The Object of the Subject

“The Philosophical Hack uses Slavoj Zizek’s book ‘Event’ as a platform from which to hack into philosophy. A hack is someone who is adept in technology and standard methods but is not employed to make marketed products. Yet in another sense, a hack is a repeated application of a specific yet broad algorithmic protocol upon a closed problematic space. The role of the hack is at once to disrupt and to consolidate. The hack is a check on the security of closed functional systems, as well as the impetus for its growth. Defining this problematic space through a careful assault on weak points in the philosophical facade, Nathaniel offers us a way into a science of philosophy. Mr. Nathaniel is writing to a wide intelligent audience in such a way that the philosophical mind will not be ostracized but will indeed be challenged. It is indeed a philosophical hack.”
— Read on www.lulu.com/shop/cedric-nathaniel/the-object-of-the-subject/ebook/product-24228206.html

More by:

https://www.lulu.com/spotlight/Landzek/
x

The covert philosophy is now sound

Up from the ashes that had been scattered to the winds, the band that had a different name each show, giving its songs to the bands we now know so well -what once was covert is now sound.

For you sound philosophers, coming on: http://covertsoundphilosophy.com/

The shit has hit.

Falling Covers and Other Drops – hear the new album here !

X

Abortion! Row: Write a better law.

Roe v. Wade has been sent to the states, I guess. And will be up for vote in the ballots later this year, I guess.

These debates over abortion, I feel, are about religious belief. The arguments that are being made about women’s health are really taking shape around the battle of religious belief, rather than about governance.

First off, the very idea of “inalienable rights” is it self a legal position. There is no such thing as in an alienable right that people are born with essentially; An inalienable right is a right that our government afford citizen people under the law.

It could be that people think an inalienable right is actually something we are born with as human beings regardless of governance, and that could be why no one wants to call out The fact that people are taking the religious position under the guise of science in women’s health — because then that might open up the inevitable insecurity about those people who believe that inalienable rights are not something that government gives us.

Question for those people: What good is an inalienable right if you don’t have the power to keep people from killing you over it?

It’s the inherent irony of religious belief.

However, if we keep governance about trying to keep the peace, and not about the religious questions of what life is or when it begins, then the decision becomes clear: Life is what we do when we’re living with other people.

The problem is that people are arguing about what is life, and not debating about whether or not people will kill each other over this. No one wants to talk about how we are killing people by making them have babies that they don’t wanna have. Because that would have to require of American citizens a little bit too much reflection upon their own ideas of belief and the ramifications of it in real world.

I feel like it’s an elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about. I don’t hear it anywhere. The discussion is about science, or about life. I’m not sure whether these things have anything to do with governance or law in the United States.

I think it’s obvious that people who are pro life are trying to push through a religious agenda because they feel that the United States is a Christian country, or at least a 10 Commandments fairing country.

Perhaps that is an overgeneralization, but it seems all this bickering over Roe versus Wade and women’s rights is really missing the issue of abortion and government in the United States.

The role of government is to mediate between Parties so we don’t kill each other.

Aside from that argument, though, I think the pro-life position really is one which says that all human life is valuable, and so as soon as a fetus is conceived in the womb, it is a human life, and so is valuable, and so is protected under the United States government.

To me, pro-life movement seems like a pipe dream that doesn’t want to face the reality of the situation. They take their religious ideals and then find “science“ which appears to agree with it and support it under the notions of women’s health and etc…

It’s as if they wear blinders to the truth of the reality of the situation of pregnancy. It really is like saying that if someone ended up pregnant then it’s because God deemed that this human being should be allowed to continue to live, and that human beings shouldn’t interfere with that life or else it is murder.

…it’s utterly a religious issue in that respect.

For sure, though, I feel that there should be more resources, mental health, physical health, financial, education, etc. for people in general, let alone would be mothers. Yes, that’s true. Yes we should.

But to make people who end up pregnant continue with their pregnancy by virtue of the fact that they got pregnant, is really just saying that they got pregnant because they are immoral or irresponsible. And in this country, don’t you know, we think that people should be responsible for their actions.

