CBD is OK but THC is not ?? The Olympic Issue and a new notion of Radical Sports

For the first time in the Olympics 125-year modern history, elite athletes including Megan Rapinoe are being open about their use of cannabis products to prepare them for the world’s biggest stage in sports.
— Read on www.forbes.com/sites/ajherrington/2021/07/21/cannabis-takes-the-world-stage-at-the-tokyo-olympics/

—–  my opinion Of ejecting athletes because they test positive for marijuana while others involved can openly tout CBT as helpful to athletes: ridiculous. 

But then, I also have a very radical idea about substances and sports.

I think that the very idea of sports is shaded with an idea that there is A pure human being, a “natural” human being, and Sports Is really always supposed to be testing these “natural human beings” against each other.

OK. That’s cool. I like that.

However, I also realize that there is no such thing as a “natural human being”, and that what we are considering and what we “naturally” think is a natural human being is really just an ideal. I’m fairly positive that everyone who does sports is doing all sorts of nutritional supplements that are considered natural to the human body.

I would have to ask if alcohol is natural to the human body. Then I would also have to ask that the timeframe that it takes for a substance to be undetectable in the human body – does that not then count as a unnatural, or a performance-enhancing drug?

The specificities and vagueness that the science of sports medicine relies upon is just too vast and argumentative to go into here. I’m just throwing around some questions.

Radical sports

My radical, and some might say ridiculous, idea is that we allow people to do whatever they want to do to enhance their performance in sports competition.

I say that we keep the current sports paradigm that we have as All Natural. We keep all the debates, we keep all the sports medicine, we keep all the tests, and we keep the appreciation of a sort of pure competition of human beings that are not using performance-enhancing substances, However vague and arbitrarily defined that category may be. let’s just continue to have sports that follows those ideals.

Then also let’s have another sports area where people can do whatever the hell they want to do to enhance their performance. Allow for legal stipulations for these athletes. A contract of sorts that protects people who develop performance-enhancing drugs or technology from liability. These athletes consent to an understanding that what they might be involved with is dangerous to others and to themselves. The athlete takes full responsibility for whatever injuries may occur to their own body or in interaction with other bodies that are involved with the same thing.

I think it would be incredibly cool to see a bunch of football players that are all using the latest technology and performance Enhancing drugs.

And by the way, I’m not using any irony here. I really do think this is a cool idea.

Runners. Hockey players. Bike riders. Weightlifters.

Think about the world records that would be broken for human ability.


Think about how the bodies would be built up to new strengths and dynamics.

And then also think about all the bodies that would be broken. Why not?

Think about how the very idea of ethics would be challenged and shaped in a new ways, perhaps to make the human species even stronger and what we understand it is to be human.


Think of people having heart attack right after they ran a mile in 2 1/2 minutes.

Think about hockey players  and football players who literally crush one another. Literally begin to physically damage other peoples bodies and their own. or maybe not. And people would be watching this live.

I’m not saying that I would enjoy it, but I bet people would enjoy it, and I would surely be interested in hearing about the wild and crazy stuff that would be happening in sports around the “sky’s the limit” use of technology and substances.


Im sure they will be all sorts of outcry about how it’s not civilized and that would be returning to gladiator games and whatever.

Well get into all sorts of conversation about ethics and morality and civilization.

I’m fairly certain that human beings like to think ethically. And they they like to impose their ethics across everyone else’s experience.

Sad really. good yes. But also really sad.

Tommy Curry sheds light into a significant blind spot


How often does our morality paint a broad swathe over people as general categories ? And how often does this stroke fix into institutional norms which then reify and enforce social bias?

Tommy Curry ventures into where the many fear to tread.



I can’t wait to get my bionic arm, legs and my bionic eye !

It is interesting in this post of this breakthrough that the statements, at least from this article, the communication that they get from the person is just about as rudimentary as the beginning of writing itself, it seems.

They weren’t able to glean from his brain, for example, the contemplation of existence is emotional ambivalence. They glean from his brain the most basic and rudimentary communication there is for humans. When you think about writing itself, they weren’t busting out Democraten profundities about the nature of the universe. On the contrary, they were saying I have five oxen over here and 3 bushels of rye. 

Got to start somewhere.

And what an amazing blessing that this science offers to those a couple generations out.

Still, I am just glad that I will be way far gone by the time this stuff takes off.

Christian Apologetics and Predication


I enjoyed this essay of Christian apologetics. It makes a good point as to predication. In short, what he means by predication is that which enjoins reason to reality.  He is making the argument that one either predicates this end situation upon man himself or God.

