The Global Hospice

Passion and compassion.

Reality and truth.

Philosophy and anthropology.

Either/or and And.

These are counter-partial horizontally, and correlational vertically, at least in this post.

  WE ARE ABLE to contemplate significant relationships With things other than human beings. And, Yes, a human being is also a universal object.

And, it is also a subject. Modern subjectivity is the current ideological formulation of being in the world, otherwise known as the global religion. This is the case such that any argument which would bring rebuttal or exception to the statement merely argues that what it’s arguing against is the case; in other words, any rebuttal to the statement is telling us that it is a modern subject. At that, involved with an alienation from itself. 

This is not wrong or incorrect, nor does it indicate merely a condition that we must reject, otherwise known as contradiction. It merely shows us some thing that is true of the universe. It is true of the universe; it must be true simply by the basic definition of what we understand is true, and regardless of how we define the notion of truth, because of the condition I just stated. That is, any rebuttal to it merely exemplifies the case it is trying to dispel. This is a truth, and it is a truth under a particular condition, and we call this condition modern.

To decide upon different terms, and define those new terms in different ways in relation to the term that is supposedly indicating something that is problematic or that is in need of changing or adjusting, is what we know of as the modern theological apology That we call postmodern.

We have the parameters of our condition. Because we can identify parameters truly, we are able to identify an object that arises in the universe.

From a subjective standpoint, which is to say, from the unreflective condition of being where a human arises to its occasion in the world to use its intellect for skillful application, and only use during that moment of living, Life is supposed to be, and it is indeed demanded by the individual involved with a passionate existence.

Such passion is particularly individual. It is particularly self-serving. It is possible therefore to define the global situation of humanity, in a general sense, as the negotiation between individuals. And, it is due to this orientation upon universal things, that is, the subjective or phenomenal orientation upon things, that’s the problem in the relationship  with the world is occurring. In other words, it is the and self righteous proclamations and assertions of self-centeredness upon the world which evidences the dysfunction that is our current global situation. Pandemic, post truth, social discord, etc. arise because of this particular manifestation of the human being it’s relationship with the world.

And, somewhat unfortunately, the head or leading proponent of such cosmology is philosophy itself.  it is an orientation upon the transcendent spirit of the human being as the designator an arbiter of all things, such that anything which arises in the world is understood to be arising only within the human being itself. And the problems with this orientation are manifest. 

Anthropology is the honest look at Real universal objects. And due to the constraints which confront our conceptions, and inform our perceptions, the way forward must be compassion. Less the self righteous imposition of propriety upon oneself, as well the grace given to others for their self righteousness, we need compassion for the passionate exercise of excess.

Going forward we should see ourselves in global hospice. 

 Folks, we are dying.

…As usual.

The Reason of the Two Routes: Real Religion and Truth.

That said :

Part of the Two Routes is a suggestion that we admit that there is no common humanity, but that there is a humanity that needs such an ideal. I think perhaps The psychologist who shall not be named is playing to this crowd. The goal, though, would be to develop a philosophical understanding that is aware of this role, the responsibility Philosophy has to the actual truth of what humanity is by what it does: People need religion. And so the responsible thing seems to be to give it to them, but also to recognize that the religious ideas of “partial reasonings” are in the service of compassion for the common good, and less “true” about what is actually occurring. Less a patronizing, and more a recognition and acknowledgement of the truth: most people simply do not wish to know, and to give them all the information sometimes just confuses people and makes life more difficult. I think it is possible The psychologist who shall not be named is doing this, trying to supply a meaningful world to those who don’t want to really know, but without the awareness that this is what he is doing. We need people, philosophers who are aware, not just in a power struggle for righteousness. I feel that philosophy needs to recognize and accept what it is able to do and be responsible for it, to actual people, and not just responsible to the idea Of transcendence it appears to denote.


this picture might be cool: let’s allow the truth to be what it is instead of being trapped by an eternal encompassing phenomenal religious correlation.

In order for this real awareness of what the human being is by what it does to be actualized, a partition in knowledge is needed.

Postmodern defines a state of existence. It does not indicate anymore another philosophical proposal, but instead shows us what we are up against as philosophy.

I argue we have a responsibility to become aware, and to thus move out of the centralized religious philosophical subjectivity, all the while recognizing that not everyone can or will. Our mode is help, and less imposition.

And I will reiterate: It is not necessary for people to have this larger philosophical understanding of truth. It is unnecessary to educate people as to the relativity of their religious belief. People do not function with a certain quality or quantity of mental health if they are forced to think of something that they are not able to think of; which is to say, to hold within one’s knowledge the idea of the truth of things that is not true is a different level of thinking that most people exhibit psychological symptoms of distress over because they are unable or simply do not prefer to think in this manner. And this is to pronounce ideology.

The liberal idea of education would say that we need to educate everyone to be philosophically liberal minded enough that whatever their religious belief is they have to be open minded enough to except someone else’s religious belief as possibly true also. I am saying, that the people who are religious, the people who need that kind of finitude that kind of servitude of their reality, should be allowed to have that identity as indeed a true and functioning world, with out fear or challenge that their belief is merely a ‘belief’.

Part of this realization, this responsibility that I’m talking about, not occur for those people. This is to say, that people do not get into battles and wars merely over their religious beliefs; on the contrary, on one hand people, people just fight because that’s what they do. People disagree and they fight and there’s nothing that we’re going to do to be able to prevent that, even while we may be able to prevent or mitigate particular instances of conflict occasionally and under certain conditions. But on the other hand, people get into battles with other religions because of this liberal idea that wants to place an umbrella over the rest of humanity and call it “education”. What is liberal philosophical ideal does is invalidate, it effectively invalidates every single other person’s belief by the simple assumption that there is a common humanity that needs to be raised to this great enlightenment ideal of being human.

I’m saying we need to change that approach. Think differently of how to affirm religious truth with out making it a relativity and thus needing of violent assertion over other religions. Think differently about what is actually occurring. How might we do that? Is the significant and challenging question. I suggest that one way might be to realize what the human being is as a universal object, find ways to work with that object, as indeed something that we then now know as true.