Reposting and comment on The power of sunset.

Photo by Anand Dandekar on Pexels.com It is always here transiting from day to night. Sunset is that time of the day where confusion is here. The day…

The power of sunset.

—- Thanks !

Yes and…funny; my anxiety comes with the dawn. In the sunset I find peace and a willingness of having achived.

Yet I can understand why someone would pose the transitions of light and dark, Day and night, in this way. Human beings generally do not like silence. Especially in our current society, even as we might decry and mourn and drag all the catastrophes happening all over the world, in our hometowns, most actually likely thrive on it.

What would we do if there wasn’t all this chaos and Mayham going on?

Who would we be? What purpose would we have if there wasn’t a problem facing us at every turn?

It is the insistence and reification of problem as the way into Being.

By this term, Philosophy. is a mode of production, it is a Marxist analysis, a dialectical materialism, that we never avoid so long as we are understanding problem as the basic part of our nature.

Of course the sun going down, the day ending, death, would be anxiety producing for a person that finds itself in eternal problem.

And then by Contrast, the other side of this modern deistic, theological cosmology, is the imagery of the Bible. How many old testament images, and indeed the book of revelation is based on the same type of dichotomy, this ontological polemic, of someone seeing heaven where there are myriads of angels just proclaiming his name over and over again. Transcendence as ultimate peace. God as the beginning and the end. What could be more justifying to an individual that finds its self, being, and identity in the light of the eternal problems of the world?

Yet there is a different way into being….

And this is really what I’m talking about in my blog.

Not so much that we need to solve the problem. And not so much that we need to get rid of the problem, As in problem is being. Rather, I am most interested in the threshold, the boundary, that space where in we find ourselves at the conjunction between problem and peace.x

Repost and comment on Climate-above-all plea by US fails to stir China

x

Politicians posing as climate managers is a bad joke, and ‘tackling climate change’ is an empty slogan. BBC summary: Envoy John Kerry’s ‘it’s more …

Climate-above-all plea by US fails to stir China

— I don’t know about all the political things, all the inns and outs.

However, I do feel that there is a basic difference between eastern views upon what a human being is in the world and the Western view.

i’m not sure where I stand. However, some of my posts have suggested that the climate is always changing. It has always been changing. Just because we are now aware that we are part of the universe, in so much as, perhaps, human beings as an ideology are now manifesting an “awareness” of ourselves in the universe, does not mean that suddenly we are affecting the universe such that the climate is changing evermore drastically due to us.

I suggest that the interaction is Less One Direction, less reciprocal, and more coincidental. And this is to say, behaving together.

The climate changes. Becuase the universe is always changing, and perhaps we are not separated from the universe sufficiently to effect it in the way that we like to think we do in the West.

now, if this is the way that eastern philosophies and ideologies inherently promote a human being relationship with the world and the universe, then the approach might be more of how do we deal with the climate that is changing. That is, more than the Western manner and view around the question of how do we change what we’re doing so the climate doesn’t change (now, as much).x

Unexpected synchronous object semantics

Be Your Own Rock

Everyday

Listen

……

Sometimes I feel that I am being drawn forward. And other times I am just making my Way, doing what I do because that’s what I’m doing.

Presently I am going through a phase of the latter.

I am not sure that I ever construct meaning intentionally. I never purposely sit down and make meaning from things.

Rather, I might be perplexed, or feel out of sorts, even lost, at times.

Sometimes I do ponder things like dreams, and a meaning will show itself.

Other times I’m not thinking about anything. And meaning still shows itself…

Such is the case when I opened my WordPress reader 5 minutes ago.

The beginning of this post shows the titles of the first three posts that were in my Reader.

——>

Naysayers and reductionist psychological Science congregants may point to all the studies about how the mind will make meaning out of anything.

And yet, the conclusion of those kinds of studies never tell us how we are able to come to that conclusion, nor why that conclusion should be any less random than the meaning that the subject gained from a series of random images or words.

If a person has faith enough to set aside the psychological proof that a mind is just assembling random meanings into a string of meaning at all times, then I really have nothing to say to them philosophically, because they have not looked deep enough. They have only stopped where it suits them, as I say, for their faith. I have no criticism or argument to give them; for why would I critique or bombard someone’s faith?

