Orientation and Route

New draft of a paper called Orientation and Route.

Any feedback is appreciated.

https://www.academia.edu/s/dabeb9278d?source=link

art from Revolutionary Misfit, used without permission

Philosophy is out of wack.

It obliviously promotes as it reifies a particular manner of coming upon the world which is, for a word, pathological.

This essay is an initial session of the work toward a diffracted awareness of the problem of reductive reflection.

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.

And

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.

And

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.

Civilized

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.



The potential for a Myopia in the Positivist Notion of Mental Health

Don’t be a hater!!

If there is any statement to find positive psychology in general, it’s got to be this one.

Why do we have to focus on the problem? Let’s focus on the solution!!

Positive Psychology is the study of what makes life worth living.

Now, I am not saying that I hate positive psychology. I’m not even saying that it’s wrong or incorrect. I like and use the tools that it provides. But I am in this post going to point out some philosophical inconsistencies about it.

Does it work? Yes, it can work. I think the issue with any sort of approach to mental health is that it might approach mental health as this monolithic item, most often based in empirical science, which then promotes itself as a kind of cure-all, since, it is viewing any sort of mental health element against its “positivity”.

For one, the ideal approach of problem and solution toward mental health is often a false polemic.

The issue that I have with this positivity is that it promotes a reductive and exclusionary stance upon mental health issues. In this it is not much different than any other theory of psychology and mental health. Sure, it can work depending on the situation. But it doesn’t promote itself that way. It promotes itself as if it’s a solution to all mental health issues regardless of conditions.

This way of promoting psychological and mental health theory, to my mind, is pure capitalism. Pure idealism based in the notion that “greed is good”, for an 80s mantra. It is the idea that because capitalism is real and it’s so prevalent, because capitalism is the de facto economic system of the world, then we should not set it aside. Indeed the positivity is that capitalism is the essence of what is actually true for the lives that we have to live, and that promotion, marketing, theory based on goodness, for a term, is good. Basically that I want all the goodness that I can have and that it it is good regardless of conditions, and so conditions should be ignored, we should focus on the good, and we should be greedy of the good.

The idea of positivist psychology is that we need to get rid of what is negative about our thinking. Here, thinking it’s taken as a given and there is no critical approach to what it is that actually thought might be except that it arises out of an ideological empirical reality called the physical brain.

So, yes. For certain people Who have mental health issues, within particular conditions to those particular people, such reductive approach can be very helpful.

For example, the very reductive cognitive version of a positive psychological approach, to put it very simply example, if I think that I’m no good, then we need to work on replacing those thoughts with I am good. As well, we need to attack those negative thoughts. We need to get rid of them. It seems very sensible, it seems very logical, and indeed for the people that suffer from such negativity, it seems like a good thing, a good approach.

The problem as I see it is that for probably more than half of the people that suffer from that kind of depression or negativity, this positive psychology doesn’t work. It might help, I have found that people for the most part say that it helps a little bit, but overall it doesn’t really help their condition. So, yes, my pain is reduced, but I’m still in chronic pain and I can hardly function, to put a head on it so my issue with such approaches, even though I think they can do good and they can help in many many areas, is that people who practice psychology well then continue to berate the individual with the approach, because they see it as mapping all possibility of mental health. .

And this is not only in the theory of positive psychology. I’m just using this off of my last post where and I mentioned positive psychology.

And PS: sure, my statistic of “half“ is probably not very scientific. But I would submit that any study that positive psychologists would want to give me likewise are perpetually skewed and inherently biased, despite their scientific approach.

For, as I’ve said here and there, My main concern is the exception. I’m not trying to run a marathon, nor am I looking at Health through the lens of whether or not someone is able to run a marathon. Sure, I can help people if that’s what they want to do. But I’m not imposing upon them as an assumption, as though they should assume and see themselves in the light of being able to run a marathon hello.

Another Philosophical Stab At Philosophy

I’m going to take another stab at talking about something strictly philosophical. It has to do with the previous post, The repost of seven ways to read philosophy with my commentary of how I read philosophy, how I go about it.

I’m going to give you the philosophy behind my reading of philosophy.

I am going to attempt to describe and give an example of the difference between what one is able to do, compared to what is being done.

Take the example of a philosophical work. It doesn’t matter what it is, I am going to read this philosophical work so I can understand it.

