The Great Divide: Was The Handmaiden’s Tale Nonfiction?

Intelligence !! That, is the question.

I am not that dense to believe that any piece of news is Above pure propaganda. This link to article is by the guardian, and I do like to think this news source, though leftist, has its neutral facts in order and is reporting neutrally, with a liberal bent. 

That’s what I like to believe. But I know it’s false.

However, I do think they’re reporting on some thing that’s actually occurring, somewhere, and somehow similar to what they are reporting on.

And yes my opinions are biased also. But I think this goes to my point I’m going to make here about intelligence.

The Notion of Intelligence Has No Substantial Basis for Legitimacy

The notion of intelligence itself must be an inaccurate way to identify a human being.

I say this because my first reaction to this article is that human beings are not intelligent. Lol

What I mean by this is, their opinion makes no

And what I mean by this is that they are stupid. lol

I could go on, but those last three sentences don’t really say anything at all except that I feel that I myself I am intelligent, my opinions make sense, and that I’m not stupid. Any definition that I would want to bring up around those terms are necessarily biased in my favor.

Notice that my post one or two ago ask the question: where does legitimacy reside?

It largely comes out of “intellectual/ethical” divides such as the arguments around birth control.

I have to admit that whatever these people are, that they are so adamant about not getting abortions antiabortion and such, must not be the same type of human that I am. I mean this in the sense that regardless of what seems intellectually sound to me, that is, that everyone should have the right to their own opinions and be able to voice them, Obviously the people who are “pro life”, as if strangely enough, I am not for living and for allowing people to live how they want to live, Do not hold this opinion that I have that everyone should be allowed to uphold their own ideals ethically about life and how to live it. Obviously that maxim only goes so far for them. Ultimately, and I would say due to what this ethical maxim means to me, again, namely, that everyone should be able to uphold their own ideals and live life as they see fit, The people who are prolife do not agree with me about what this simple statement says. And this is to say that they agree with it so long as you agree with them about this one particular issue; it doesn’t really matter what it is.

It’s like the “great divide” of ideology. There is no source of legitimacy from which we could find an intellectual or ethical common ground. Even if we believe in the United States system of government, ultimately we have to admit that the charge on the White House and the Trump in whatever they might be called, again only believe in the common humanity so far as everyone has to believe in the basic ideals they believe.

I don’t think I need to run this in the ground. I think you get my point.

The Theory of the Logistical Basis for Ethics and the Two Routes

This is why I say that ethics is not something that Arises innately within us. Because of the great divide, it appears more true to say that ethics are trained into us. Surprise!

Really the great divide must be how we are oriented upon how ethics arises within oneself. 

If I feel that I am instilled with the ethics that extends over the human creature as a global manifestation, by, for any other term, God or deity or “natural morality”, then what we have in these kinds of debates is really a battle between religious zealots. For, even if I am the most liberal minded atheist, if I am also pro life then I am believing in some transcendent yet substantial and foundational “should” that encompasses the human being as a species.

 For example, there are plenty of people that believe that we should try to help every human being no matter what due to the fact that they are human. I’m not sure how that kind of morality is not based in a religious type of formulation. I’m not sure how that relies on something that is not transcendentally encompassing to the category. 

Ethics that’s always argues, in the end, for a logistical basis of its epistemological foundation Rather than a transcendental one.

We Have Never Been Modern

We get to this point and ultimately we have to begin to notice the sociologists discussion Bruno Latour we have never been modern.  specifically, he points to inherent contradictions in the modern way of conceptualizing things, but also the contradictory motion that must be in play to uphold any one of the positions.

For example, we can argue that no God exists, and yet as I have shown above, at the same time that I am making the argument that there is no God, I am nevertheless relying upon a transcendence that is forming my ability to have such knowledge. If I move then to define what transcendence is, proposing to rebut your argument that I am relying upon some sort of God for my proposal, then I have entered into the contradiction that I propose to be solving. It is these types of contradictory positions/motions that the author draws upon to make the suggestion that this is what modernity is, but in order to come to such a critique we must never have been modern. 

The Two Routes, again

So, I come back to the problem inherent to the issue of abortion in America. There is a reason why our form of government must pose “one nation under God”. Presently, in order to govern modern minded people, a governing body must reside in that space of irony. This is what our legal system is based on, standing on the fulcrum of modern contradiction.

However, the most pertinent to our case here and what this article represents. If indeed ethics is only a logistical solution and not an ideal solution, not a solution which arises inherent to the universe and or inherent to the human being itself, then we have a huge dilemma.

