don’t know, is there 4 billion people in the world?

4 billion things of a closed system only an incredibly tiny proportion of those 4 billion things that are supposed to be in intimate communication with one another, Let alone the multitude of other things that are in this closed system that somehow are “inanimate”, inert”, or “neutral”— that are attempting to address the problems that appear in this closed system.

It wouldn’t even be proper to say that human beings are just coming up with models of the universe, because again, that’s Just a minuscule amount of people that are Supposing to grasp the extents of the system for the sake of all the other multitude of constituents who are not addressing the system for its problems.

But then on the other side of it, to suggest

that it’s a closed system, if indeed it is, then we would have to say that all these other Constituents of the system must be addressing the problems of the system itself but in their own way, such that the small minority of great thinkers are really doing nothing more than solving their own problems in their own way, and are not really addressing problems to the whole of constituency of this closed system.

Further, we could not even say that as individuals we are addressing parts. For, the same conditions would apply, but with a post modern bent; that is, how could we possibly even be communicating with each other what these parts are to disassemble their meaning to the extent of the clothed system?

Hence, anyway we look at it we must assume, nay, we must realize at some point that something else is going on.

But more so, we would have to look at the very method by which we are attempting to address the universe and existence and the people around us and our environment.

If we are honest about addressing these problems, then we would have to indict the very method that we are going about conceptualizing the whole thing.

When we look around and have to live our day today, we have to go to work, we have to actually apply ourselves to very practical and immediate real circumstances, we then would have to realize that Philosophy. splits into two things: One which has to do with how we negotiate the real world, and the other one that Hass to do with how we actually exist truly in the universe.