Aside from the strictly Christian terms, I think this is really the case at hand. However, the issue that I have with this Christian apologetic is in using no different means than that of any other argument. I disagree with his sentiment and his strict argument. The reason why it falls into the category of Christian apologetics is because ultimately he is making the argument that all predication has to be founded in God and not in human beings.

My point is that I could just as easily make an argument why it should be founded in human beings themselves.

So really we’ve just come to a stalemate. Because, what we are really dealing with here is the power of argument to convince or persuade, and then ultimately a decision upon what one wants to believe. In short the Christian apologetics really come down to whether or not one believes in God as the end of predication, or whether one believes that human beings are.

Decision and Denial

The significant feature of predication should be understood as involved with the intention through which the content of discourses manifest.

I will go out on a limb here To say that the issue of predication necessarily reduces to two Possibilities. The issue around significance has to do not only with what we are predicating the idea of reason and reality upon, but indeed upon the predication by which we come to the conclusion that it must be of man or God. 

For The significance of which I speak Is that such a choice is already predicated upon man. And this is to say that “Man or a God” is predicated upon reason, and that’s what we are really asking into philosophically but also apologetically with reference to religion: from where does reason find itself.

Reason is left exempt from the problem because it is assumed.

It is the predicate upon which not only the posing of the question but the possibility of choices to answer the question reside. Reason itself is never in question; rather, it assumes that reason is a ‘one thing’ that itself addresses, but as well, that which is left out if the debate.

Reason must be established either through Mans ability or through God. In other words, the question itself is redundant. In short it merely says that reason posits choice, that ultimately we only have two choices — and you better make the right one!

God and Truth

I am going to go out on another limb here. I’m going to assume that what is intended in the argument for predication upon God, is in actuality something which is “not God”. What I mean by this is that ultimately if I say or argue that the end of predication is God, I have asked another question implicitly about the end of predication that is God. In other words, what is God predicated upon?

So my answer must be that there is no difference between the Christian apologist and what I call the conventional Philosopher. Both are ultimately assuming that reason can find itself as a predicate, and this is exactly Kant’s idealism, exactly his point of the synthetical a priori.

In a very Lyotardian manner, The terms that we are using to set up reasonable arguments to find some ultimate end of predication, to come to some sort of conclusion about reality and about our existence, this particular manner that supposes to reduce to something that falls out of predication or somehow find some term that identifies that which is not predicated, which is to say, not defined, is ultimately a contradiction in terms.


The question of orientation upon things thus falls to our orientation upon the terms themselves, that is, The truth that is supposed to be indicated by the terms that is never found in the content of definition nor the intension inherent the argument.

Yet where philosophy or Christian apologetics find this rhetoric to be indicating nothing, (Reason or God) thereby have we found a particular orientation upon things. It is not that we have found something absolutely positive against a defined negativity, a defined absence. Rather, it is that we have found where one particular method of organizing, discussing, and presenting Reality has failed…

…yet where reason yet endures and persists, albeit in truth. Truth thus can be spoken about, defined, delineated and yet not be required to answer to conventional philosophies reliance upon a singular definitional Foundation for everything that can exist rationally, which is to say, that singular epistemological universe where we have a choice upon what we want to believe. 


The Moment of Decisive Significance: Enlightenment and the Christ Moment

The moment of enlightenment is only initially an awareness of being. After that moment it is an awareness of how so few are aware. The real issue of enlightenment has to do with what comes after.

When we understand Christ in its proper scope, we see that ‘enlightenment’ is the attempt by the individual to uphold and maintain It as a prolonged state of being. The way it is maintained Is through the justification of the offense.

The Christ moment, and the ideal of enlightenment, is a moment of being conscious that when come upon represents a moment of decisive significance.

In this moment, the awesomeness and apprehensive feeling of dread might bring the individual to fall back into its history to thereby join and retain the consistency of what they know and knew to that state of fear and trembling. The coupling of the Christ moment with the fall back (revolt) into the fear of the awesomeness of the tremendous mystery that is come upon in that moment, yields righteousness, what some could call “ego inflation”. Enlightenment is the form of consciousness understanding itself and its view as something that everyone else is supposed to likewise know.

On The other hand, when the Christ moment, it’s awesomeness and the accompanying state of fear and trembling, is come upon in curiosity, then the motion is one of compassion instead of righteousness. For the self, it continues the motion of curiosity and acceptance, but this self is not the primary aim. The motion is into otherness. Difference.

For, instead of understanding how intellectually or ethically wrong and spiritually poor everyone is around, such that they need to be educated into the righteousness of proper knowledge, The Christ moment fades into just one moment in the potential of human consciousness. Enlightenment disappears as some thing that was never to be found. The meaning of awareness changes.

