This is the contents page for a video book (VOOK), a work in progress giving the first book length commentary on François Laruelle’s A BIOGRAPHY OF …
I’m not sure when Tommy Curry wrote this paper, whether he was actually writing it as a direct response to my paper that I published at academia EDU (see my recent post), or whether it is purely coincidence that he happened to publish this paper or it was put out on the platform just a couple weeks after I published my paper that had some commentary with the author (Bloniasz).
In any case, this paper Is a brilliant comment in itself, but also A perfect response to my Comment. If anything, timing is ironic, and actually goes to both Currys and my points.
— ah: 2012. Is his paper. I might imagine then that either Curry or an algorithm placed this paper in my cue.
It seems sensible then that the two routes supplies a correspondence that Curry does not imagine in his orientation upon jurisprudence.
I will be addressing it directly and part three of my series of essays￼￼￼￼￼￼ on Academia.edu
The main and largely unrecognized model for the human mental being is the Cognitive Model.
In short, it says there is a Situation, we have thoughts about it, These thoughts are automatically associated with particular emotional responses, and we act or behave. This behavior is an interaction with the world, and this interaction is the situation.
Now, the typical approach to mental health from the cognitive model is to eliminate that there is an actual interaction, and qualify it to say that there are things happening in the world, and then we have these perceptions upon them and those perceptions bring about this cycle.
While this model seems very intuitive and indeed it makes for a really good closed system by which science can then default to other situations that fall outside of the cognitive model, say for example, body chemistry, to this justify why we need an over abundance of medication to solve this fundamentally bio chemical problem, The model itself is only upheld through redundant conceptual reinforcement which ignore the actual situations which would otherwise disrupt its cogency.
The actual situation is indeed the human being in the world. The cognitive model therefore is very good for a first step kind of involvement in what is actually happening in a mental situation, or a psychic situation to use a couple words, but it fails in as much as it tends to perpetuate mental issues for the sake of justifying the model.
The cognitive model becomes more and more myopic, discerning to its own categories, and enforcing of scientific dogma the longer it stays around, the less people are actually getting helped, and the more money that is made through psycho pharmacology.
I’m not saying that it is not helpful, nor am I saying that with certain people and with certain type of situation it can be a total system of help and effective. But I am always thinking of the exceptions, and in this case it is the predominance of people with mental health issues that the cognitive model only gets a short way towards helping.
Then, often instead therapists and psychologist Fail to notice that there might be an issue with their basic concept of what’s occurring, and they continue the same method of approach to the problem. The problem continues to be conceptualized within the cognitive model, and they merely decide to intervene differently, use different concepts but upon the same idea that there is this cognitive flow functioning and that ideally it is responsible or at root for all mental health issues.
I feel there is a better way. This better way is to see that the cognitive model is like a doorway into what is actually occurring. It is a way to begin to conceptualize what is going on, but then also a way to problematize that concept for the client.
That is to say through the creating Problems with fundamental concepts, concepts that are assumed, thereby does the problem of mental health, the mental health issue, become opened up to the possibility that it is not really a problem. This is to say, that the problem itself is aggravated in that cosmologically intuited problem that cognition is something that happens within the human being which is essentially separated from the actual functioning world.
The problem here is then within the construct itself. We thus move into process over placating.
Two dynamics are that’s it play in the perpetuation and maintenance of a problematic heuristic towards mental health, and the cognitive model is that route in this.
On one hand, the cosmological separation of the individual from the rest of the world opens up a gap in conceptual space. This gap that can be only filled in one of two ways,
and that these two ways work to reinforce cosmology behind the scenes.
Number one. The gap is filled with this empirical enigmatic phenomenon called biology, but specifically brain and neurons and Nuro chemistry. The cognitive model can always defer the fundamental problem to be that of Nuro chemistry and Bio physiology. And, as these empirical approach never really solve the problem, but then serve to found and perpetuate a resource for doctors and other moneymakers as career and institution, The client themselves, why approached with a genuine compassion is never the less left out to dry. Strung along a route led by a carrot which is always transcendent to their experience. Placed in the hands of the benefit of the doctors and the therapists and the scientist.
Hence two; the other way to fill this gap is ideological. The reason why the default is to Nuro chemistry and biology is so that the ideology is either understood as a fantasy, or Theory, or as just resultant to the Nuro chemistry, which is nothing more than to say that we our individual human beings with Nuro chemical problems that is having an issue of concept and precept upon the world that is separate from us.
