After studying philosophy and psychology by myself for a little less than a year. I’d like to share with you my views on life. If I were to gave …
—- I am sure i have a bumch to say about this, but Im at my lunch half-hour.
If we thought that human beings were wasteful and destroying our own planet as well of ourselves, we have to weigh this notion against the fact of what computers and digital technology has done for humanity: it is given us a license to be even more wasteful than we ever were.
When we consider that despite our ecological ethics and idealisms, the fact that human beings continually produce things under the name of progress that generate exponentially more waste and A corresponding attitude which compensates for that generational excess (call conventional philosophy) we might realize that the sensible conclusion is that we are not destroying anything nor ruining any and ecology at all, but just fulfilling our niche in the greater universe as we only are able to. Accordingly, we will never destroy ourselves, we will always endure and excel. That’s what human beings do. ￼￼￼￼￼
Consider intellectual generation itself. Personally, I do not think that we are thinking anything more than we ever have, and I don’t think we’re thinking better than we ever have as a species; however, the digital revolution has allowed us to believe through the sheer ability to produce text, that we are creating “More intelligent￼￼￼￼￼ce”, or whatever you would call it. The sheer vast and huge amount of textual production it’s a waste. That’s just a fact. It allows us to view the world as if we are thinking more, thinking better; having more ideas to contemplate is surely better, isn’t it? ￼￼ ￼
But in the brute fact, it is just a generation of things for the sake of generating things. Of course, we put them to use. But just think about how many computer processors we have to generate, how much more solar panels we have to generate, how much more fuel, how much more energy we have to generate in order to sustain all this text, all this “great thinking”, all the “personal expression￼”￼.
The simple fact is that human beings generate more and more waste every hour of the day, exponentially more than we did the day before. ￼
No judgement. Just an ask for an acceptance of reality. ￼
Header: Vincenzo Camuccini’s painting, The Death of Julius Caesar. The Taste for Objectivity If subjective taste is taste grounded in the immediacy …
Tuomo Alhojärvi, For Postcapitalist Studies: Inheriting Futures of Space and Economy – Nordia, March 2021 The worldwide social and ecological …
— Comments on the long abstract.
I always find myself pondering: what project is implied in the overt rendering of content purpose ?
Less about what is encoded or what is covert: What is being said that is supposed not needing to be said is the true issue with many academic events.
The jist I get from the abstract is that we are not going anywhere despite ideals which see history as a series of progressive notices.
My view is two fold:
1) there will always be people who see progress and who will thus assert the sense of an objective history to prove the point even to the effect of violence — so solute and yet unsubstantial their view is. The record media confirms the sense of progress to these and thus catalyzes theorists who then tow the line of the progressive cosmology to create, develop and implement what is effectively propaganda, or for another era, religious cosmology.
2) the greater ability to record eventive media will allow a minority who receive data and information from what is given to begin to notice that ideological states do not “progress” from one another or otherwise represent a move forward and better than the previous. States merely arise with “sensibility” only being gained of state relations in hindsight, and this notice could allow the governance of human beings to proceed along a different kind of rule.
The two arising in what is generally understood as a common linguistic bucket arena thus become confused with one another to thus allow for the real ideological default to lean toward the historical progressivism…x
Edmund Husserl’s theory of phenomenology proposes that belief posits the reality of its object. Through this assertion, he announced something …
— This is put together so well, I had to repost it.
Intension never finds, and individuation is never found:
The Master Signifier?
The Process of Awareness.
Throw away the ladder and stop talking about it or mention or refer to it only briefly.
It is a residuum, a left-over.
Start with what makes sense and begin to Think.
Philosophy begins here.
Reclaim your soul.
And…still finding support for the proposal:
The irony that never is resolved in the onto-taxonomy proposal itself, is how the content of the argument against an onto-taxonomy is withheld from its own semantic meaning?
I think this is the basic question Harman never deals with. Apparently, humans have a special ability to “withdraw from view”, just as every object has that same ability, but this ability is also exempted or withheld in the intellectual papers which propose the ideal or proposal. How does meaning itself occur precisely and yet withdraw?
In other words, the meaning of the proposal of OOO, namely, that objects withdraw from view, among the extended proposal, is supposed to not withdraw, but rather is proposed in its presentation to be fully present for the purposes of making its point.
It is this situation to which I refer The Two Routes. It concerns the material of the substance of Object Orientation more than its substance itself.
If indeed Triple-O is sound, that is true, then it answers to the two routes.
If it is merely another philosophical proposal, of idealistic argumentative dimentions, then it fails for what it means.
Well, look it up. It is an idealism in new discursive clothes.
More of the modern same.