Again, that’s an ethical question, that’s a religious question, because it doesn’t deal with the reality that more people are getting pregnant every day than any pro lifer advocate would want to admit, And getting pregnant more often than any sort of mental health or social system could help to absorb.

I agree, actually, that the question should be put to the states. I think that is the issue of the law, beyond the “inalienable rights” to health issue. The law was not written in such a way to be full-proof, and I think that’s what the Supreme Court is making notice of. So they are returning it to the states, basically, telling everyone that they need to write a better law if we are going to make this right of citizens in the United States to control their own bodies.

That’s my two cents

Mental Health; does it have anything to do with a PSYCHE ?

I have been a counselor now for some short sliver of time approaching a year. I am a counselor, but I also say I am a therapist, I also qualify as a clinician, but as well a psychotherapist.

The name I use to reference what I do or what my clients might be involved with depends on what falls out of my mouth, really. I’m comfortable with most of the names.

I am a counselor in as much as literally I am counseling people, I am moving them through their conceptual space as it is encountered with problems or issues that they’re having trouble with. I’m not really an advisor, even though people like to think that counseling has something to do with advising people. I’d say that a very very small percentage of my activity is actually overtly advising people about what they should do, but there are moments.

Therapy

Wading in a little deeper, The Internet has that the definition of therapy as concerning that which is “intended to relieve or heal a disorder”.

I would say that at least half of my clients are coming to me as a counselor with a certain mind upon that there is something wrong with them, and many of them will specifically reference some sort of disorder, asking me about what disorder they have, or otherwise telling me what disorder they have and why they’re coming to treatment for it. 

It is as I get into the “treatment” part of therapy, I began to get a little bit concerned for the client because, anymore, people seem to automatically reference any particular condition that they feel is wrong as having something to do with a “mental disorder”, a “chemical imbalance”. I can’t help but wondering if the reason that they think this way is because, in a way, they’ve been sold a bill of goods.

For sure, I am offering them therapy in as much as they feel that there’s something wrong with them. The issue that I’m pointing out is, as a counselor, in trying to help them is that I don’t believe that anything is wrong with them: I believe that they feel there is something wrong with them. It is a fundamental discrepancy, which could be attributed to a kind of education as opposed to the layman, that gets me into the theoretical waters of what we’re dealing with for mental health. As a counselor, I come across the problem of the problem itself.

The Problem of the Problem

Most people would like to think that the mind is located in the brain and so if there’s a problem it must be somewhat similar to a physical problem. For example, if I break my leg, we “diagnose“ exactly what the problem is, for example a bone broken in a particular fashion, come up with a solution to the problem, that is, we have to set the bone back together in a certain way, maybe put some screws in there, maybe wrap it up for a little while, give them some anti-inflammatories, maybe some pain medication, and a good dose of time, and they’ll be good to go.

The mind is not this way. It does not operate this way, but more importantly, it doesn’t have a structure similar to the physical body. Oddly enough, no one can really figure out what the correlation is between a disorder, Nuro chemistry, and the psych meds that they’re taking. It’s just kind of a wild guess, as anyone who’s taking psych meds will admit. The process they go through is often excruciatingly difficult, because no one really knows whether the med that that Psychiatrist is giving you is actually going to work until like four weeks, six weeks, maybe even months later. And then after suffering for another few months realizing that the meds aren’t the one that are working, then having the Psychiatrist. needing to prescribe you some other sort of medication.

Yet, there are many counselors which have no problem with doing psychotherapy and administering to the psychological problems that people have, and really do not think very much into whether or not something is actually wrong with the person. Indeed many people believe that something is actually wrong with the person that is coming in for a mental health counseling. And indeed they do help people.

This is the point of contention everywhere. On one hand, there is a sector of society that believes there are such thing as mental illnesses, and we find them everywhere, and people that go to therapy must have some sort of mental disorder. Indeed, in America, if we are taking insurance we are obligated to give that person a diagnosis. Yet on the other hand when we delve into what the diagnoses or the disorder is actually indicating, we find a mess. Not a mess in the person, but a mess in what the hell we’re talking about.