The ideology fills the function of a religious cosmology. For, the function of religion is not analysis, it is not that “God is dead”. The very notion that God is dead fulfills the religious function of the modern individual in society and the world. Just as its counterpart, religious theology in the institutional sense, for fills the gap involved in the strictly academic theoretical application of sense.
In this episode of Literary Tales, we continue our examination of science fiction filmography and pivot into the 1990s with the paradigm shift of …
—– Pretty cool analysis.
I’m gonna make my comment to Paul right here instead of in the comments of the actual post.
There are two things that really caught my attention.￼￼
1) The evolution of technology. Specifically he says “technology drives evolution”
2) then later on, may be a few times, he talks about, if I remember correctly, that we supplicate at the altar of technology. Something like that￼.￼￼
I cannot really know if he has in mind what I’m going to talk about here, but I feel that Paul and myself have two slightly different approaches upon the same fabric of being; Perhaps one could say, to styles. Even though I think Paul is much more literate and writes way better than I do￼. 😁
It is interesting to me that he conveys this discussion about humanity’s relationship with technology in the specific manner that he does. I believe that he is very precise in how he talks about things. And I appreciate his skill in this way. ￼
First he says the evolution of technology, and then he says that technology drives evolution. These statements seem to hint at a relationship with technology that is very difficult to elucidate in our day.
I feel like it could’ve been Heidegger, one of his talks about the Greeks the ancient Greeks, who talks about technology, techne, where the feeling that I always got out of Heidegger, though he has never stated it out right￼,￼￼￼ Is that it is indeed a relationship with technology that is significant in our determination of what knowledge is and how we work with it.
Heidegger also I think was very precise in how he used words and assembled them together. For example, the work of art. He speaks about the work that is being done by art upon human beings. He thus conjures the relationship that human beings have with art, and leaves basically aside the question of human beings that produce art, of some sort of theory about the creative spirit. I feel that Graham Harmon with his object ontology picks up on this relationship. I feel that the significance of talking about objects is to indicate that indeed creativity, while perhaps the word “over rated “is perhaps too strong, indeed “too important” indicates the centralized agent of the universe that we know from history called “mankind”, or “humanity”, Is showing itself as The less important element in a series of factors which constitute being in the universe.
Here again I harken to Paul talking about how the evolution of technology is really driven by technology.￼￼￼￼￼￼￼ ￼￼￼￼ I feel that he must be indicating more the relationship that is occurring.
Then towards the end of his short talk, he talks about how humanity supplicates at the altar of technology. I like this because it appears to me to speak specifically about something that is taking place in the knowledge of humanity that occurs more as a type of religious faith than it does some sort of centralized rational agent of the universe that goes out and creates technology because it is so intelligent and smart.
Thanks Paul. I will be interested in your reply.
And I will be interested in your lecture about this relationship as it appears in the 2000s.
Another thing that I struggle with is the idea of having to refer to someone to gain validity or credence in what I might say.
Typically we refer to other authors of the modern era Or contemporary authors, because we are in the process of developing a kind of argumentative community, towards some sort of theoretical ground upon which we can implement some sort of activity that we all generally direct as a solution￼.￼
But the a epitome of reference is when we refer to ancient authors, other languages, for example and especially, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.
What perplexes me is why I would need to refer what I’m saying to some originaria Greek term.
And I don’t necessarily mean this in the sense that it doesn’t help with the clarity that I am trying to communicate; I mean it in the sense of why don’t we refer even further back to what the Greek word might have its roots in?
And then also I don’t even mean to suggest that the people prior to the Greeks or prior to the Hebrews etc.. might have had a better way of putting things into terms.
What I mean is what is happening with me, and what is happening to the person that is reading what I’m writing? In so much is I might refer to Greek, say, or even it’s Proto languages, what is really striking me that I might route my discourse is in these Proto languages?
And I think the most basic question that I come to in this Perplexity of why, is do these Proto languages have a more substantial or original airy position with reference to what it is to be human or what it is we might be talking about in actuality?
Because I tend to think that this thing that’s going on inside of me, and I feel that is going on inside the reader, in so much as we both feel really great about being able to bring up these Greek, Latin, or Proto Greek or Proto Latin terms which mean something original, I guess, is that somehow when I do this I feel I’m getting more closer to some “natural” way that the human being actually should or actually does exist in the world￼.￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼
What do you think?￼