“It’s the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine”*…

The Centre for Applied Eschatology makes its point in a powerfully– and painfully- ironic way: “Bringing an end – to everyone, everywhere!”
(Plus- “…

“It’s the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine”*…

——That is just about the coolest project I’ve ever heard of!

Because it admits some thing that I just talked about in my post, like, three posts ago: namely, that what we are dealing with is not what we think it is. What the human being is, what the world is, our knowledge about it based in unrecognized For unacknowledged emotional connection to thoughts, Is more than the content that that synthesis is deriving for knowledge.

Indeed the con tent has use, but this use should not properly be extrapolated out to mean that there is any future that we are causing to come to pass necessarily.

Hence, if we accelerate, or condense that “emotion-thought” Correlation, if we bring about the “end” and all possible ends that the reason creates out of that somatic conflation, out of that brain-mind synthesis, then perhaps we might sooner come upon what we are actually involved with as a human being in the world.

Brilliant. 😆. Absolutely Love.

Even know that Centre is not really aligning with the inevitable outcomes of this present philosophy, It does say something about what will come out of such investigation. Because that Centre will really find that none of those things that it catastrophizes about ever comes about, or, it will only come out in a way partial enough that the solution for bringing about that and will not actually bring about an end. But in that effort to bring about an end in every possible way, to conceptualize and think into what it means to end everything that exists, and then to work toward it as a solution — well, that is just plain brilliance in every sort of irony we could think of .


Socialism, Dictatorship, Democracy, Communism


Maybe the political scientists can help us out in this area.

But in reading this story today, some thoughts came up.

In speaking with friends and coworkers and acquaintances, the word “socialism” seems to me just like a buzz word that has no real substance when it comes to what I see as actually occurring.

And with reference to the linked article, it seems that the idea of “dictator ship” has no necessary relation to any political system in the polemical scheme between socialism and democracy. It seems to me that either one of those polemical political situations could lead to a dictator ship. And by that it seems to me that a dictatorship is more of an opportunistic Disease then it is A form of government or governing in the same category as socialism or democracy.

It seems to me that these traditional categories which supposedly define and label systems of government really are more fluid than our traditional definitions would account for.

It seems more that people are drawing upon a traditional base of people, albeit hypothetical constituency of people, that associate themselves with words and definitions that have little basis in the actuality of our current situation.

I wonder if that is really the crisis of the present that we are within right now. Less “post truth”, and more that we are realizing what the human being actually does in history, in so far as we are not exempt from history regardless of any argument we want to make about synchronic Or diachronic situations.

It appears to be more that we have an opportunity to see what it is that human beings actually do. And this opportunity arises due to the saturation of an ability to record events, thoughts, situation’s, etc., due to our ability to have a record that becomes undeniable in its actual substance.

The argumentative positions only means some thing within a certain context, and I believe that we are seeing that this context does not fall into a ubiquitous multiplicity of use, but that the multiplicity of use is one context in which we are able to know things.

I think we are in transition paradigms. Not so much to where everything just falls apart into an atomization where we can’t know anything that is true or that everything is relative, rather, that such relativity indicates one particular orientation or one particular way to understand what is going on. This thing does not argue it away or say that it is invalid or that there’s something more true to be said about the situation, rather, it just says that such the situation needs to be accepted for what it is. And that there’s something to be said, something further to be known about the human being as well as the universe.


The Nature of Relationship

Recently I was come upon the difficulty in communicating to someone a concept that is foreign to their sense of sensibility. 

And I am throwing a term out there just because I can’t really think of another way to put into words this strange phenomenon. 

The implication is that people have an ability to make sense, meaning that there are different manners by which people are able to make sense out of things. I suppose this is also to indicate that there is no common “sense” That moves across a common human creature. That whatever sense that I think that I might be communicating to someone, often enough, it is not being communicated.

 I mean by this that no matter how thoroughly I describe a particular instance, which is to say, that instance which has a sense that cannot make sense to this other person because of their ability to make sense — this particular instance  flies in the face of the conventional wisdom that would say that communication is always taking place, that it’s just whether or not we like what is being communicated.

I disagree with that sentiment because I’ve had many instances where I am attempting to communicate something that is very clear to me, something very obvious, yet in discussing with someone or trying to describe to them that very particular and simple item that makes sense to me, which has sense, it becomes apparent to me time and time again and as our discussion continues, that they are not comprehending in the slightest this simple item which has such obvious sense to me.