The awareness that remains is not enlightened awareness, neither is it Christ being; rather it is a true human compassion for those people Who have come upon and yet not followed through such a moment.

It is a true understanding of what it is to be human.

Read The Moment of Decisive Significance: A Heresy

…and much more affordable paperback!.

An object oriented journey through the Gospels.

The Same as Modern

“Faith informs everything,” said Cedric.

“You can tell when people are losing their faith, because the news becomes more scary and vicious, reporting on more and more terrible things, tightening the fears that are otherwise nonexistent. They know that the fear will put the congregation back in order.”

Liza’s eyes turned down and to the side.

“It’s the same that it always has been. Modern people just think that they’re better than the people who existed in the rest of history. But it’s the same.”

Seeing Empty And Full, and some Jung

The Uses of Not Thirty spokes meet In the hub. Where the wheel isn’t Is where it’s useful. Hollowed out, clay makes a pot. Where the pot’s not is …

Empty And Full

— I love those little poems. They are so filled with meaning. One could even more say:

we structure our thoughts with words, but where are the words are not, there is what is useful.

Or perhaps something in a way even more profound:

psychology provides a structure of explanation about what is going on in mental health,

but where is psychology is not, there is what is useful.


Much of my thoughts about psychology, as a career science are generally not very supportive of it. Sadly, I feel that the effective purpose of psychology is to exult status, and not to actually help people. Psychology leaves a sour taste in ones mouth, whenever I think about psychological theories and testing and outcomes and conclusions. When we really look and see what is actually occurring, The psychological proposals that are supposed to help people be mentally healthy tend to appear to be talking about a select few people who want to organize themselves around being mentally healthy. Everyone else, which is the other 88% is left in a gray area where psychology is supposed to mean something to them, that they’re supposed to feel better, but really all that’s happening is they are taking meds and then hoping that The therapy in interventions based on statistical outcomes is making them better than they were two weeks ago or whatever. It’s like a kind of hypnotism or suggestion; psychology the name just has such a force that people having mental health issues, if they are being treated psychologically, then they are sort of “hopefully convinced” well enough that psychology is indeed going to help them, that perhaps they most likely just hope them selves by pretending that they’re doing better. If we ask them more questions, then they will believe we know something useful to help them, kind of approach. The opposite of the notion that was is “not” is actually what is most useful.


Psychology in the large general sense is helpful to many people., so I’ll stop that General complaint right there. For like most things, the name ‘psychology’ is used for such a vast assortment of practices and philosophies and determinations for meaning that it almost doesn’t mean anything at all, but that I tend to pick those pieces that are psychological which appear to be at least infused with I want for goodness, and I’ll leave it at that.

Out of compassion, I recognize that most people are stuck in the middle, and so to engage with a philosophical discussion about the merits of what psychology is supposed to deal with, doesn’t really help those people. It just makes them more worried.


Id Never really read Carl Jung, which is to say, I’ve never really known about his history very much except in a general sense, and I tend to have only heard about and base my opinions upon just general kind of “spiritual” notions that he tends to be involved with, The “fad” Jungian stuff, and my impression of him has always been slightly worried. I worry that people see what he is saying is so profound.

I’ll try to clarify.

Now that I’ve delved a little bit further into actually the person who he was, and the actual development of his psychological theories, I am confirmed in my concern.

Psychology is not really a science in the sense that we currently understand science, which is to say the “hard” sciences; it is, as a colleague of mine said, a “very soft” science. And in fact, his (a counselor and a registered nurse in the mental health field for over 25 years) opinion was that it is hugely biased and it’s approaches to finding things out, and the people who are psychologists are often extremely pompous and defensive about their practice and Philosophy.

Now, this is just in America. I get the feeling from a European friend-colleague that psychology is very deep over there and taken very seriously as a very profound and substantial body of knowledge. It is in America also, but I tend to think Americans tend to be rebels, and, I am as well just naturally resistant. But I try to keep an open mind.


Anyways. Jung.

He definitely develops an intensionally closed system of spirituality. It can’t really be denied once you understand from where the more “spiritual” ideas of Jung in psychology stem. He did not really break from Freud in a radical way, he broke from Freud in that they were generally developing two different systems about how the psyche operates and what it is. By this, I mean to say that they weren’t really considering what is really going on; what was radical about his break it’s ultimately just that they differed on their theoretical opinions. There was nothing really radical about the break except if you consider what was happening in the first part of the 20th century so far as the way that human beings and scientists were able to understand the human being and the universe. They were considering empirical evidence and coming up with theories to explain the empirical given.