The Psychological Mess

This is why psychology and psychologists do not really want to look too closely at the epistemology that they support. For the simple reason that once we wade into that quicksand, we find that the very ideas and supposed diagnoses and illnesses that they’re pointing out really have no substance: They’re merely indicating an arena of debate. They aren’t really talking about the person in front of me, they’re talking about a body of theory by which psychology supports itself as a scientific career, really.

For those who are suffering from mental issues, it may seem or sound a little disconcerting to hear about a clinician who is questioning what everyone seems to know so well as a convention. However, I feel that due to the situation that actually arises for mental health, it is better for most clients if they understand what they are actually dealing with, as opposed to believing in fantasies that are promoted by institutions.

Yeah: this is to say that it depends upon how much one believes in what they’re being told as to whether or not any particular approach to mental health will be effective, but this belief has nothing to do with what you’re deciding to believe or what you consciously believe. It has more to do with how you are oriented upon things.

The Psyche

There is a gray area in mental health, and it’s not the Brain; it is an ambiguity routinely solved by resorting to this thing called a psyche. I am not sure that this institutional resort is actually serving the people we are trying to help.

Everywhere, whether you are an actual clinician or practitioner of mental health, or whether you are just somebody living their life, everywhere people reference the psyche and the ego. And most of the time, no matter what they’re doing, most people reference these words and have no idea what they’re talking about. They like to think they’re talking about some thing like a rock, or a planet, or even a molecule. 

Similarly, people like to think that the psyche and the ego are things that actually have something to do with the brain. It’s really hear that we noticed the power of ideological promotion; it really is no different than someone who feels that they have a soul or a spirit that’s going to be saved by Jesus Christ and Christianity, or receive a universe for proper living say in Mormonism, or go to Nirvana if they’ve lived the proper life, maybe in Buddhism. In fact, I’d say that it is because we can point to these religions and identify them to those terms, that we neatly move the purported “science“ out of the realm of religion to say that it is accounting for something else that is not religious, something more foundational. But here, with these terms that move through the religions so easily, the psyche and the ego, what we are dealing with is more kind of like a ‘religion of religions’.

But that gets deep in today Philosophy. then I’m not gonna deal with here.

Here I’m more interested in the difference between psychology and mental health counseling.

In particular, I am not really sure that in helping someone therapeutically I am doing anything about their psyche. This really has to do with the history of the concept and how it developed over the past 300 years. We like to think – and indeed we do “enjoy“ thinking in this particular way – That there is this thing called a psyche that we are actually discovering how it works, and when we take psych meds or when we do various intoxicants even, we are doing something to our psyche and our ego.

But without getting too far down the rabbit hole, the real simple version of questioning hast to do with the fact that the psyche in psychology arises in a particular way to suggest that its structural components are broken. And it has particular structural components that are supposed to relate in a healthy way.

I’m not really sure that this is the case, by the simple fact that I don’t think this way and actually people that I’ve been counseling do often actually get better. I’ve applied no psychological concepts as to an analysis of the structure of the Psych in my sessions, at least for most of them, and in fact people actually get better. They get better with me using probably very little psychology at all, at least in the way that psychology understands itself.

This is to say that I am treating their mental health. And I’m using strategies and intervention that has to do with the help for how they’re engaging with life. I’m not really sure if the psyche has anything to do with this. I mean, it does in as much as there is this thing called a psyche that people like to talk about and I have various ideas about, but I’m not really sure there is an actual thing called a psyche that exists in the brain, nor that the brain manifest in such a way as though there’s a structure. Neither am I really sure that medicine is addressing this psychological structure, even though medicine can be effective to help people.

P.S.

One little side thing about psych meds: if you have a mental issue, psych meds are more than likely only gonna get you a stable place from which to work on your mental health. It is the opinion of an overwhelmingly large number of mental health counselors, as well as our clients, that know this to be true.

