Philosophy of Reference, part 1.

references check mark sign concept

I have brought this up in another post somewhere. Please put your answers in the comments.

I am going to give you the thoughts coming up right now …

In philosophy, why is knowledge based in referring to what past authors said or wrote?

For example, what is the value, say, for what purpose am I referring to another author if I came up with cause as evidencing four aspects which constitute the Being of a thing?

All Beings have a form. What the reason is for this thing to exist is the form that it is. The cause of a Being is its formal sense.

All Beings have, or are, matter. What the reason is for this thing to exist is that it matters; the material which constitutes a thing is the cause of its existence. The tree is the cause of the table, for example.  Or electricity is the cause of the internet.  Of course, because there is plenty of material, the essential Being of a thing can have various material causes.  The cause of a universal thing, a Being, matters, or is derived from material.

All Beings have, or are, motion. What we as philosophers generally know as an efficient cause.  What the reason is for this thing to exist is the motion that it evidences.  The agency which is the thing is that which it does, the motion it is involved with.

All Beings have and end, or what we know as telos, in the ancient Greek.  What the reason is for a thing to exist is that it evidences its own end, or as I say here and there, parameter. 

All of these causes interrelate and confirm one another to arrive at modern idealism.

— Cid Nate.

Now, a significant modern philosophical question is:  With what purpose I am involved in comparing, say, what I came up with here out of the blue, through sheer observation and its resultant description, to Aristotle’s causes?

(comment now, please)

I wonder, because I have to ask myself why a reference to someone from a long time ago is required to give my ideas credence and validity?

What am I doing when I reference someone who is dead?

I can understand referencing someone who is alive because we are involved with global capitalism. But to place all knowledge on a level field to say that the books of the dead people are equal to the comments from people living — I ponder if that is a valid proposition. But then moreso, what exactly is the purpose I am involved with in understanding that knowledge in this way? 

My formulation, the reason I come upon with goes to that in early human history:

Somehow, words had more substance somehow.  Somehow, if I quote an ancient Greek meaning, what I am writing gains more substance.  And, I imagine, that the reason why I believe and feel ancient philosophers have more substance contained in their words is because (again) those people were closer to some essential truth of existence due to their Being closer to the arrival of consciousness from our of prehuman and prehistorical “non-consciousness”.  

Which is to say, then, that the universe was informing them and their terms to a more true situation of Being. 

Why would this be the case?

(please comment :|)

The New Philosophy

The Moment of Decisive Significance took more than 4 years to write and publish, and it still needs edits. The Philosophical Hack the first and second parts took a little less time, partly because of how Nathaniel approached it.  Actually, The Philosophical Hack is not yet complete, so all and all, for all 6 parts, will probably take even longer than 4 years — and being that Nathaniel undertakes other projects, the last 4 parts will probably come out perhaps in 2030. 🙂

This is true philosophy to me.  Yes, philosophy can be understood as a commodity, a product, a piece of consumer good, but that is not what I think good philosophy does and is in truth.  In reality maybe it appears as something different…

Philosophy takes time, it is out of time, and it is thus timeless. 

It arises in time and out of time, but through arising in this manner, it is essentially of two ontological natures.

One of the points the Kierkegaard makes in his book “Fear and Trembling” is that Abraham had a faith that is beyond him; Kierkegaard says that he could never make the move of Abraham and, basically, this is why a person is in despair, sinful, as he says, in despair to will to be oneself.  Kierkegaard thus uses the literary figure of the Biblical Abraham to show the irony involved of Being a Knight of Faith.

His point is that when one is willing to be oneself never does she have the faith of Abraham, and thus, for those who might be so inclined (but not everyone), the best someone who is willing can do is live as a knight of infinite resignation. His point is so long as one is willing, that is, is open to the possibility of being oneself, as opposed to actually being oneself, then that person lives in despair.

Indeed this is the modern dilemma of the individual.

Time Spiral

 

My point is that so long as one is in time, they have faith in themselves and are working towards an end which is always ethically compromised: They have faith (hope) that the world holds a place for them to Be, but they never are quite sure how they are supposed to be (how am I proposed in context is the quandary of modern mental health).  The irony, though, is that one must indeed live in time and be ethical (in the sense of Being involved with ethics), but that that this is not all that one is and does.  One does not live in a condition where she must always choose upon ethics.  This is the point that Kierkegaard makes of Abraham.

Is there a teleological suspension of the ethical? 

