Read: The Philosophical Hack

Oh Kaay!

I finally took a minute and got some things in order.

THE OBJECT OF THE SUBJECT : The Second Part of the Philosophical Hack  is available in EPUB HERE. 

Screen Shot 2019-08-29 at 7.15.12 PM

                 and in paperback HERE.

THE PHILOSOPHICAL HACK: The First Part is available HERE in paper back.

img_5039

“The Philosophical Hack a hack into philosophy. A hack in one sense is someone who knows how to use the technology but nevertheless assembles useful objects in non-conventional manners. A hack is someone who adeptly utilizes 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. It is written in such a way that the philosophical mind will not be ostracized but will indeed be challenged. It is indeed a philosophical hack.”

 

Using Slavoj Zizek’s EVENT! as a platform, Nathaniel moves us beyond Zizek’s more political subjective confines into an object orientation.  Graham Harman, of noted Object Oriented Ontology, posits that knowledge either speaks to what a thing is made of or what it does, and that while we need knowledge to exist and to thrive as human beings, cognition is not exhausted by knowledge.  Objects, in this sense, exist at once as present and withdrawn.

Further, he suggests that philosophy is not only about knowledge, not only about what what objects do and what they are made of, but about the love of wisdom. 

He also tells us that Object Oriented Philosophy includes the human being as an object, what Nathaniel calls a universal object.

Setting up a few steps back from Harman’s front, and in Harman’s terms, the Philosophical Hack sets up the contours of a philosophy as an effort of love toward or involved with wisdom. Nathaniel thereby begins to lay the groundwork toward a hopefully more substantial and meaningful practical philosophy for mental health and counseling.  In this new understanding, the conventional and traditional modes of human Being, such as science, biology, psychology, religion, and spirituality, as well as the traditional philosophical theoretical (as many we know) constitute contributing components of the object that is the subject.

The Philosophical Hack is the beginning of a philosophy which includes other disciplines to form a more coherent and seamless cognition of what the human being actually is as a universal object infinite in its involvement with other objects, as opposed to what the human Being is able to be as a transcendental and special phenomenal subject limited in its ideological nothingness.

This new way is to retain everything, as opposed to excluding.

#mentalhealth, #objectorientationcounseling, #truth, #loveofwisdom

*

 

The Third Part of the philosophical hack is Delayed due to user error.

Oh no! My MacBook Pro crashed finally after 10 years. And, because I really do despise computers and iPhones and the Internet and everything that has to do with modern technology 😄 I don’t automatically save my stuff to the cloud. Rather, I like to work from my computer and then only every once in a while save my work to the cloud, which I know now is not very wise, especially having my main computer as a 10-year-old MacBook Pro. (Fart).

I am from the generation that has a certain sense, a certain want or need to have some thing that is mine for anything that I do.  for example, I like to own albums and on CDs, even though I never play them anymore and I listen all my music off of streaming services (puke). Lol.

Hey, if anyone has the right to be hypocritical, it is to themselves. 

Perhaps future generations of humanity will be more community oriented and consistent in some authentic human being Ness, and in the sense that everything is shared, perhaps because that is what will be necessary as an attitude in order for humanity to survive the changing of our climate. But by that time I will be long gone and it won’t matter. Besides, I shop at the thrift store pretty often! 

Anyways; I had all the chapters, all the parts of the philosophical hack saved to my computer, and I only have an older an edited version of the third part saved to the cloud. 😩.  so what that means is that the third part may take a little while longer to get out to you eager philosophical hackers.

And, by the way, The second part Should be finally globally distributed in the next few weeks.



Note: disliking technology does not mean that I don’t enjoy using technology or the benefits that comes with it. I probably mean it more in the sense that a certain orientation upon technology tends to distract us from what is philosophically sound so far as being in the world. And I don’t mean this in the exclusionary sense that somehow we need to get in touch with our spiritual inside. Exactly the opposite. I mean in the sense that technology as we understand it tends to allow us to and void engaging ourselves technologically with the world, avoid’s inability to understand the intimate relationship that I have with the world itself, which is to say in as much as I might be invested in the wonders of The iPhone and 5G. 

… Or maybe I’m just old. ✊🏾👨🏽‍🚀

Start The Philosophical Hack with The Second Part: The Object of the Subject

THE OBJECT of the SUBJECT: The Second Part. EPUB version available now.

— if everything went good.

“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 their 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.”

In more ways than one, the object of the subject is available now.

The Philosophical Hack is a book that will be served over six courses, for easier digestion. Expect The Third Part in 2020. 

Stiegler’s Faux-pas?

I have been chipping away very slowly at Stiegler’s Negathropocene.