Sure, we could say that I am communicating Something through this failure, but then I’m not sure that either one of us would be able to tell anyone else what the contents of this failure was, and so I must say in all truth that here is an instance where it doesn’t matter what each of us “likes” about what is being communicated, but that rather what is more true of the situation is that no communication was taking place at all.

So it is when we begin to speak of relationship. Or, more precisely, When I speak of how my relationship with a human being is not dissimilar qua relationship that I might have with a tree. All I have to do is say that simple sentence and automatically we have a failure of communication right off the bat. For, whatever rebuttal might go in to contesting the sense of that statement is simply not comprehending what I’m saying.

And so I would figure that I should have to explain myself. For, what has happened right then is an assumption that there might be communication, but the plain and simple fact is The reason that I would have to explain is that communication has failed, and I am attempting to overcome this failure.

Here is an example of the relationship that I’m talking about then. For indeed it is not so much the relationship that I’m having with the human being, but indeed the relationship that I’m having with failure that is compelling me into a certain emotional response which requires me to intellectualize the problem in an effort to deny the failure. Here the relationship that I’m having with failure is offense.  It is not the relationship with the other person that is failing. For indeed we are communicating something just in the fact that I would make a statement in the presence of this other person, whether it is via text or via vocalization. There is a relationship and communication taking place regardless of the statement I make.l, yes. But I would argue to isolate that which has sense, or that which is significant to the relationship must be isolated in this particular sense of what communication is, is a non-Sequitur, or at least just plain selective viewing.

So here is a case in point of the truth of the statement that I made which was not communicated by virtue of the compulsion to give a rebuttal to it that it is not the case.


When we begin to understand that discourse does not necessarily draw from ideology, but indeed ideology may stem from the subject, as opposed to encompass or manifest as impetus or catalyst the subject, Then it is possible to see that indeed the significant relationships that I’m having with people are actually informed by a multiplicity of invisible or denied relationships that I am having around them, which contribute In a more substantial sense then the ideal which I usually carry into my sense of relationship, to my ability to have a relationship with them.

It is to this situation that Michel Foucault Refers knowledge-power , albeit for his moment yet now as a truncated form. Given that the gaze he speaks so much about is indeed the only way that he was able to view relationships; Which is to say, for his moment.

To use his term though, it is a particular gaze which sees human relationships as different and more significant than any other relationship we may have with things. Even as he brings in relations with things (qualities).

YVet, I might counter that I have different relationships with different human beings all the time and somehow I generalize them all to say they are different types of human relationships. Yet the relationship I’m having with this human being who is reading my post right now is there in such a different quality than the relationship I’m having with my wife, that one might take a moment and question how it is possible that I hold these two types of relationships under one category to say that they are more Similar in kind then the relationship that I would have with this lady bug that’s crawling on my flowers outside of my house.  

When we look at the quality of relationships in general, the way we divide up and categorize the importance of various relationships seems nearly as arbitrary as the words I would use to describe any object. I am not sure why the intimacy that I have with my favorite pillow is any different than the intimacy that I have with my trusted coworker.

I may have some ideas around it though, yes; but I can’t be sure just what the difference is. And then I would have to ask myself why and how am I relating significance and importance to various ideas over others.


“what is all this talk about relationships getting at?” You might be asking by now.

Really it stems out of my interactions with counseling, but it reaches into the very significance of philosophy; namely, object oriented ontology.

I am not arguing that an object oriented ontology is more true than any other orientation upon what might be true of being, though. Yet through my encounters with other people and trying to help them I notice more and more that what I figure is so obvious to me and should be obvious to this other human being is not only not obvious to them, but completely off the board of their ability to conceptualize.

This is so much the case that even people with very aggravated mental health problems would rather argue for the surety of their problems and how no one can help them including themselves, rather than be able to open their ideas to a sense of things that might be able to help them.

And I wonder if this is similar to philosophy itself. So rooted and entrenched in fixed ideas, including the fixed idea that thinking and rationality can solve our problems, that many philosophies fail to address the very fact of real matters and how such limited idealisms of the intellect might move to maintain and substantiate a problematic world.

I may not be done with this post yet, check back in a little bit. 

The Crisis of the Present

The Renegotiation of the subject has to do with an ethical reckoning around what it is to be human.

In this frame, we must notice that the modern human is and has always been involved in a negotiation of knowledge founded with a fear of the future with reference to the security in the past.