We find the answer through his books, and the answer is yes.  The reason for this is that Abraham’s activity was not for his time, and yet in that he was indeed there, a human being doing actions, his actions were not ethical. Indeed, the point that Kierkegaard makes is that the ethics of Abraham were vested in God, and that God thus makes the world ethical by virtue of the absurdity that is not acting in time: Abraham has faith by virtue of the absurd.

Ironically, Slavoj Zizek, a contemporary social critic and philosopher, makes the same point when he says that the subject always acts too late, that by the very ontological nature of the modern subject of ideology, action is always reactionary.  Similarly Alain Badiou says the best political move is to not act politically, to abstain from politics. The revolutionary move is thus to move out of time, and to bring Kierkegaard back in, to act by virtue of the absurd such that what is ethical arises out of the act, as opposed to the ontological act Being involved with an attempt to act ethically.

The condition which evidences this ontological contradiction is what Kierkegaard and Nietzsche as well, call angst, which was first translated into English, by Walter Lawrie, I think, as dread, but then later authors (Hong and Hong, May) call anxiety.  The philosopher who arises out of time to act finds herself in a state of anxiety because she still appears on the scene within the ethical universe, albeit, one that is being manifested by the absurd situation of her being out of time. This is particularly salient in our 21st century because we find that this is a condition of knowledge, and not a condition of every human being who thinks thoughts.

  • The question that I have been grappling with is how does one who is so out of time do the work of art (or of love, Heidegger, Kierkegaard) which is motivated through the state of anxiety? (Also see Harman’s Dante’s Broken Hammer.)
  • How does one arise in time out of time?

My next project will thus be to produce a work of philosophy which covers the whole breadth of philosophical knowledge while at once mentioning neither a known philosopher or author, nor conceptual philosophical tropes, that is, terms which have assumed (privileged) dense philosophical definition.

That is what I am going to attempt, anyways.  🙂

Good luck!

 

It is Healthy for the World that the Humans Got Sick

Pollution is going down. And now it appears that wildlife is doing better in the national parks that human beings are not visiting because they’re not allowed to.

https://apple.news/AS6Et2Ar_TFmdPVRwXRIN7A

Maybe this might allow human beings to have a new reflection upon who and what we are in the world.

Maybe we can at least consider that the world has some sort of consciousness or Being that we are in a relationship with.

Or, and I think this most likely will be the case, we will continue to invest our souls in a God that’s going to welcome us Home after our trials on this world, as we continue to not give a shit about any one or anything else besides our human self righteousness. Idiots in the universal democracy: the human being thinking itself into isolation.

An Idiot is being alone, or separated.

And I just want to say to the ‘either/or’ people that I am not calling for some sort of “spiritual“ awakening or some sort of New Age ‘we just need to love our world’ or whatever those old kind of 1960s 70s 80s tropes are or were. If that’s what you need then great, but…

A new way to understand relationship has to do with a different manner of coming upon Being, Less becoming, more Being come upon. Like an event.

Maybe it is possible to look at all the people that are becoming or are upset or having difficulty with being in isolation less through the trope of that human beings are social creatures. Maybe it could be that we are coming upon the anxiety involved in the world rejecting us for who we are Being, Like a plea, like a call to us, for us, to join the world in the universe, as opposed to centering ourselves and desire and self-righteousness.

Maybe: A world of responsibility.

Oh no! I almost forgot. We don’t want to be responsible. We want to be right.

Experiments in Human Kindness

The logic of being human.

The next time someone annoys you or when you get angry at someone for something they do…

Attempt to change your viewing. Of course, first acknowledge that you are feeling whatever way.

Then consider the possibility involved in their “wanting” with relation to why you might be annoyed or angry.

Ponder that they cannot but want in that way. That the connection between thier choice and their doing or behaving is not contingent but is necessary.

That their want is actually reflecting an imperative of their Being that they are unable change in that instance.

That they did not choose to annoy you or make you angry, but neither did they choose to do the thing or behavior that upset you—even if they say they did it deliberately, they could not have done otherwise.

Psyche-logic

—excerpt from Healing Fiction by James Hillman. c.1983

The question implicit of the object of the subject is not, like the usual phenomenologically subject-based philosophy, meaning; rather, the question is to what use is philosophy put? For what purpose is the Being of philosophy? Cedric Nathaniel puts this juxtaposition of view in terms of how philosophy understands itself automatically with the Being that is necessarily established through the human Being such that this conventional philosophical effort always must be asking and answering the being of itself in as much as it’s manifestation is assumed implicit to every and any other kind of Being, that is, as though the human being is the sole arbiter of the universe.