And here is a paragraph from the end of Part 2 in the book that I thought encompasses, what we might call, a faux pas in reckoning.  Similar to Lacan’s mistake , i’m calling this author’s mistake a faux pas because it seems to me that his mistake he could not help because of his investment in the ubiquity of the social criterion, or so it appears.

In particular I bring out to relief his suggestion that what is required is a change in the theory of value.

what I am calling a faux pas in the context of his proposal is the same type of error that is indicated in Lyotard’s “The differend“, and elaborated on in “ThePost modern condition”.

So It is interesting to me that just prior to this posted paragraph the author comments how he attempts to show where Lyotard’s condition Is insufficient. My answer before I even read his piece is, “of course it’s insufficient because from your position you are required to argue a denial of the situation at hand”, which I have discussed in other posts of mine.

I submit, that if we understand what Zizek has described as “A change in how we reckon change” as an indication of the same requirement that Stiegler is talking about, then he (S) would have to first give us a disclaimer about how what he is writing about a change in the theory of value is not already invested in the very value that is attempting to change by the submission of this essay. Without it, That is called duplicity. Often we have an example of why these theoreticians who are so invested in the social equation and the phenomenological involvement of subjects actually serve to function the perpetuation of the theory of value that they would so hope to change through their use of discourse.

*

The question that haunts every modern philosophical text is whether it embodies and thus accounts for this odd incongruence. It is the incongruity that shows up in the lacuna between Hegel and Kierkegaard, As well as Kant and Wittgenstein.

*

When we get beyond the either/or of quick subjective assertion (I want to be heard! And seen! ) then the political realm garners a more appropriate response. Such reply then has little to do with value as an issue, for the adversary is understood as and inherent part of the struggle. It becomes less an effort of attempt to rid or dispel the adversary and more about changing the relationship. A theory of value is that which is inherently changed by virtue of the fact that the real relationship is changed.  Thus does not occur in politics (the ethical universe), and thus the political effort of argumentation does very little to change the theory of value (see Kierkegaard). But again, this is not an either/or statement (Kierkegaard was caught in his historical moment: hence his despair). It is not suggesting that a person somehow becomes or refrains or steps outside of the political sphere;!rather, the individual’s orientation upon that arena has changed implicitly.

*

This condition should be what Stiegler stands upon. In this sense, the “macro-economic” reorganization does hint at a recognition, but I think the either/or might have him by the bit, which then leads him in a circle, or maybe and ellipse.

So it seems that Stiegler is arguing the condition that must be brought about by his discussion, and so moves beyond Dasein in as much as he must argue history and society already in the motion of getting beyond: negentropy: which sounds suspiciously Similar to what he is arguing that he is stepping beyond, or that we have stepped beyond. He begins to sound startlingly similar to a child singing in the dark instead of flipping the light switch which she knows lay just in reach on the wall.

I am not sure his historical argument is quite sound beyond the mere words.

But I will read on, and i will report later upon my progress through his book, and I will reflect upon whether or not I was incorrect in this initial assessment of mine.

The Object of the Subject is available to you now.

THE OBJECT of the SUBJECT: The Second Part. EPUB version available now.

— if everything went good.

“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 their 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.”

In more ways than one, the object of the subject is available now.

The Philosophical Hack is a book that will be served over six courses, for easier digestion. Expect The Third Part in 2020. 

The End of the Beginning of the End.

It is hazy on the horizon, but coming into focus…

The commencement to the hack is the end of the beginning of the end of philosophy as we knew it. Once undertaken the hack, we are out of time.

Just as science needed no argumentative convincing but rather was the convincing itself, so the begining of the beginning can take more than a life time to become a given truth.

We tend to look back at history and historical eras and clump vast swathes of time into bits of discourse, which then serve to grant us our intelligent postion that is the condensation of, say, 100 years of being human thought into a few sentences, a stack of essays and a shelf of books, and we think we know so much. And we so humble fill our lives to read the 500 obliged books and think that we do the periods and authors justice with our keen minds, colleagues and comrades filling libraries and data bases with so many works they could never all be read even with a Earth full of researchers– let alone understand what one book has meant.

And We Might begin to comprehend Kierkegaard without the contradictory religious and spiritual implications and see what is truly philosophical outside the conventional ideological frame. But then again, to be in despair to be oneself can be very comfortable…one can nearly make a living being in despair even!

*

The Object of the Subject begins to mark out the space that The First Part of the Philosophical Hack breached.

Out so soon you won’t even know you were hiding in the closet.

And then you must summon a bravery that most never will have to come upon — until you do.

There is no reason; there is no spirit. Those become anachronisms and statues to nostalgia which thereby open the door to the future.

We are called now to step forth.