The Veritable Counsel

We are generally afraid of talking, let alone thinking, about truth. I think this is due to the terrible things that humans beings do under the name of truth. Truth is associated with narrow-mindedness and intellectual myopia, as well as authoritarianism and religion.

Well, I seek to disrupt those automatic associations, to help with an understanding truth in the context of truth itself, as opposed to what we are justifiably afraid of in real understanding and activity.

The Real Condition, or The True Condition of Reality

I was reading this part from a book:

Sorry, it is sideways
(from THE ACT WORKBOOK, used without permission)

What caught my attention was “…experts in the field of emotion…”


I am reminded of the seminal paper by Jean-Francois Lyotard call The Post Modern Condition:

The Postmodern Condition

As well, now, the foundational infamous Danish philosopher Soren Kiekerkegaard comes to mind; particularly…

To where is everyone going so fast ?

It is possible to understand philosophy as a name of an involvement with knowledge. In this way, bringing these authors to bear upon philosophy, we can understand that either a person is moving so fast in their effort to get somewhere (who knows where, though) that they forget or mistake their effort as concerning something that is not knowledge, or, the person understands that knowledge is the only thing that is being handled.

The irony here is that this situation is not merely philosophical.

This is to indicate what is happening in our knowing of it, and in fact, in our knowing of anything at all. Two mutually exclusive, non-philopsohical, operations arise in knowing:

  • It is real
  • It is true

On one hand, there are those who will read this far with a fair assumption that they are reading a philosophical post, will already be engaged with it under a certain notion of what is happening and in a way ‘ride upon’ that notion in order to engage with the post or not engage. That is, usually, they will think that this post requires of them to engage in a certain way, and so will be interested or not. If they are not, it is likely that they are not really into thinking this way, that is, philosophically. This is what I generalize as the real philosophical issue: philosophy is just another topic that people will be interested in or not, and within the philosophy understood in this way, there are other philosophical topics that again, people will be interested in or not.

Nonetheless, to the extent that people see this as a real philosophical issue, which then compels them to engage or not and despite what they see as their choices, there we have the true philosophical issue: the issue of the human being involved with knowing.

The truth of the real philosophical issue has to do with how to be a human being has a proper modern identity. Such a person must really be on their toes, for, their goal is to out run and out do everyone else. They must constantly live worried about what everyone else will say or do, because they must get there first, anticipate other peoples activity to make sure they get there first. They must know more than anyone else, and interaction with others are the occasions to be their identity, that is, likely not truly themselves, but just a person in reality. They must use technology better, and they must outdo nature.

They thus concern themselves with being what they are not: they must be experts in themselves with regard to what others are in reality. There is only so much food: I gotta get mine. I want to be the best business executive: I have to know more than the other person, look better, perform better. I want people to be educated and healthy: I must make sure I know what Im doing so I can be viewed as someone who is able to help with those things, so people will come to me for those things. I want to live in peace: I must protect what is mine and be keen on what someone else might do to take from me what is mine. This is what the human being does and must to in reality, and to rebut this is simply to be engaging in this very activity. It is not necessarily wrong; it is simply what we do, have done for as long as we can understand what is human, and it is what we will do in the same way, again, as long as we understand the human being as such.

Lyotard describes this real situation as the Postmodern Condition , and I think it still holds; his report is a report on knowledge, not really a treatise about what ought to be done to correct it (of course, he is obligated to imply an ethical response to it, but that is a real philosophical issue; see my other posts.) To say it is “post-modern”, though, opens things up for his proposal to be something other that what it is, something that it is not, to be something else, like realist, or structuralist. See, though, that these names stake their claims in reality, and in anticipation of people staking their ideological claims to identity, in the same way that Lyotard, by his paper, was/is understood to be making a real philosophical claim. Ironically, this activity is to what Lyotard refers the Expert of Technology: everyone attempting to gain justice for themselves by outdoing everyone else. Thinking better; thinking differently, and so on.