It is no different now. Always there is a kind of human being which is anchored in the past-present against which terrible things of the present-future will ruin. And in every case, the present is an imminent crisis of an attempt to remain in the past-present. And the crisis always orbits around a technology already referenced and catalogued to this crisis.

This video expresses nothing less that this factor of being a modern human being.

The “End of History” and the Renegotiation of the Subject.

With the deafening thunder of Napoleon’s canons filling the air at Jena, the romantic story goes that a middle-aged university professor and …

Kojève, Herder, and the “End of History”

—– I have not reas Kojeve or Herder, so the following goes off of only
Heaiods essay.

What we are seeing, what we are involve with, is the realization of what the human being is. The end of history as either a “happy” or “united” end is less the significant point than it marks or identifies a oarticular Kind of human being, one that sees itself in the context of either a “whole” of creatures that we call human, or one that understands that “human” defines a particular subset of this whole as to what is included and excluded in this “people” group.

Yes. The end of history may be about consumerism, but only in so much as there is an ideal effort which sees the whole through the exclusion. That is, “the whole” is allowed to be consumers, but it is only really about those who are indeed able to participate as this implied consumer. It is really only the people who do indeed prosper who are included in this ‘whole’. The rest are, by linguistic default, ‘not people’, they are something else that is excluded by the category itself, similar to trash that we deny by our consumerism. Think of recycling.

This secret ideological “ol’ in out, in out, know what I mean, know wheat I mean” motion of language is generally invisible to those people who are invested in the ‘truth’ of the linguistic category (think capitalism). The use of the idioms contained in every expression work to hide the ‘actual’ discursive functioning and reference which supports and justifies the user (subjectivity). Yet, it is not “those people” as much as it is indeed, ironically, all people who are included.

Hence, what we are really seeing now, what we are involve with, is the transition between ethical paradigms in how we deal with the whole through the part, and not so much how we include everyone or what that means. It is the investment of language “of the whole” which understands a modern perpetual ‘end’ in the various ways that we have seen argued over the past 200 years. We are seeing a renegotiation of the subject.

For, the more thoroughly we are invested in the topical use of language, the more we speak to ideology and its power to orient and fixate the subject in the world. Therefore, it is not so much “the content” of discourse that is significant to philosophy, as much as the significance lay and how we are oriented upon discourse and what it does. And this is to say that where the subject is not centered by ideology, but only uses ideology for its own subjective teleology, there we find the subject in a relationship of integrity with itself, for then it takes responsibility for the ideology which comes about through its own purpose. 

It is only there that we stumble upon the irony which traverse is the modern use of language to thereby be able to enact ones world consistently with ones form, for now we see that the very term that we understand as agency, the very power and force through which ideology subjects human beings, is just another enforcer of ideological placement by which the individual faces the paradox of choice.

For ultimately there is no choice to be made at every point, but only one choice which begins at every moment we use language.  Yet less how will we use language, and more what is informing that use.


The Unbareable Tightness of Modern Being

We can hardly bare it. Being modern is that state of Being not allowed to reveal anything and unable to hold the stance. This is true in just being human but is continually upheld in our philosophies of Being.


And the results are, for experience, unbearable. We simply can’t handle it. So, we try to either ignore it or overcome it. Again, either through psychological devices. Or philosophical ones. Amd the result, as we see, is addiction and irresolvable arguments –> cause for war.

Somehow the answer is right there but we keep missing it through these modern conventional ways.

The “nothingness” or “bare ness” is an indication of what is incorrect. The result shows that the way we came should have come to an end. And yet we continue on the same way.

That which is laid bare is ignored. Or denied in the manner we keep addressing it. Every modern immanation (enlightenment, modern, discursive, post modern, human, non-human, anthropocenic , trans-human, etc). Is a mechanism built for the implicit purpose of keeping everything the the same as it ever was. And yet, everything is always changing.

Something is off there. Hence, what we keep doing is not the issue. The various discursive formations are not revealing anything new. They are themselves the same occurring, at that, under new terms. The new terms don’t tell us anything new, rather, they reflect the same as if it it not the same. That is the contradiction and irony of Being Modern.

So: it is an opportunity to view what we do.

If we can be honest and accepting and open.

…which the modern human is usually not. We want to stay wound up all tight and selfish and angry, avoiding every accusation and asserting our righteousness. It is the root of our ideology to convince us this “unbareable” Being is the way we are supposed to be naturally.