The Irony of Modern deferment

Overheard of two people while waiting in line to buy groceries.

“The actuality of a situation is beyond anyone’s ability to be ethical.”

“That’s right. I pay someone through taxes and school fees to deal with the greater problems of the world. Right now I have a career to advance.”

—————————-

When you think about it, You are really the only one thinking about it, you and then a few other people who like to think about things. when you think about all the other people you encounter that you don’t talk about these things to, probably a minuscule number of those people would have any interest at all, let alone the capacity to comprehend what you might be talking about.

That little conversation got me thinking about what I’m thinking about, and how what my little group of friends might be talking about, can’t really be addressing what we think we’re talking about.

And the reason is very philosophical. The challenge is this: Think of a scenario in a closed system or something in that closed system, some thing that came up only Due to that close system, by the mechanisms contained entirely and functioning within that closed system…

…Ponder how anyone of those elements would be able to do anything that isn’t inherently involved with all the other things in that closed system.

And this is to say, not that I am inherently involved with manifesting my own world including my involvement with other people and things.

Rather, it’s more to really think about what is actually happening when I think that is the case.

The facts of the matter is that— I don’t know, is there 4 billion people in the world?

4 billion things of a closed system only an incredibly tiny proportion of those 4 billion things that are supposed to be in intimate communication with one another, Let alone the multitude of other things that are in this closed system that somehow are “inanimate”, inert”, or “neutral”— that are attempting to address the problems that appear in this closed system.

It wouldn’t even be proper to say that human beings are just coming up with models of the universe, because again, that’s Just a minuscule amount of people that are Supposing to grasp the extents of the system for the sake of all the other multitude of constituents who are not addressing the system for its problems.

But then on the other side of it, to suggest

that it’s a closed system, if indeed it is, then we would have to say that all these other Constituents of the system must be addressing the problems of the system itself but in their own way, such that the small minority of great thinkers are really doing nothing more than solving their own problems in their own way, and are not really addressing problems to the whole of constituency of this closed system.

Further, we could not even say that as individuals we are addressing parts. For, the same conditions would apply, but with a post modern bent; that is, how could we possibly even be communicating with each other what these parts are to disassemble their meaning to the extent of the clothed system?

Hence, anyway we look at it we must assume, nay, we must realize at some point that something else is going on.

But more so, we would have to look at the very method by which we are attempting to address the universe and existence and the people around us and our environment.

If we are honest about addressing these problems, then we would have to indict the very method that we are going about conceptualizing the whole thing.

When we look around and have to live our day today, we have to go to work, we have to actually apply ourselves to very practical and immediate real circumstances, we then would have to realize that Philosophy. splits into two things: One which has to do with how we negotiate the real world, and the other one that Hass to do with how we actually exist truly in the universe.

Psychology and philosophy, part four

My point of addressing this topic was not simply to go on about my anecdotal development of psychology and philosophy.

I am always embedded in context, in a story, and so maybe that’s why I’m always contextualizing many things I have to say in the story of why I have to say them or why I am saying it in that way. Actually, I’ve had to learn how to be more to the point, as my friends will tell you.

And we could go back to some of my other posts, and a couple of my papers, that talk about the efficient cause as the usual conventional understanding to which everything must answer. And I call this orientation upon the efficient cause reality.

Whereas, what is true of the situation is actually its form, and that these forms constitute every object that exists in the universe. The story to me concerns more the formal cause. I take the formal cause it’s more substantial and meaningful than the efficient cause.

Anyways, that’s not really what I’m making this post about either!

It was actually to talk a little bit about Lacan. I would say 85% of my understanding of this psychologist comes through Zizek. The rest comes through various commentaries that philosophers have made and then a little bit and reading him. So, my version may be a little skewed, but then again, my whole philosophy up on things is that, basically, it doesn’t really matter because every opinion on every author no matter how well Read a person is is always skewed; and, I would argue, it is always the same amount of skew.