While it comes out of the title of the paper to make a real philosophical claim, when we understand what he is saying, it is more that he is describing the situation for what it is, and that every rebuttal and proposal, at once, falls into the description (of the postmodern condition), while then adhering to its claim, suggests that it is moving beyond it to be something else. By virtue of this real condition, it is near a non sequitur not to see this condition as true. This is to say, the only escape from it is made by using the method that the condition describes, which shows that this condition never changes. I call this condition, thus, real. It is the description of the reality of knowing.


Then, be extension, I feel like something is wrong in this realization of the reality that I am involved with. Somehow, once I see it, I am not able to gain a sense of Justice in my having to be involved with reality. I try and try, but something is always lacking, and I just can’t figure it out. So what do I do?

The Beginning of Knowing As Such

The example of that excerpt above is a usual description of what science gives us; an assertion which seems like it is giving us something definite and precise, yet upon scrutiny, it is vague and means very little. We look at scientific proposals and we like how it appears, we like how it makes us feel, like that we can be sure of what we are talking about, like we know something. It gives me a feeling that what I am doing and saying is justified. It is real and part of the knowing of what is real.

However, to again doubt and rebut, to resort to thinking by our fear, as though I am suggesting science is “not true” is a real issue, not the true issue. Of course science and is findings and proposals are real, and true in their reality. However, to make further assumptions and statements beyond this fall squarely into real philosophical issues, real philosophical material of ethical dimensions.

What I do from there is the true philosophical issue.

More in a bit…

Science is not in opposition to ignorance

Only by a certain orientation upon knowledge does oppositional categories have significant affect.

I was reading a paper, part of the paper anyways, where the author talks about John Locke saying his work not involved with science.

Just got me thinking. Georg Hegel, and many more philosophers for sure we’re trying to find some sort of “science“ of …what? Now that were in the moment that were in, I’m not sure we really are identifying what science actually is.

Indeed, even scientists would give us a definition that if we were to look into what it really means, or what it’s really identifying, we would find that it is like saying that that object over there is a chair. Any mediocre Philosopher knows that as soon as we attempt to investigate an object from the standpoint of the phenomenology of the subject, we find that there’s nothing really there that the word identifies. I’m short, that language or words of language are arbitrary.

Science as Truth

I am the first person to suggest that words are not arbitrary. Even while I hang on to the logic of the philosophy which understands words and sounds and symbols is not necessarily being linked to the object that they suppose.

I feel this is a more significant venture for philosophy: that words identify things that truly arise in the universe. That the knowledge of things in such a way is indeed a science, or indeed can be eventually found out and known truthfully in a system of science.

Now, of course, the only logical means to understand that last phrase that I gave is to understand that I am not in a project that has to do with the present moment, so far as modern science. But rather, indeed science is some thing that human beings are involved with teleologically, that is to say, universally. So it is that I say that my work has to do with disrupting correlated terms, which is to say, terms that arise in a polemic which seem like they’re true, but Are really only given into a particular kind of knowledge. I called this particular kind of knowledge modern.

This is interesting because if I’m going to propose that my work has something to do with science then I must realize that there is a current working epistemological paradigm that functions, indeed as it promotes a faith in, it’s mode of corrections, it’s patterned system of lacunae, and that if I am going to propose that my work is scientific, then I must indeed deal with the present misunderstanding that is common empirical science as a thing that arises truly in the universe as well.

In this way, then, we can begin to understand a progress of the human species, of the human being, that betrays the common ideological heritage. We can begin to see that a science arises through a different kind of understanding of what has been happening in the growth of the human creature through time, and indeed that’s come upon a different understanding of what time actually is. After all this: we can find a scientific truth of the universe that human beings can know and apply.

Post Truth?

This is also to say that we must contend with idiocy. We must contend with the idiocy of the conservative liberal “science” -oriented modern epistemological technology, and those correlations that constitute its basis, those who have a different opinion, that knowledge which arises as “conspiracy“, The conveyors of post truth, and otherwise ignorant people, warmongers of 19th century disposition, etc..