OK, I’m done with my dog walking…

And I never even got to the aspect of being a clinician!

Rp and comment on La ruelle (I think he meant François Laruelle, but maybe la ruelle has significance !)

A storm is coming in. I haven’t written much in the past year; often I hesitate to write at all. Yet, we may surmise a good reason to write and to …

La ruelle

—-
Hopefully, taking this in-the Spirit, that is intended, I will have a Comment.

For now, perhaps read his first….

___________________________________________

I am not usually open to being vulnerable. My way of life as been very spontaneous and without restraint, but I would not say intentionally or knowingly vulnerable. This is to say that my life was lead being vulnerable, but I did not know it. This manifested as a life of nothing, really; offensive as such a life is to most people, they take advantage without even knowing it as well. So unconsciously most of us live. And I had no means to understand what was happening; my understanding was necessarily withdrawn and reserved from anyone else’s view. Perhaps this is why I am a Counselor now, and why my life is the process of learning to be vulnerable as a life, that is, in and as a move of strength, reflective of a substance of Self.

This person’s reflection today struck a chord with me, and as I have a surprising two weeks off until my next life begins –this being the first day of my vacating my previous liminal living, of learning process, of growing conscious, of gaining distance for an intentional life — I am moved to comment more deeply, with more vulnerability, than I am usually am in my blogging here.

My resistance to the subjective life has lead me to, what I feel, is a more substantial life of truth. The vulnerability here is in finding that substance, one becomes able to show themselves without worry that others can take advantage. This, I think, exposes the problem with an expressed subjectivity from the perspective that subjectivity is the most intimate and thus legitimate means through which to encounter the world: it leads to nothing but more material subjects to consider.

Where would I be if I were nothing but a subject? Well, I wouldn’t be modern. Taken with complete reference to the phenomenological explorations we are so inundated with in philosophy and its social-critical theory, I have to say that the substance of my life is not modern, and yet, I indeed must contend with all of the modern world in which I find the subject of my Self.

There, I do not find my Self, but rather, I find that subject of myself.

Confirmed by the laborious mountain of 200+ years of phenomenal subjectivity founding everywhere and everything, from the basis of modern empirical science to the capitalistic products of our consumption, I believe that indeed the alienation so heavily explored as being a modern human is founded in the discrepancy between the subject reality of my Self and the actuality of my Self. In my work, I refer to this situation as concerning orientation.

But that is for the rest of my work.

Here, I am trying to be vulnerable while also commenting authentically on the feelings conveyed and aroused from the author’s post there.

I feel that the issue they deal with is that they are subsumed in finding their Self through the subject of themself, the phenomenality of historical texts as they appear to inform a real history. I feel they might be involved with a strange sleight of hand ideological trick of misdirection. I believe that François Laruelle is less a reference to the long history of subjectivity than the marker of a break with that tradition, and that to come upon Laruelle and his works in that specific context of history is to miss his point. As well, I see much of his works as increasingly having to deal with the biopolitical tide that works to pull the Self back out into the sea of modern, relative semanitc subjectivity, when what we are really attempting to achieve is the finding of the shore. I believe Heidegger referred to this shore in his works as home. I call this home-that-is-the-shore: the substance of Self. Or, the Object of the Subject.

I can appreciate this author’s wandering style of prose. Indeed, maybe I am doing it here as well, inspired by them.

Yet, as well, In reading the post, I felt a most unsettling drift. It is as though I could feel the author’s struggle to swim against the modern riptide, as though they are coming to the realization that they are losing the battle and are about to give up and just sink.

“Maybe at the bottom of this churning ocean, I might find rest,” I seem to hear from them, floating in the winds.

…And I wanted to offer a source of strength.

Maybe I have.

La ruelle: the small street.

Who knows?

x

Brazilian Politician is All-too Stupid: Just like most People

apple.news/A9loKht1cTK2J-JmJ5xSufw

Are his comments an exception ?

I think not.

I think that we could goto anywhere and find that most men think exactly the same way, whether they say it out loud or not.