The logistical rationale for ethics thus argues that there is no human being that has inherent worth. That a human being’s worth is ultimately in relation to The prevailing ideology.

Hence, The basis of the logistical approach to ethics. The problem of ethics has Little to do with whether someone has inherent worth; it has to do with the fact that I can never totally eliminate my opponents or ethical enemies. As I posted elsewhere, because I can never get rid of people who, by my estimation, Are not intelligent, nonsensical, stupid, I thereby have to reflect back upon myself how I am going to live comfortably and happily with them.

 Disgusting, right?

What Does This Have to do with Mental Health?

Mental health either is the effort to bring the individual back into the ideological fold, whatever that is.


Mental health is the effort to help the individual find themselves despite ideological maxims.x

The Defining of Religious Space: The Secular Fanaticism of Indifference

The Secular Fanaticism of Indifference

The Secular Fanaticism of Indifference
— Read on

I think this links-post is right on the mark.

But also…

We see here the setting of an Age. I say this in a sort of manner with Zizek: We have a responsibility to leave such discourses to the context in which they arise: their own self-referencing group. Not “the world”. This is so much the case that I don’t even need to make any sort of argument for my point because the theorists (as an over-generality) involved in this kind of posturing already make the argument for me. (The loosely defined “Dark Ecologists”)

It is almost ridiculous, like some sort of slapstick routine: Over the years, I have engaged with a few authors which I could probably put into this general category of “dark ecological” discourse. I find it interesting, and often quite accurate. But I see a problem of it is that many (again, as most probably an over generalization) authors into this stuff have lost their ability to reckon where they are, literally: They are floating in space, and thats all.


I say this because if one were to enter into a critical discussion with them (again, the impression I got from three or four authors who seem very founded in this kind of Landian Realm of Dark Ecology) they simply will not recognize any critique of their position that does not use their own jargon. And I ask: what kind of critical theory is immune from critique, or only accepts critique along lines it supplies?

If one tries to engage with them on a critical level, try to ask questions into what they are really saying, they often will (1)refer you back to their own jargon which supposedly explains the problem you have having, and (2) if you continue to ask what those terms of jargon really mean or are referring to, they will discount what you have to say, imply that you are not educated in general, not just uneducated in their cosmology, and (3) refuse to listen to you until you have the decency of using their words.

That is one aspect of what I call the postmodern religion.  That is what religions do, and that is what we take for granted human beings are supposed to do.

And the big problem with these types of knowledge is there is no getting the thinkers of this knowledge to see outside of their own view, exactly because the post-modern religion understands that everyone is subjectively inscribed in a vacuum of subjectivity, or, what I call redundancy. 

In my view, my educated understanding of the authorial heritage from which they draw, is that they are misunderstanding the texts.  They erect a vicious circle that one cannot get them to see outside of, so there is no point of trying.  In old street terms: They are spun.

The significance of this is not so much that they are talking about the world of human beings. As much as they are talking about their particular view upon the world, a particular view of a kind that everyone is presumed to be involved with and have, to thus form a world of “patchwork”, they are giving us an example of what human beings do, which is to say, an example of the post modern religious view.  Of course, if we fall down the rabbit hole of trying to understand what they’re really saying and we do end up using the same terms that they have erected for their particular religious cosmology,  we soon enough must come to a decision: if we are even able to see what happened ,of course, then we must decide if these terms we learned so well in order to understand them, is indeed talking about the world, or their world formed from a very human manner of pure reason which believes itself.

Now; in my recent posts, I have indicted The Psychologist Who Will Not Be named likewise for misunderstanding various Postmodern philosophers’ ideas he uses. Yet, how can the Christianity be gets behind be a postmodern religion, as well as this “non-religious” and quite academically intellectual theoretical arena?

It is because they are both involved, still, in the philosophical modern paradigm which we loosely call Capitalism. And Capitalism (as a philosophical containment) is the religion of the Pure Reason, which is to say, a theological appropriation of texts over what the texts actually are saying.  The postmodern condition is the modern manner of being human in the world. The real issue is then whether anyone will take responsibility for themselves in this world, or will they continue in their self-serving phenomenal righteousness?

Indeed, it is not a polemic between ecology and evolution as much as it is that the ecology is evolving.  As I have said numerous times (and in my paper I will post soon): What is the climate that is changing?  How do we act responsibly in this world which poses its polemical method over everyone as a cosmological mandate, which is to say, in order to count as valid knowledge?

This is not an issue of choice, or of who is right or who can argue the better point, but rather of how we behave within such condition.