A little while ago the philosopher Alain Badiou suggested that the radical political move would be to not vote. Basically, to drop out of involving oneself with politics. That this indeed would be the radical political move. And of course, all those for Social Justice really had to take what he was saying and apply it ironically, metaphorically, as if he really wasn’t saying what he was saying.

For, for those oriented in the social justice of empirical modern reality, one must make choices into political action..

Disjointed and disconnected as it is from any true universe — when we begin to comprehend that I am not involved in the constituting of the other, then we can truly begin to understand what subjectivity is and how it indeed arises as a true thing in the universe.

We find that we just must do what we do, and in that doing we arise as a truly radical political entity. The choice into political agency is based in a decision that cannot be made.

The Moment of Decisive Significance

I’m not making a political statement here, really. .

Science as the Object of the Subject.

Maybe that’s what I’m saying. Science is always epistemological. Epistemology grants the significant understanding of the true universe.


The Philosophical Hack

We are so motivated and conditioned by the given modern phenomenology that we become fearful and skeptical when the word “truth” arises. So far as mental health, this kind of fear is “the final frontier“, and it is usually a fear that resides so deeply and so substantially that people just consider it normal. Indeed, it is so foundational, it constitutes the basis of modern identity, such that most people would be content in the contradictions that uphold their identity, to have some personal and private spirituality and religious belief, that most mental health issues are never encountered. That is the way of the modern capitalistic world; we cannot impose mental health upon all of humanity and its social systems, if simply because we have no way of affectively addressing it. Hence, I see ethics as having to do more with logistics, and less of what meaning and decisions we see ourselves needing to make.


The truth is in there.


Just gotta check in : Zizek on Ukraine (Translated)

Farmers Letters: Zizek on Ukraine (Translated)
— Read on

—— “form… is never just a form, it is part of the content…”

The Two Routes translation:

The content material always concerns the form, and the substance is that which arises, in once instance, as contradiction, yet in another instance as irony. The real attempt to bring the contradicting irony to materialize is the political instance, the “either/or” epistemological absolute that lay at the heart of ideological constituency, the Imagined content within the Symbol of the Real.

The Culture of Cultures: An example of how the explanatory term of mental health begins to account for all human endeavor

Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World’s Most Dangerous Man: 9781982141462: Trump Ph.D., Mary L.: Books
— Read on

—– Just an example; perhaps motivated by a little Justice as well. 😙

Nonetheless; this is an example of how the cult of individualism is being accounted for sufficiently to only allow for two responses. 

Accept it. The rationale behind mental health and its capacity of overwhelming explanatory power leaves even the most ardent skeptic to accept at least some of its truth, and work with it.

Deny it. Explanatory power of the trope of mental health can only be denied. This is to say, it’s explanatory power hits home. This effect on people, which is to say, due to parts of its power for making sense, brings about a response of rejection.

Similar to when someone notices something about us that we are trying to protect, and we feel embarrassment, so it is that the explanatory power of mental health reaches into our very nature, indeed, describes the cult of individualism to the extent that those who adhere to it as an ontological truth have nothing to do but to reject it and indeed fight against it. In the end, unfortunate and ironic, all they have left is recourse to violence.

This is a focal issue of Modernity: The issue of The Two Routes. 

This question is salient: How do I find my individual self without the multiplicity of beings to show me the way to where I am?

Rp and comment on the Foundations of the Gospels: Q, L, and M – An Overview and Critique

In the world of biblical studies there is the argument known as Q (and L and M) which asserts the common material to Matthew and Luke comes from oral…

Foundations of the Gospels: Q, L, and M – An Overview and Critique


Paul Hesiod, as usual, lays out a nice opening to the Gospel context in material philosophical history.

In light of the general discussion that he introduces us to by his post, A deeper discussion is opened up as to different ways to see, to view, and ultimately know what the issue of Q entails.

One so interested in a a discussion about epistemological bases of history in the context of the Gospels, might be interested in:

The Moment of Decisive Significance

What Do We Have?