Nonetheless, If I wish to take those psychological studies for what they’re really telling me, which is to say, where I do not hold back, I do not stop at my faith in what I already believe that I’m coming upon, then I might ask further:

What series of random events has coalesced in such a way to allow me to be presented to that particular arrangement of phrases or pictures that we are deciding is random?

Against what sense of truth are we deciding that any arrangement of pictures or phrases or words is random, such that the meaning that I am making (in that case) has no real basis? And is thus meaningless?

Basis Truth

I could go on.

What these kinds of questions tell us is that science is not giving us truth of the universe. Rather, what science is likely giving us is merely a reflection of our culture, of our ideology, of an ability of mind, and not the mind itself nor the universe that arises in truth.

I say this not to resort back to relativity or mirror (or mere) opinions, or subjective perception. I say this to point out that if we reject all those routes into reality, we must find that indeed reality did not disappear, but that there is a truth which can be known which does not reduce to real faith, as I say, To the religion of modern ideology.

Again and again as I said elsewhere, I’m not saying that faith and religion is inherently bad or that it needs correcting. I am merely suggesting that this is the way that consciousness functions. When a person comes upon the truth of how consciousness is indeed functioning, what is able to happen is that the way we participate in the real ideology changes.

It is then possible that it is not so much that we make meaning, but that meaning is what we are. And further, that what we are is not separated from the universe in which we arise to meaning. A reduction to individual brains is able to be come upon and is indeed able to derive necessary reason and rationales. However, An opening of that same system reveals that there is a truth beyond that kind of limited orientation upon things – but a truth that the orientation upon brain/mind religion implicitly rejects. The religion of the scientific mind rejects any knowledge that itself does not support. That is why it is a religion: Becuase there is other rational and knowable knowledge that does not adhere to its cosmological mandates.

Again: this is not to say that reality and knowledge about it is not real or does not function; rather, it is only to say that it is indeed real and refers to real things, but not true.

Reposting FREE E-BOOK: I AM, therefore I think

Here’s an opportunity to get a free E-book on the topic of Presuppositional Apologetics! This is an e-book by Daniel Akande of Pushing the Antithesis…

FREE E-BOOK: I AM, therefore I think

— For those philosophers who Read my blog who might also enjoy momentarily checking out another choir to sing to.

sometimes I feel that we should entertain discussions that don’t agree with our particular philosophical contexts.

I am not Christian; neither do I argue any point about the existence of God, but here is a post with a link to an e-book by an author who appears to discuss a philosophy about “I am” having to do with God and or being.

A nice occasion, this post also allows me an opportunity to promote A philosophical book that also ponders the biblical “I am”.

The Moment of Decisive Significance

A Theory of (counseling) Truth

Philosophically speaking, there is a line of sense which understands that there is no common arena to which a philosophy is entirely addressable.

Following along this line, we can begin to understand that philosophy itself, as a name of some thing that arises in the world to knowledge, it’s not always what it proposes itself to be addressing.

Counseling and Mental Health

There are two, and only two ways that knowledge can be understood in the context of counseling.

— There is “mental health” which is the effort to get you back in line (conventional-ideological)…

— there is “mental health” which is coming to terms with who and what you are in the world (existential-philosophical).

Every theory about psychology, mentality, the psyche, thinking, etc. necessarily falls into one of those two categories.

Now, this is not a thought exercise to help anyone towards mental health. It is a statement about the epistemological foundations of what we understand to be mental health.

Usually, especially on blogs, when we tag with “ mental health” we are not talking about counseling, we are giving the regular person, whoever that may be, a “tip“ about how to be “mentally healthy”.

As people may find in my blog, the very idea of mental health is a questionable proposition. For sure, there are better and worse ways to go about anything, whether it is digging a hole, climbing a mountain, or showing up in the world. I think this is what we generally mean when we propose mental health tips, or strategies to have better mental health, positive thinking, things like that. And it’s good, and we have to start somewhere.

Counseling is not necessarily about mental health. Psychotherapy again is usually understood to be a method towards gaining better mental health, but we have to think about what we’re actually doing, both as a counselor and perhaps as a client if they wish to go there. For, what we are really running circles around is validating experience.