Once such reductive pattern and method is accepted for what it is, it likewise can no longer be doubted that what it is is what it is doing. It is this move that removes us from the phenomenological correlation by accepting that such correlation can ever be avoided in philosophical reckoning that is involved with time, tradition and history, but as well, then, such a notice does not suggest that something is wrong with those constants.

No longer involved directly with making arguments of ontology, the effort concerns thus the teleology of Being.

—ibid. p.97

Post-trauma: Humans as blackboxes, machines as transparent

Humans as blackboxes, machines as transparent

Humans as blackboxes, machines as transparent
— Read on markcarrigan.net/2019/11/11/humans-as-blackboxes-machines-as-transparent/

Interesting problematic.

What might this say about us, that we might look to machines and thier analysis of behavioral data to tell us what’s going inside a human being?

I tend to agree with the impetus of the excerpt; that empathy between human beings is being devalued in this look to machines.

Yet another, less practical view, might see machines as indeed producing nothing larger or extraneous than an ability for humans to perceive one another. Maybe the transhumanists speak similarly, but I think what we are really looking at is the abuse, or disconnection which occurs in the institutional use of data to tell us what humans are, and not really, what we could call, the mere use of machines to tell us about ourselves.

We might then return to a question of what is occurring here. Might we ask what kind of mental picture is being relied upon? Which is to suggest that the view itself, that one would see institutions and machines as something which supplants something which is otherwise human connection, might represent a case of a kind of insanity, an upheld view placed at the extended end of a finger of blame, but then acted upon as the view as if the indictment is indeed indicating something which is wielding power to displace inter-human connection.

For for sure we could point back to the fears of the beginning of the modern industrial era located in the movie METROPOLIS to find a confirmation of a culmination that might come to pass in our present day. But might we stop pointing there and see that there is no culmination which has lead to some great terrible turn to machines, to see that we have already turned over our humanity in the fear itself which misses the event already having occurred? Such that we are merely replaying a trauma in the viewing and thus reenact the products of an event which we have yet to acknowledge ?

Philosophical Dimension.

https://soundcloud.com/usertransspace/reason-emotion-and-religion-groove-n-talk

@

it is possible to understand philosophy as having two dimensions. Non-philosophy thus is the philosophical ability to comprehend the use of the real object called philosophy.

The issue that philosophy raises against this Confinement of its resources and agency, is that philosophy seeS itself –or permits a view that is itself –as without dimension; it understands or otherwise presents reason as having a link to an infinite source, what we generally call transcendence, or what the postmodern called immanence — because what the postmoderns are really saying about immanence is that the human being is able to get a hold of transcendence entirely .

The only argument that philosophy can make against what we are beginning to understand is it’s own limitation is to merely reify it’s access to infinite reasonable adaptation.

And this is why we have to speak of the two routes: conventional philosophical thinking is not really grasping that it is at once an infinite resource, while at the same time able to be described to its limitation. Conventional philosophy will use the rebuttal of no predictive capacity to say that philosophy is not being defined to its limitations. And then the only response to that is that conventional philosophy is not comprehending the issue at hand. Conventional philosophy sometimes then will take that as an affront to its agency, to its eminence, to its privilege and centrality. And thus would be Because it is not grasping that to describe itself to its limitation is not an insult nor an invalidation; rather it is an invitation to its constructive use. All the while opening up an avenue for thought that it is unable to conceive or otherwise encompass.

As well, it generally cannot conceive of an act that is not involved in an assertion of power as it understands power as the ubiquitous universal underlying force. Again, this is the reason why we have to speak of two routes upon objects that do not reconcile into a further unity.

Power and other Unfashionable Philosophical Questions.

Due to the question of philosophy’s Being moved to the margin for the sake of human necessity, some questions arise, likewise, necessarily.

acquiescence

In the determination of Being, what is Being left out?

Is the knowledge of things determinable?

Is there an obligation in the knowledge of Being?

Does history convey a requirement in the designation of Being?

Does a correct history equate to true Being?

Is doing universal, or momentary? Primary or subsequent?

Is knowledge of doing possible?

Can one speak to the future? the past? without a present comprehension?

Must power be recognized?

Does ethics demand a question of power?

If power is not recognized, is a condemnation of Being in order?

Is the questioning of authority, under its authority, possible?

How can the righteousness of doing be ascertained?