The first way that I can go about this has to do with what I am able to do as a human being that is involved with consciousness in someway. It doesn’t matter how we define consciousness because no matter how I would define it you are already understanding implicitly what consciousness is; that is to say, regardless of if we have the same definition, I may use of the word “consciousness” and you implicitly understand something of the nature of what I’m talking about. Just as if I say “dog”. “Rock” or “el hermano”

Any argument which would propose something different, as though you don’t understand what I mean by the word consciousness, is a contradiction. For, you would have no basis from which to ask me what ‘consciousness’ meant, or more precisely, what I mean by ‘consciousness’, if you did not already have an understanding of what it meant. But further; if we both already did not have a common understanding of what ‘consciousness’ means, we would not be able to have any conversation about what you mean or what I mean. Hence, I’m not beginning a philosophical conversation about what each of us might mean by consciousness, I am merely drawing upon the fact that we both already understand what it means. If you absolutely don’t understand what “consciousness” means, then you have simply to go find out. It doesn’t matter what definition you have because if indeed you are talking about consciousness, you must be talking about consciousness. If you are using the word consciousness but you were actually talking about the moon, then you would not actually be talking about consciousness, by the sheer fact that indeed you were talking about the moon. Again, it doesn’t matter what argument you make about all the possibilities involved in whatever you would want to talk about, because you would be relying upon the fact that I already understand what you were talking about in order to make the argument about how it is relative, how we make our own meaning, how symbols are arbitrary, etc.

*



So here I go. I pick up a philosophical writing and I am going to be involved in understanding it.

I start to read it and I begin to notice that it is somewhat difficult to understand what this person, the author, is saying.

It is at this point in this philosophical essay that I make a notice to what consciousness is able to do.

Because the reader is involved with consciousness in someway, regardless of what way we are defining it, the reader is able to slow down and analyze word by word, clause by clause, sentence by sentence, put together and construct the meaning out of the text what the author is trying to say. My point here is entirely that people are able to do this.

My question would be, how am I able to be able to do this? From where is the contents of any piece of text taken from or located? Is it in my mind? Is it in the other persons mind, the author’s mind and she is bestowing or infusing the contents of the text (somehow ) into the symbols themselves such that the content can there by be extruded from the text, from the symbol, by the reader?

My question has to do with where the idea resides. Does it reside in some sort of energy or some sort of ethereal space between two individuals, such that each individual can summon and motivate particular energies that traverse the space between individuals? What is occurring that one person can have an idea and it can be moved across space such that another person can have the same idea, the idea which the first person has?

I’m just gonna leave that sit for a little bit. And while it’s sitting, I’m going to place that little tidbit of being “able” beside it. Indeed there is some ability going on, something that we can call an ‘ability’ that has something to do with what we are calling ‘consciousness’. And this ability has to do with me, or the reader, being able to dive deep, do a close reading, a close analysis of a text to find out what exactly the author is saying.

I make notice of an ability, to draw a distinction between what can actually occur despite ability, which is to say, accounting for that ability.

Again, making reference to the previous post about ways to go about reading Philosophy, The way that I read philosophy is that I start reading it, and if I don’t understand it I might take a few minutes and see if it starts to resonate after 5-10 or 20 pages, and if it doesn’t, I make no effort to try and understand it at all. In fact I set the book aside, and I come back to it at some random time in the future whether it be a few days a few weeks sometimes even years go by. De facto, I am not able to understand it.

So I pick up a different book, and I continue in this process until I find a book that poses Philosophy that is easy for me to understand. It takes no effort, and actually it is quite astounding as I’m reading it that I understand intuitively what the Philosopher is saying so easily.

I read that book, it makes perfect sense. I didn’t have to try to understand it, indeed I could say that I was not able to understand it, but I just understood it automatically.

I do this over and over again with different books. Some books make no sense to me at all and I set them inside. Other books make absolute instant sense to me, or with maybe some effort of pushing through then suddenly makes sense to me, say after 10 or 20 pages usually. It is through this method that I then go back eventually to encounter those first books that I did not understand, and often enough at some point I suddenly understand them as clear as day.

 I call this latter approach an encounter with what is already being done. And it is consistent with what Heidegger calls the work of art, as indeed the answer to the question of the “in-itself”, in response to the critique of pure reason and practical reason, among many other “impossible tasks”, that is: if we have indeed yet begun to think. 