But also I’m not here to make an argument about how everyone’s skewed Ness upon a text is the same amount of variation.

Because even if I don’t know by heart all the inns and outs of Lacanian  psychotherapy, I know pretty much what he’s talking about and how it goes. What I want to talk about is that there are no psychotherapists who are Lacanian. It seems like everyone who wants to talk about psychology is a philosopher, not a psychiatrist or a psychologist. Now, I’m sure there are many Freudians and people who like Lacan theory as their basis of practice, I would imagine somewhere in New York and Europe maybe, but for some reason I have never come across one practicing psychologist or psychiatrist who knows anything about Lacan or even cares about Freud except as some sort of mystical founder of psychotherapy, and of course, the structure of the consciousness.

That is very curious to me.

But as of late, as I’m reading Lacan’s ecrits, and as I am getting more into actually practicing psychotherapy, I am realizing some things about the mental health world.

A big one is that pretty much every psychoanalytic theory that I’ve come across in my masters program, Lacan talked about from a theoratical standpoint.

I think that is so weird, because none of my professors and none of my instructors know anything at all about Lacan. Ive asked.

And that, to me, points out some thing that I think it’s very significant between Philosophy and what we know in general as psychology — indeed in one of Lacans lectures that has been reprinted, he basically points out the same curiosity in the field, albeit, much mire subtly than i am:

Namely that psychology as a practice, if I can generalize to include all the other kinds of psychotherapy in general, all the theories, all the practices and approaches, And despite what each approach would want to say is their theoretical grounding, all derive from a philosophical understanding that goes way beyond and way deeper and more thoroughly than the practitioners would even suggest to indicate as their basis of practice and theoretical understanding.

it’s kind of weird.

I don’t mean to say that Lacan had it all; but he does point out how the practice of therapy tends to want to just stick with a system of assertions and not employ those systems in the practice of investigating an uncovering what is really happening. which is to say, people want a fixed understanding of things. And most people, even people who we consider are very intelligent and educated practitioners, do not use their intelligence and knowledge as a basis to investigate what is actually occurring in front of them. Rather, most people use it as a basis merely to assert what they understand is supposed to be true.

Lacan what’s an advocate towards a kind of non-systemization of practice. Even as most of us tend to understand that he has this great philosophical psychoanalytical system. Actually he was just constantly investigating and constantly changing and adjusting his ideas for what he was coming upon as the years went by. 

OK. I’ll do part five in a little bit.x

The Dealing of Philosophy

by John Clark Philosophy is in decline. You hear it all the time. The evidence is regularly trotted out: fewer graduates; no jobs; no prospects; a …

The Healing of Philosophy

——- Physician, heal thyself!
I love this post. Not only is it a Nice reflection upon the situation, but I also think it indicates a problem in philosophy: it has no body !

I think one of the things that we found out in late 20th century Philosophy. and coming into the 21st-century, is, that human beings have an ability to cast its self it’s ideas, upon the world and make the World answer to its ideas.

This is particularly a 20th century phenomenon. To the extent that many of us are not able to read philosophy that arises outside of the 20th century within its own temporal manifestation. We simply are unabke to conceptualize what they were talking about in the proper sense of what they were talking about becuase of the manner that philosophy is prefugured now in the ideological context of nothingness; we hear everything, read all text, in the context of an atemporal yet universal code of words, of idealized thoughts of definition.

The issue with 20th century philosophy ever since Wittgenstein , but I might even say ever since Kierkegaard pointed it out rather specifically, without actually naming it I would say (lol. Kierkegaard talked about it specifically but never named it in a way that the 20th century could understand)– it is that we are able to become enamored with ourselves and us see the world in our own image. (Lacan’s mirror stage). And this is so much the case that we are unable to even consider philosophy that didn’t arise in our 20th century understanding of it: that is the definition of the end of philosophy that we had been dealing with for the past 20 years at least. namely, that philosophy argues its own self reflection as the valid point across all philosophical dimensions, time being that main component, that main dimensional feature of being.