At certain times, is it moral to allow authority to remain unquestioned?

Is nothing part of knowledge?

or a place holder for knowledge?

Must I acquiesce to every condition?

under what condition?

Am I responsible?

The Machine and Being: The Commons.

“We must situate what has been left out if we are ever to get anywhere beyond repeating the same old philosophical tropes.”

55394256-machine-learning-production-line-with-idea-lightbulbs-being-processed-by-the-microchips-circuits-co

*note on the note: ‘They’ are those who are ‘in the commons’.

{WIKI:

Commons:

– The definition from the Digital Library of the Commons is; “the commons is a general term for shared resources in which each stakeholder has an equal interest”.
– A common is a shared resource managed by a community who create rules to make the resource durable. The resource can’t be monopolised by one or a group of individuals, it has to be as opened as possible. The resource is not private or public, it’s a third thing : a common.
– }

…But this also is not complete. We should at all times understand that this discussion has been made more than once, and by those who made it, we should assume that all the bases were covered, all aspects revealed and discussed. When we thus refer to the discussion, ‘it’, we also then cannot but remember that, strangely enough, not everything is expressed.

The discrepancy, or contradiction, evident in those conjoined sentences (just previous), thus reveals how it is possible that I might have something to say about it, since we have then the very essence of time (1) (Heidegger) played out through the stretch that occurs between any multiple of authors who had something to say about it. Further, we have an issue that arises when we consider that everything has been expressed in whichever discussion, but somehow not everything was expressed; this is the issue of the contemporary (2) because only the contemporary is able to view what has been said as, at once, describing the whole situation yet leaving something out. It is an issue of the contemporary because she does not make issue with what the other had to say, but only notices what he hasn’t said: Thus the issue of the condition of discourse (3) becomes salient. When we likewise reflect upon what is occurring, we cannot but help further notice that not everyone is privy to this view, but some are. The axis where this situation plays, what we can call the matrix that arises in the noticing of this strange situation, we call the point of contention (4), because it appears that though we might speak about it and describe it plainly, using the terms of the day and playing by the rules where by clausal structures relate definite meanings, the meaning is still not conveyed to most. One one axis (perhaps) we have the immature before the mature, and we cannot blame natural process for placing knowledge along whatever path of progress becomes each learner. On the other axis (perhaps) we have a more insidious situation because it has to do with what offends, and where offense might take place (Kierkegaard); we have the situation where the mere fact of being offended reveals a certain argumentative camp. We must situate such types within the continuum of consideration in order to be able to speak clearly about what is occurring, because there is no intension (Hursserl) to offend, but indeed such a discourse will offend certain types. It is the idea of intension where things often get fouled up.

Here then we come upon a term ‘conventional’ to describe that group who apparently cannot understand the simple meanings that are conveyed through the standard communicative medium of discourse. We thus come back around to a reason for why the term ‘common’ becomes so wonderful to indicate those who do not grasp the discussion that has already been had, nor that which is needing amendment, nor how the amendment is indeed amended to the previous and ongoing discussion, that is, over arguing with the points is has brought. Such a group are common because it is such a usual thing to place the varied elements and constituents of humanity in a hierarchical order of Being, that when someone describes this very situation to them in simple terms, terms which merely add to the discussions which have already occurred in total and describing every aspect of the situation at hand (5), the cannot but help themselves to view the description as a very complex thing, having so many aspects pro and con which can be tested by sematic meaning calculators that weigh importance within the hierarchy of meaningful ideas. They (common) simply do not (can not) see the simplicity, but must go through the hierarchy of semantic Being, (Foucault’s “order”), apply the complex functions of meaning to it in order to maybe get a glimpse at the initial simplicity of the whole situation and what has been occurring. This is the most common manner to approach knowledge as it is thereby (in the commons) already been categorized and classified into its semantic niches by the ‘identity machine’ that is the unreflected agent of faith involved with the unified reality of ideological religion (Deleuze) (belief and ‘unchosen thought-Being’)

As we have said, though, this is nothing new, but only an amendment to what has already been said in its completion about the whole of the situation. The amendment is to not figure into the automatic commonality that at one time we could call ‘reality’ and be working not only within but also toward a common human, but universal, purpose. Reality itself has become insufficient to contain the possibility of what exists, but has instead become a ‘unit’ of measure, a mode of classification, whereby knowledge may gain its quality of valid Being, such that what is common thus also defines which knowledge is valid (Lyotard), as well as through a kind of ‘established absence’ (subaltern; Spivak, after a manner) what now cannot be heard. What is ‘in the commons’, in this respect, marks a particular manner of understanding and processing things so that everyone can be included in the hierarchical ‘semantic’ universe and be put to good use with the best possibility for people not to question their situation: For the situation by this time has already included all the questions and supplied all the answers.