The Institution of Trauma

Being a counselor that comes from the standpoint that all mental health issues arise as a response of some sort of basic trauma, The way trauma is relieved and worked with is not to tell the client who is going through trauma that they just “need to get it together”.

I think this is the issue that I Address around mental health and counseling and psychology in general on this blog.

In particular, it is the issue that arises when a person comes into a therapist to get help with their mental health issue, and then the therapist approaches the problem as if something is wrong with the client. This happens by method, which is to say, from the standpoint of psychiatry or psychology. The method states implicitly that anyone coming in with a mental health issue that they want to solve, is necessarily problematic themselves as it is assumed that something is wrong with the client.

Then there is the middle ground, sort of, an irony, of those therapists that work from a theoretical foundation that we need to understand, empathize, and not judge the client.

I am reminded of a client I was talking to, not my own client, but someone who had been to psychotherapy for many years— she brought it up:

There is the fucked up implication that something is wrong with you at the same time the therapist is telling you out of their mouth that you are OK and there’s nothing really wrong with you. It’s like a deception, this person said. And I might add that where this is the case it is an institutionalized or an ideological mechanism that arises as a residuum even often with even most best therapeutic intention. Therapy is supposed to be about being honest, but the method is often based in a foundation of dishonesty.

I suppose the work of this blog is an attempt to recognize this residue and try to work with it. Attempt to try and get rid of it somehow or at least acknowledge that it is there.

More later.

…and further commentary.

Last year, I published a review of Sbriglia and Žižek’s Subject Lessons anthology, a review that can be found HERE. Sbriglia’s response has just been…

Russell Sbriglia responds

Thanks Doctor Zamalek.

Here is my small comment.

Note: I have not read the book but I am buying it presently. 

My comment is strictly on the contents and links of this repost.

It appears that there is a division that is made by the comments of this book That contrasts authors and arguments in a way that on one hand, I understand, and thus engage with as a sort of philosophical endeavor, Yet on the other hand, reject.

As we will find in my work, which I undertake from a counselors philosophical perspective, and not a philosopher per se, I enact a partition which groups components of the universe in a manner whereby nothing is excluded. Which is to say, the only thing that is excluded is nothing, which is always a moot point in its essence.

If nothing is not a moot point, then we are no longer talking about nothing but we are either talking about the material which constitutes nothing, or we are talking about the object of nothing. Beyond those two categories there is no other way to truthfully grasp what we might be referring to when we use the word and thereby understand the word “nothing”.

But that is a the point that is addressed by method and not by confronting the point itself.

The Conventional Philosophical Method

There is material and there are objects. There are ideas and there is reality. And then there is truth. If we are to be honest with what is happening, nothing significant arises outside of these considerations. In the context of my work, this is to say that everything else that we might talk about is real. The conventional method concerns what is real in contrast to what is true.

The Question of Truth

The various proposals that arise through the subtle contours of phrased definition, are subsumed in a kind of assumed methodology. This methodology perpetually avoids itself as an object of critique. This is to say that what we understand as philosophy in a general way is never confronted; in fact, the method is so assumed as integral to knowledge of reality, every philosophical argumentative subtlety given under the auspices of academic and intellectual production is able to be located and described to a commonality, as evidenced by this paragraph.

Hence, that which is transcendent the philosophical proposal is inherently excluded from its own kind of analysis by virtue of the fact of its availability as knowledge.

Yet also, that which is transcendent is able to be appropriated by knowledge, but this time, in fact again, necessarily excluded from the previous epistemological iteration.

The total epistemological description of this constitutes what is true of knowledge itself, that is, despite that typical philosophical method that perpetually avoids its own contradiction and constructs ideological labels to battle against its failure.

Flat Ontology is an idea that arises in some contemporary realist philosophical circles.

These circles amount to an example of how what is true and what is real is regularly obfuscated in the course of the real conventional method.

By the description inherent the necessary presentation of such semantics reveals a true description of what is actually happening in the universe despite, as well as inclusive of, the real arguments.

Reposting Russell Sbriglia responds…

Last year, I published a review of Sbriglia and Žižek’s Subject Lessons anthology, a review that can be found HERE. Sbriglia’s response has just been…

Russell Sbriglia responds

Thanks Doctor Zamalek.

And, of course, my comment, but in the next post.