I think that is the short tiny short version of what is been confirmed to me through investigating Jung. From this investigation I get the feeling that what people get from Jung usually is really not what he was trying to give. or, indeed what he was trying to give is contrary to what actually occurs. This is to say, in so much as he offers us a closed system, people use that closed system through which to offer a kind of “open psyche” involved with the universe.

This is just a blog post so I’m not going to go into all the various aspects of proof, because it wouldn’t work anyways. Suffice it to say that his assumption was upon an essential difference between the human being and the universe, that this assumption goes by the name “empirical”, and that Jungian psychology is a description of how the psyche functions in so much as the psyche is located and is developed through the physical brain and perhaps general biological human system. If he is understood to have moved out of this closed domain, it is merely because the system that he created posits such transcendence.

His is a perfect spirituality of modernity.

Now, I’m not suggesting that he doesn’t have good things to say or that he did not come up on things that were actually occurring, neither am I saying that some of his extrapolations of explanation are not applicable to what is actually occurring.

However, I am saying that the systems of modernity are inherently partial to subjectivity. This is not because subjectivity accounts for everything that is possible, rather, it is because in the partiality of subjectivity lay the problems and motions that Jung describes. Empiricism is the systemic subjective proposal of objectivity. It stems from and is based in the primacy of the subject given of the universe.

My point is, I suppose, that individuation, the process that the subject is involved with, is in itself, in the end, something that is not modern. It appears Jung did not recognize this, and hence the confirmation of my concern.

The process of individuation is the object of the psychology of the subject.c

Positivist Culture


Perhaps some people may not entirely understand the back lash against Santorum’s statement that “there isn’t much Native Culture in modern American culture”.

There is plenty of Native culture in American culture, but Santorum is talking about

(1) popular material culture, where we literally do not see very much representation of Native art in pop media, cities, etc.. which is true.

(2) his positivist naive view on culture which explains current manifestations of institutions, events, activities as a result of European (read: white) ingenuity, intelligence and fortitude, etc…

This latter is false because it ignores and eliminates the actual material conditions upon which such positivist notions gain their substance. It is a “never mind that man behind the curtain” view of America. It is a view which supposes itself arising and occurring in a vacuum that is itself.


Ideals of Positivist Mental Health likewise suffer from the same kind of myopia.

As well, what I term conventional philosophy.

Later on those last two.x

Cure and mental illness: of ‘cure’ in mental health

In the past years, political theorists, philosophers and historians have increasingly studied changing mental health diagnosis and placed them in the…

Cure and mental illness. A short reflection on the conceptual analysis of the neoliberal characterisation of ‘cure’ in mental health

— Nice.

I had never really thought about how political labels might be involved with mental health and its labeling. Does that mean I am a Neo liberal?

From reading his short essay, it makes me think about imposed categories. It looks like he is saying that a conservative is someone who defines themselves and figures that everyone else should define themselves, and that it is only natural to label oneself and to fit into categories. Whereas a Neo liberal is someone who is defined, who resists definition. It is as though this author is saying that a conservative understand the human of being as involved with a natural rights to define things, and this definition, this act of defining is what makes one human, but it also reflects the actual truth of the universe.

Then, by contrast, the Neo liberal understands the human being as that which is not defined, and problematizes any universe which is defined, locating the human being and it’s essential activity, namely freedom, as the natural activity which arises outside of being defined.

I feel like this precipitate of what the author is saying mirrors what he has described as relationships with the market economy.

Also, this points to the inherent irony involved in neoliberalism, whereas conservatism would find irony merely in particular situation, as defined, rather than irony as an essential part of the human being existing in the universe at all times. The irony being in this case that the differences in political situation is that one defined itself essentially, that the essence of being human is to define and to be defined — there is no irony in this position– while the other find irony everywhere in the fact that it is being defined and having to use terms which itself does not admit it is a part of, or only vicariously a part of.

Wow. So much going on there.

It is interesting that the author notes someone else who says that neoliberalism poses to be defined by acts rather than by definition, but then the author goes on to use that definition to make their arguments, as if by fiat arising ironically within an irony that it wishes to set aside. Similarly my comment as well.


As to a “cure” for mental health. I am not sure that I am a Neo liberal list, but that probably makes me a Neoliberal by default.