~{ this is all taken from my upcoming book ~ L.K. }

Being Decay. 

{More notes…”Of Spirit”}

I might put it like this:

With reference to the repost below, in one sense, we’re dealing with just sheer numbers, the number of human beings. And so to talk about decay or thought or the decay of intelligent thinking so to speak, is to arouse a certain kind of nostalgia, a particular longing, while also situating this longing in the facts of the matter from which the heartache arises. The tone may sound like accusation, pointing at a situation to show how it is wrong or incorrect. But in our present ruminations we have moved beyond such polemical absolutes, such transcendental Essential absolutes; we already know that any position is already compromised within the knowledge by which the situation exists.

This is the issue with philosophy, The issue that Francois Laruelle attempts to explicate and describe. Yet he falls into the same problem that he is trying to escape; apparently , he is trying to communicate some sort of secret or esoteric meaning . For the religiousness that people find in his writings is based in the idea that there is an essential linkage that threads between basic universal objective substrates that are not only reflected in their essence through discourse, but further are indicated in there essential truth as things in themselves. The idea that discourse can add or subtract to the meaning of this disconnection is itself a misunderstanding, or for better terms and in terms “of spirit”,  a substantive grounding of the destitution of spirit.

We must consider what kind of experience we are having when we seek an answer in an authors text. If I have a question that I’m asking, and I look for that answer any text and find it, what have I found? What is occurring that the question that arose in me to reference a lack has found its correspondence and fulfillment in the text before me of another author?

These questions and others like them should be the founding questions of a kind of first philosophy. It is the avoidance of these kind of questions that bring the duplicity that some authors notice overtly, and other authors comment upon and notice in passing.

*

Getting back to the initial impetus of this post-

If we can trust a sort of evolutionary history of humanity, where apparently at some point there were quite a few less of us in the past and much much much more of us now; if we can rely upon the idea that there were relatively small cultural centers or groups of human beings that were segregated from each other as they were sparsely scattered across the globe by whatever means, then we might be able to imagine that within each of these groups discourse proceeded to supply an inherently cohesive group identity. So as as these groups got larger, each intersection of boundary disrupted the previous Group identity, such that upon the meeting of two or more groups the identity of group and the meaning of group in itself had to be adjusted. This process and motion we might see has produced a kind of global group now, and in it’s saturation of meaning, the overlapping of boundaries coming up on boundaries coming up on boundaries, and the negotiation of what this means for identity itself, and for group cohesion itself, is it self highly problematic, almost to the point of being unsolvable.

*

These two dynamics can be said to be at the root of the situation that we call reality, as well as the basic substance or issue that more than a few authors of the past 30 or 40 or so years have been addressing. Any other issue that arises from this cauldron of fragmented boundaries is what I call an issue of subsequence. And as well the reason why we can begin to be able to discern as well as describe the difference between two types of philosophy, two types that have been historically conflated into one effort due to the relatively straightforward capacity for addressing the interfacing of group boundaries (or at least the assertion of an ability for approaching, understanding and negotiating definite boundaries). Yet due to our current situation we can find of such two philosophies, what I call two routes, that we can no longer afford, or rather it does a discredit to the progress of humanity in general, to continue in this delusion of a common arena of philosophical consideration.

The point is to clean up philosophical consideration; not to discredit some forms, but rather merely clean up the arena so we can stop going around in circles, discussing and arguing the same points over and over under different terms, stop the unnecessary activity of fending off arguments that obviously are not considering the same (argumentative) object, as well wasting time in the attempt to describe how such approaches are incorrect in their approach (?); the basis of the non sequitur is that the applicant is incapable of understanding the object because their approach is already incorrect, and no form of description is able to gain access to the incorrect base of approach. The traditional categories should be more properly understood as concerning subsequent discussions, for though I am speaking of teleology as opposed to ontological considerations, it is that such teleology actually moves along a different meaningful area, again, what I call, for lack of a term right now, not real. My example is often computers. I am not too informed about computers, but we might discern philosophy as analogous to the different levels of computer engineering. For example: html does function along its won rules of grammar and syntax, and while we might be able to use the same kind of strategies in lower level computing, the language itself in not compatible to understand the functioning off such levels. I propose that conventional-traditional philosophy is a higher level language that proposes to be able to consider and operate within lower level operations and languages. I propose that we need to discern philosophical capacities similar to computer languages, and 1) stop the incessant privilege that supposes a universal access upon texts, and 2) stop being offended at limited access and the obvious limit of the traditional-conventionally taught maxim of a common human spirit.