And without going into the further discussion of this discrepancy that makes Philosopher is so adamant and adherent to their own view, as though ones own view is able to argue with someone else’s view, that is, is even able to encounter it– this is the definition of modern subjectivity that brings about the end of philosophy, anyway we want to put it, this is the fundamental and basic issue that we are dealing with. And, We might say, is the reason why “realism” has become so popular lately: as though suddenly we can change our interests and be able to change how we see things. We’ve been so caught up in ideas and thoughts, now we are trying to find what is actually “real”. 

But my point is less intellectual. philosophy argues itself into its own ontological corner through its reliance upon epistemological identity, which is to say, where we see and understand terms as identifying some thing that exists between people who think, but also between the thought in the world, thereby are we are caught ultimately in an idealism. For any other name.

This is what Michel Foucualt and perhaps others, were dealing with in their works; this particular issue that keeps coming up over and over again. Recall Kierkegaard’s work “repetition”.

The body was “cut away” by the surging force of the intellect, until the ‘gaze’ that the intellect identified with the object became the whole of interest: This is clinical medicine. The body was replaced with a holistic version of the intellectual gaze of sense. Disease became positive and the body negative until we now no longer even an ability to ground knowledge except in the gaze-idea, the knowledge-power of the subject of reality.

And philosophy has supported the whole notion the whole way. The basic issue is that Philosophy has removed itself from the body by which it originally gained credence.

Yet, in contrast to the modern ideological development and to point the view to where it does not want to look: I will go so far as to say that there is nothing that exists in the universe that does not have a body. And this is to say that everything and anything that has any sort of truth that we work with is a body. Hence we find many authors talking about this very thing, even though they might not put it in terms of “a body”. Many authors talk about how Philosophy. has just become subjective abstraction, various idealisms caught in their own subjective worlds asserting themselves over other peoples essential Transcendent represented in words.

The problem is that we are talking about nothing; we are talking about talking. That philosophy has become an eternal argument about vacuous idealism.

thanks post guy!

x

xxxxxx

Soulituality

“Cant you see that I am one with the cosmos!?..poquito ergo es…i think, therefore you is.”

Everyone agrees that philosophy, at root, is “the love of wisdom”. Yet, since the beginning of the 20th century, I feel, this meaning has been mostly lost. Philosophy has become an extended argument about definition; the purported wisdom of the ‘love of wisdom’ is understood in a context where the effort to find this lost love is supposed to be found in the effort of more precisely defining words.

Philosophers appear to be involved with stating their own definition of wisdom, and appealing to the common human sense of passion to imply the sense of love in their work, but I feel that this intention is but a weak reflection of what prior to the, say, mid-20th century, was an effort of integrity.

It has taken me some time, but I believe that this blog has been the effort to reveal the fallacy of the method of finding wisdom, let alone love.

However, due to the kind of modern philosophy which dominates the philosophy-sphere, I have abandoned the use of philosophy as a positive meaning of its truth, that is, the love of wisdom, which is merely a method of arguing over definition, to say that conventional philosophy is indeed valid in as much as this is the kind of philosophy that the modern method is able to procure, but that it is indeed merely one kind of philosophy, that is, a conventional method of philosophy.

Philosophy has split into two efforts.

So it is I leave the argument to what has been said thus far, and leave those conventional practitioners to their modern philosophical tasks; they are indeed vital, no irony intended.

Nonetheless, in the attempt to center love in wisdom I move to suggest the following, which is beginning to appear in my papers.

For a while now, philosophy has been concerned with the spirit. Indeed, so many papers have been written, known and unknown, popular and not, about the relationship with Western modern philosophy and spirit, it has almost become a trampled point. In short, it is not difficult to notice that the synthetical a priori, but indeed every philosophy which is an “-ism” and “-ology”, and every “philosophy of…” is based in the synthetical a priori despite what argument it would wish to make or definition which an argument would wish to tie to. There is nothing which arises outside of discourse, and discourse, in the modern orientation upon things, is merely another secret code word for thinking, a proxy, a sit-in, a dupe, a poseur, or as Kierkegaard might say, sleight of hand.