I’m not making an excuse – quite the contrary. However, I am pointing out the contingency of the public opinion by which this would be news worthy:

It is the general naïveté of political involvement and the overreach of morality into preferred ideals for governance – embodied contradiction – that shows the present state of states.

Again, I am merely pointing out an example that move to a point of a truth about reality.

How often do elected officials get “found out”?

Often. But maybe not enough.

But how much are we going to allow government to be involved with dictating and enforcing morality ?

One could say that there is an irony in that both Putin and this Brazilian politician are part of the same strain of representatives: toxic masculinity as an institution.

What really is happening here?

Mental health issues.

Human Beings Act Too Late — Again

xapple.news/ACn4OcaGKQymPAZFI-75NCw

—- Just as a philosophical tidbit:

Slavoj Zizek says that is the nature of the subject: it always acts to late.

This is the symptom of modernity, not a result.

Which goes to the question:

What does it mean that “we” will have no viable future?

We as in every last human being? Or, we as the assumption?

This is the modern subject: the one that is-knowing is knowing-after, the end a necessary aspect of what it is to know in this particular manner.

It is ironic because by the time the world “ends” human beings will have “forgotten” what it was that was ending. The modern subject is the always-already constituted in this state of crisis. It cannot be overcome because the overcoming is a result of the knowing, the critical moment of the receding signifier of problem. Culminating in a human centered cause of the problem is the natural course of the human being in this manner of knowing.

That means we are constituted in irony:

– We are alienated from any “macro” solution, and yet not to act yields the result by which we concluded there is nothing we can do.

– We must act. For the act confirms that we are responsible for the universe, albeit ironically.

As every cosmology: Thus is featured in subjectivity an atypical manner of knowing where the modern manner is merely incorrect as a manner to discern the matrix of problem-solution.

👨🏽‍🚀👽👩🏼‍🚀
peace be with you
and
namaste

Rp and Comment on if Can consciousness be simulated?

David Chalmers in his book: Reality+: Virtual Worlds and the Problems of Philosophy, eventually gets around to addressing the 800-pound gorilla in …

Can consciousness be simulated?

—-
The Two Routes version of the problem:

Reality can only be encountered and negotiated. If reality arises beyond that scope, it merely verifies the truth of the initial statement of reality as what is happening.

consciousness arises as it does, having properties that appear in whatever manner that we deal with in what ever way we do, just as everything else also deals in the same way; that is, in the manner that it does.

However, this does not argue that it has no value, cannot be known as a means to get something else done, or is a moot point.

The Real question hudden within the question of consciousness has to do with what we can use it for.

Encasing the Real question is that true question, the question that spoils the party, and grabs people up to attend a different party. Most people at the party, though, will think that the party’s over and think that they have to go home. But in actuality there is another party that they’ve just missed. 

Because the whole discourse on consciousness is nothing different than having a discourse about television sets, atoms, computers, parties, or shirts, or even fashion or hearing aids. As we may want to know what a hearing aid is in its reality, what we are really asking is how we can use it to establish ourselves in the world as a known being; we are equating thus being with doing.

Im not going into all of the extended possibilities here, though.

This is also to say that such discussions about what consciousness is whether or not technology one day will be able to embody consciousness, is really interesting. Things that arise in reality are interesting; this is true.

This is why we can say that no one really cares about what it’s true because it’s not very interesting. And in general, if I’m in any sort of career that Hass to do with thinking about philosophical subjects, I’m probably not gonna be very interested in finding out the truth of what I’m doing and report on it. The simple reason is, once I begin to report upon what I’m doing, I’m probably not gonna end up making very much money from it or be able to pay my rent and have social credit. Because what I may be doing, is doing that is not only very interesting, but is very important.

In as much as I would have to talk about the interest that is involved in what I’m doing, I lose interest, credit, and this has to be very important and interesting because I wouldn’t be doing it unless it was.

Rout.