I think our new paradigm of mental health doesn’t really make distinctions between being mentally ill and being mentally healthy categorically. Rather, referring to an earlier post of mine and a paper that I am developing, The general ideal of mental health is conservative, and this conservatism sees the human arising naturally in a set of definitions that are universal, that arise naturally in the universe because that is the nature of being human in the universe, along with everything else. It thus sees and promotes as natural everything along a smooth scale of determination; that there is this human being who owns or has a psyche located in the brain, and this brain can manifest itself as a conscious agent in the world along the continuum of mental illness all the way to mentally healthy.

On the other hand, and this is more my view, for an example of the opposite, there is no good faith comparison between someone who is psychotic in general, what we could associate with the spectrum of psychosis (namely schizophrenia, bipolar one, schizoaffective are the names that we put along the spectrum) and someone who is anxious because they think they’re going to be fired from their job.

I feel that society as a general motion tends to lump together psychology, psychotherapy, mental illness, and mental health, into a continuum that is assumed while still working out the actuality of its parameters and distinctions.

I feel that is a weak and, actually, bad way of doing science (which is really what the whole history of psychology is based upon). 

I am not so sure that there is a smooth rule which extends through the human being and it’s arising in the world to place them on a continuum of mentally ill or mentally healthy. For someone that suffers from depression, say, the idea that they are mentally ill, To my mind, is saying something different than to say that someone who suffers from schizophrenia is mentally ill.

Recently, I watched a portion of this movie that a friend offered me called “Zietgiest: moving forward” (you can watch it free on YouTube). The first hour of the movie is basically a very compelling argument how the idea of a foundational cause called genetics, or biology, which is responsible for mental health or mental someone’s mental well-being is not correct an accurate way of portraying what is actually occurring in these situations. 

However, because I do see that certain types of psychosis, the kind of psychosis that lie on the more acute side and chronic side of affect and form, are indeed measurable to a physical diversion from what is “normal” brain appearance, as being “curable” in potential, which is to say that we can give people medication and they definitely stop being as acute, similarly to disease of diabetes, say. 

Yet, in the context of mental health, although we like to think that schizophrenia, psychosis and depression exist along a continuum of mental illness and mental health, the disease of depression does not respond in the same way as psychosis or schizophrenia does to approaching it from this medical model standpoint of curing a disease.

Indeed, we could talk about “curing” depression, but the way that we are going about it is based on a completely different set of protocols and notions then those used to address the disease of acute chronic psychosis.

Because of this actual distinction, because this is what is actually occurring despite what anyone would argue (for sure, though people will continue to argue that medication’s for depression are curing depression, the statistics that would back up that assertion are utterly miserable, while the statistics which go to say that certain medication’s can cure acute chronic psychosis, are much much better) I am not sure that using the word “cure” in all mental health contexts, as if to apply mental health to this assumed general standard, without actually looking at what the standard even is, is an irresponsible way of treating mental health.

There is a further issue that I have with the idea of “cure” as well as the idea of “mental health”, But that is outside of the topic of de Cock’s essay.x

Reflecting Upon Into

In a couple days, it will be two years since my daughter passed on to a new adventure.

Tonite, I just happened to start playing guitar and Pink Floyd’s Wish You Were Here came out. I did not really think about what I was playing until I was playing it, and the last time that song even came to my mind, let alone the last time I played it on guitar, was probably at least 10 years ago. X

I find these kinds of coincidences and ‘thoughtless-motions’ significant sometimes. Like tonite. In this instance, it reflects into my life, my experience, but also my philosophical work. Perhaps some of you readers will catch the last part more than others.

Then after I sang the song, I actually thought about the lyrics in a whole new way. I would like to share this new meaning with you. Maybe my daughter will live on a little bit in this world by you participating in this automatic memory motion with me.

I invite you to be here with me.


The song is an indictment. The singer is accusing someone of claiming to understand something they really have no clue about.

With some of my slight artistic license involved (but the spirit is the same, I think), it reads:

So, you think you can tell heaven from hell?

blue skys from rain?

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?

a smile from a veil?

You really think you can tell?


Did they get you to trade your heroes for ghosts?

Hard ashes for trees?

Hot air for a cool breeze?

Cold comfort for change?

Did you exchange the walk on part of the world

for a lean cot in a cage?


How I wish you were here.

We’re just two lost souls swimming in a fish bowl year after year.

Running over the same old ground, and

what have we found?

The same old fears.

I wish you were here.


The singer is asking the listener to get over themselves.

To stop pretending that they know what its like to be conned,

and “come here, and Be with me”.

How I wish you were here.

But you are not.


Songwriters: Roger Waters / David GilmourWish You Were Here (2019 Remix) lyrics © Roger Waters Music Overseas Ltd, Pink Floyd Music Publr., Inc.

MARLEY JOY. 2002-2019


The real skinny legend.