But as well, we come to answer the question and solve the debate around Plato and his “remembrance”. 

Yet, We are totally able to continue the debate!

I’m just not sure that gets us anywhere. 😆. It might, but I’m not sure.

Are you sure? xx

Repost: Mark Solms’ theory of consciousness

I recently finished Mark Solms’ new book, The Hidden Spring: A Journey to the Source of Consciousness. There were a few surprises in the book, and it…

Mark Solms’ theory of consciousness

—- I am posting this mostly because anything that has to do with proposals about consciousness I am interested in and I feel like other people are probably interested in them.

also because this is like a bookmark for ideas that I want to come back to. I don’t know if I ever will, but at least I have this bookmark. And this guy and his book in this post has a link to the website where it has a bunch of other interesting articles on the various aspects of consciousness and neuroscience.

One in particular that I’ll mention: subjectivity and objectivity is not the same as subjectivity and object oriented ontology.

At least so far as my work is concerned with orientation upon objects, and that I only use Graham Harmons object oriented ontology as a sort of backstop from which I can begin to talk about Orientation, The idea of the subject and the object, I argue, I am beginning to argue, is based in phenomenology.

In short, everything empirical is all good for the modern religion, Be at phenomenology, which is self is an argument about empiricism, I support for it, or empirical science.

so when I read about neurology and about consciousness having to do with the brain and everything, it is difficult for me to read these as authority. Because I see that they are relying heavily upon phenomenology as the basis of such neurology empirical science.

In my work I’m beginning to develop this in the context of truth as opposed to reality. And this is to say that, first we have to understand the opposition as a unity, as an assumed unity, before we begin to really be able to contemplate the truth of the matter.

Anyways… Enjoy!!! 

x

The Meaning of All Things

I just stumbled upon the meaning of all things, life, living, the universe, absence, presence, totality, partiality, relativity, etcetera. The whole of everything that can possibly mean anything is represented in the following statement:

If I liked wearing scrubs, then I would’ve become a surgeon.”

Any meaning that can be come upon in any situation is represented in that phrase. The entirety of history, all recorded thinking and philosophies, every science and fantasy.

that is it.

Psychological Flexibility and Psychedelic Therapy

This was originally published on EntheoNation. It’s been said in a number of different ways, perhaps for as long as psychedelics have been around: …

Psychological Flexibility and Psychedelic Therapy

————- “We teach flexibility over rigid Ness.”

Lately, many people have been pondering the notion that mental issues and mental disorders Are brought about due to A fixed set of ideas of how things are supposed to be.

The most rigid of these ideas is what we know of as identity. The mechanism is not often easily understood, simply because we as human beings tend to consolidate this sense of self, this “I” as indeed “me” which is the locus whereby thoughts, emotions, and actions coalesce necessarily.

It is from this center of self, so to speak, from which then we assume to be able to negotiate or somehow compensate for what the world gives us. In essence, we are constantly reifying the notion that there is a self as opposed to the world, and so if something isn’t going correctly it’s either something that is wrong with me, or something that is wrong with the world.

The newer kind of approach breaks from this fixed ontological ideal.

At first, we tend to approach it from the outside. We tend not to approach from this “fixed center”. Because typically human beings are pretty much locked into this notion of real truth. And so millimeter by millimeter, layer by layer, we tend to try and work from the outside in to hopefully allow the “dysfunction” or the “issue” to resolve itself fundamentally, which is to say that the “innermost self” will flex a little bit, will change a little bit of it substance such that the issue will lessen or go away.

Upon the action of psychedelics, it seems this rigid fixed center might be more readily available and open to an understanding of itself that is less concrete, less attached to other aspects it encounters and draws into its orbit in order to create identity.

x

x

x

x

x

The problem with a dip in productivity due to working from home

There is no problem. That is, a dip in productivity is against the idea that “we“ are in a race to get somewhere.

I’ve already dipped my Kierkegaardian cards. He asks, “where is everybody going so fast?”

First, where are we going? Where are “we” going? Where is humanity trying to get to? What are we trying to accomplish? Why?

Who is this “we”?

And I find myself asking that question for probably since I’ve been an adult. Does anyone ever ask why we have to get everything done so quickly? What are we trying to do?

Does anyone ever ask these questions?

What is being educated if no one ever considers or even thinks about these kinds of questions?