The key situation involved in the two routes has to do with a recognition of what is actually occurring. And this has to do with knowledge. It doesn’t really have to do with what I do when I go out with my friends at night. Or what I do to make a living. It has to do with the truth of the situation. Whether or not I get intoxicated from drinking beers and have fun with my friends is not as interesting about all the details about the truth that I went out last night and drank some beers and had fun.

So it is, the catch with reckoning epistemology to find out actually what is happening truthfully in our academic efforts, is that I’m not making an argument to say that there’s something wrong with the reality of the situation. I definitely Am not suggesting that we don’t deal with reality every day, or that we shouldn’t have to, or that we don’t have to because there’s another way to be.

Offense.

What really grates on peoples nerves is that if I say that there’s nothing wrong with the reality of the situation, it often tells people that I’m making an argument about what is true or false, and then they will tell me a bunch of things that’s really wrong with reality. Such as gangster dictators invading a country that they have no business in. 

😁. Of course they will. And inasmuch as their interests are very important they indicate that they are oriented in reality to find the truth of being.

Upon reckoning what is actually happening, though, our relationship with technology changes, And the question posed here, in the link, is changed at its root.

That’s all for now.

xxx

Object Relations

"A Word of Substance"

Random thoughts

Random musings about everything.

Wise & Shine

Understanding ourselves and the world we live in.

Taxshila Teachers

Learning is knowledge transfer to brain known as learnography

Resiliency Mental Health

Dr. Amy Marschall, Licensed Psychologist

A New Vision for Mental Health

New and interesting things are happening in mental healthcare – find out about them here and help shape a new vision for mental health

Mental Health 101

Author/Writer @ Thought Catalog, LiberoMagazine, Invisible illness&TotallyADD peer supporter trainee I blog to bring awareness to mental health issues

Secrets of Mental Health

The Choice is Yours!

RTS -Mental health

Facing The Challenges of Mental Health

Spo-Reflections

To live is to battle with trolls in the vaults of heart and brain. To write; this is to sit in judgment over one's Self. Henrik Ibsen

Mind. Beauty. Simplicity

living with less gave me more to live for

Olivia Lucie Blake

Musings of a Millennial. Life, The World and Everything In Between.

Damon Ashworth Psychology

Clinical Psychologist

Mental Health @ Home

A safe place to talk openly about mental health & illness

Lifesfinewhine

The Life & Ramblings Of A Zillennial

The Absurd

piles of dog-eared books, fountain pens, poetry, romance and despair, existential crisis, anarchy, rebellion

THE HIDDEN SOUL

Want some motivation,this is the place

Bio-Blogger

Bio-Blogger is an excellent source for collaborations and to explore your businesses & talents.

Wibble

Just another glitch in the matrix

Filosofa's Word

Cogito Ergo Sum

Climate of Sophistry

Climate science is sophistry...i.e., BS.

Tallbloke's Talkshop

Cutting edge science you can dice with

a joyful life

happiness joy love kindness peace

The Twisting Tail

the world turns on a word

Mytika Speak

Where Logic and Feeling Unite

Notes from Camelid Country

A travel blog from Bolivia to Belgium via Berlin

Heroes Not Zombies

becoming not being.......

Emotional Shadows

where all emotions are cared for!

Soulsoothinsounds's Blog

For those awakening divine humans

Peacock Poetry

by Sam Allen

Union Homestead

An urban homesteading family move to the country; still a story of trial and error...a lot of error!

The adopted ones blog

Two adoptees - one vocal the other not so much...

Conversations on finding and loving who I am

Let's have an open conversation about life.

ThoughtsnLifeBlog

Change your thoughts change your life

Tips from Sharvi

Tips to make your daily life easier!

mulyale mutisya

what the eyes have seen, ears have heard, being has experienced and what the Spirit has felt.

TheCommonAtheist

One minute info blogs escaping the faith trap

beetleypete

The musings of a Londoner, now living in Norfolk

radhikasreflection

Everyday musings ....Life as I see it.......my space, my reflections and thoughts !!

THE SPECTACLED BEAN

Tales, Thoughts + Tribulations of a Free Spirit in Suburbia