So I capitulate and admit that, yes, conventional philosophy, modern philosophy, or just philosophy, is only about spirit, its assertions and proclamations. It implies it, it uses it, it is invested in the spirit which is the reasoned intellect, the thinking mind, or otherwise, intentional phenomenal identity. It is all head, and no body; the head, in this conventional modern mode, uses and abuses the body yet stays in the head and enforces the head’s dictates through the spirit of modern philosophy.

OK.

I propose that philosophical anthropology concerns the soul. The body. This is to say, the soul of the body is excluded by definition, or, what I say, is the methodological orientation upon definition. So much as the spirit of the head is deemed the highest in the hierarchical structure for the determination of everything that can be thought, the soul is that which is excluded by virtue of what the head cannot see, cannot hear nor feel, conceptualize nor recognize when it is occurring, acting or even Being present. It is negated in the thought full pretext of the synthetical a priori. The philosophical spirit of the head never encounters the soul of the body because the modern spirit is consumed with itself: the Creation of the world in its own image.

*

Hence, I propose that the head misses the body, and the soul misses the spirit. and that they love each other. That True philosophy arises as the love of wisdom when the spirit and the soul are united. This is because they are –they exist– in love, but are held apart in the tragic life of the dejected and stubborn sprit.

This is my work. To bring together in love that which has been torn asunder by the insecure assertion of dominance of the lonely spirit.

*

Although Paulo Freire wrote about this some 50 years ago, It is beginning to be recognized lately.

The oppressor cannot itself find its way to liberation because it already sees itself, sees freedom, and everything else, through the context of oppression.

It is thus the task of the oppressed – the pedagogy of the oppressed — to shine the light toward liberation. The oppressed have the responsibility to liberate themselves, and in doing so, forge a path for the oppressor to be liberated. However, the oppressed must be careful that they do not continue the game of oppression, in which both the oppressor and the oppressed are caught, by being lured into becoming the oppressor.

It is the soul that has been oppressed. So it is the job of the soul to light the way for the spirit back to the love that is wisdom.

This is my work. .

————— Ps: how ironic is it that agter i wrote this piece about love that i just sent an email to WP and told them to fuck off! Lol.

I hope they dont bring the hammer down. On me. Lol

X

Spirituality is taken.

Soulality?

Soulituality?

Soulity?

Soulty.

Lol

😎
x
xxxxx

Cognitive Science of Philosophy Symposium: Corpus Analysis

x

Welcome to the Brains Blog’s new Symposium series on the Cognitive Science of Philosophy! The aim of the series is to examine the use of methods from…

Cognitive Science of Philosophy Symposium: Corpus Analysis

—/- Interesting. Just as I introduce philosophical anthropology, here is a post that is looking at the “bodies” of language philosophically. I feel like this must have arisen due to the non-philosophical idea that philosophy itself can be a subject of critique, and the incredible resistance to that philosophy can be addressed in that way.

For sure I like the angle of approach in this linked post,  because it shows that people are at least considering the possibility that Philosophy can be critiqued as Philosophy. itself. Granted that they are taking “corpus” of various linguistic bodies that are philosophical and addressing them in a very cognitive manner, digitalized algorithmic manner.

But it is interesting and ironic that philosophical anthropology should arise at this juncture that someone makes an initial post on a topic very similar to what I’m talking about.

I feel yet that a philosophical anthropology which considers bodies to be more inclusive of all kinda of bodies. But as well, cognitive approaches to bodies, for me, begs the question of the approach. But at least it shows that someone is doing something which opens up space. 

To me this appears as a area of linguistics, that they apply two different bodies together and see what comes out. Totally cool. And despite the use of the word philosophical, I’m not sure it really gains for what I am considering “philosophical anthropology”. It is not really anthropology by its own admitting. It seems to be more specifically philosophical in its approach. 

Killerx