*

One example of this kind of subsequence: The segregating of oneself upon the occasion of a text, of referencing another author from the perspective, or upon the orientation where the author is supplying information inherently and universally separated or held from that reader. This type of approach is upon not only texts, but is indeed reflective of an approach upon the universe itself (there is nothing outside of the text, but more properly: There is nothing outside of the terms); but keep in mind, I am not asserting or promoting a kind of ‘spiritual return’, some sort of ‘cosmic consciousness’, some suspended ‘true spiritual human essence of Being’ nor some kind of religious Presentism. These proposals are not concerning an ontology of things. Quite different; the concern here is with teleology. I am merely stating facts, and one of the facts is that when such a statement is made, often people will take the statement as referencing a kind of true essential substrate of consciousness. This is the same kind of person, of a certain orientation upon objects, that evidences a certain route; when encountering a text and there is a significant meaning that is come upon, this route already is confirmed by the standard of real estimations and the meaning is taken unto itself to have been gained through some secret channel, as if held in some special alcove, that some mysterious as to yet unknown chamber of being has been opened for that reader, but further, and more significant to the meaning of noticing this view, that this mystery is particular to the individual such that it is a secret such that it is something that is real and yet it is much larger than the reality that the reader had known up till that point. In short, it is a kind of supernatural or esoteric knowledge that everyone is coming upon but often sanctioned through institutional norms, in fact, supported through slight-of-hand argumentative strategies that further argues as it institutionalizes term-object identities, in particular, the clausal structure (term-object) that substantiates that terms relate real novelty (as this novelty it gained through the ‘great unknown’ of intuition (God, for any other term).

This type of orientation is already invested in the inflation of identity, because the route that is most often taken out of that situation is the route that keeps the information secret for the benefit of conveying to the rest of humanity the greatness or the specialness of that person (or institution), the communion for whom was granted this secret knowledge. This is the basis of capitalism, the basis of enlightenment thinking; agents of transcendence negotiating with each other within or on a horizontal ‘worldly’ plane. This inherently meaningful given situation allows for the presumption that everyone in the discussion is being honest, but in fact the hidden platform upon which this honesty appears is itself a kind of institutional allowance for deception. This hidden or withheld aspect is scarcity, the ‘excess’ by which interest may be leveraged against other (real universal) Beings. For no longer is humanity assumed upon a level playing field by this acolyte; indeed the reader that is come upon by such significance is already viewing the world as if it is a place that he or she is supposed to assert their righteousness upon. Hence the group that is made from this type of orientation upon text is one of justified universal hierarchal order. Our current situation is that of settling the scaffolding by which meaning can ethically substantiate such hierarchical norms; this is the condition we are calling the destitution of spirit, the real occurrence of the world. The idea of of ‘relative belief’ marks the beginning of the destitution of spirit because ‘belief’ is the evidence of consciousness in the effort to ‘retrieve’ spirit within the functioning scheme of meaning, within the arena of ‘given’, which is to say, as an effective and thus ‘unquestioned’ object.

Once these norms find placement, then spirit, as a meaningful construct, begins again, to return within the scaffolding as a mark of the beginning of another ‘domination’, of another ‘colonial modern’, that then comes to question itself, again to be left in its destitution. This is the long game, of an ontology that is determined by a teleology that is, for all meaningful (real) purposes, not real.

*

It is a longing because the alternate route of which I speak is that route that knows the assertion of identity is faulty, and yet despite that fault supplies the only route into real human negotiation. The role of such ‘unenlightened’ people is best determined through the granting of truth by its simultaneous revealing of its own fallacy.

Anyways…

Here’s the REPOST:
Death of Culture: On the Decay of Thinking

It is very likely that never in human history have there been as many treatises, essays, theories and analyses focused on culture as there are today. This fact is even more surprising given that culture, in the meaning traditionally ascribed to the term, is now on the point of disappearing. And perhaps it has already […]
https://socialecologies.wordpress.com/2016/08/07/death-of-culture-on-the-decay-of-thinking/