A philosophical method.

I have an issue with conventional philosophy: the method it assumes to make its statement that the problem of the criterion is generally figured to be the main problem of epistemology, is a real philosophical issue. So, because we can indicate the method as redundantly involved with the problem it poses, I must disagree to the basic premise that is going unsaid. Namely, that there is a knowable center of knowing from which knowledge can be said to be knowledge.

However, my extended discussion is not this post. I really mean to show how this conventional philosophical method extends and plays out all across every aspect of knowledge that figures itself to be philosophical.

And here is an example:

The Problem of the Criterion: A Christian’s Thoughts – The Council — Read on

The issue that I’m pointing out is that there really is no distinction between what could be a philosophy of Christianity any proposed Philosophy and argumentation about it.

This is the problem is the criterion: There is no criterion. Which is to say, the criterion is the proposal itself, what I call “redundant”.

And in comparison, we might even suggest that Christianity is being more honest in where it gets its idea for its proposal, because at least these Christian apologists say that there is an intuitive understanding of God that is informing our ability to make statements and arguments. In a strange way, I think this is more honest than what more academic philosophers would say about ideology or politics or any other topic. Even the Michel Foucault users – and I like Foucault – are unable to admit such a simple idealism at route to their discussion.

So it is that I say when we talk about what is actually occurring, what knowledge actually is, what epistemologically must be the case, I feel that these philosophical ideals really fall drastically short.

And if you’re interested you can look past into my blog, and maybe even read some of my published material.

Rp and comment on Chameleon theory (theories)… Everlasting worlds….

Supercomputer simulations of galaxies have shown that Einstein’s theory of General Relativity might not be the only way to explain …

Chameleon theory (theories)… Everlasting worlds…

—– Real objects withdraw from view and relation. Real objects arise in this manner encrusted with qualities that come into appearance as to embody or correlate with the terms which pose to identify them.
Yet, in truth, terms merely float like Pacific Islands, over the molten core of the real object.

Thus, in truth, we speak less of how terms are correlated with other terms or encrustments, less of what argument may appear as more true or more plausible than another, and more of what is actually occurring in that activity of knowing anything at all.

The (w)Hole of Modernity

A tension arises between the human being and the world that is. Always, the formulation as an intensional act, is of overmining and undermining. Thinking too much of things toward a great overarching explanation, or thinking too little, into the minutiae of pieces and more pieces, as those might explain.

In particular to the object that is the subject, this tension is how knowledge coordinates with other objects.

Less how subjective knowledge is involved with objective knowledge (modern), knowledge itself, as a thing that arises in the universe, concerns orientation over coordination. That is, relationship and expansion in contrast to distillation and reduction. In a universe where Objects arise in relation to other objects, subjective knowledge becomes a manner to make notice of epistemological orientation, rather than the only envelope in which knowledge is able to arise.

The modern episteme is coordinated by differences in power, such that every human being arises as a hole in the universe, devoid of an actual body beyond a correlational Ideal (politics), and at no time able to appreciate the it’s true arrival in the universe itself.

Over and underdetermination are religious epistemological compensations by which the subject is asserted over all knowable things.

New Material Law

a = all possible material

b = all impossibility of possible material.

All the impossibility of possible material accounts for any thing that is not accountable as material.

a+b = every real thing.

Every real thing is qualified by either a or b.

x = the number of possible instances

An instance is a more-than-one. An instance never arises as one, since one requires an other for its ability to arise to itself. Any posit which argues differently merely proves this instance is true. That is, the definition is not true, but the instance itself is indeed true.

It can only be denied, but not proven so without the covert act.

An argument which does indeed argue something different, is subject to the condition of the universe, C.

C = (a+b) ^x

C is the entirety of possible universe.

Once this is found, only two possibilities arise:

The Real Material

And what we must then call

The True Object (Substance).

This fact is due to the redundancy of material in its possibility and impossibility, whether we call it material or use a different term for it.

That is, once we reach C, the true description of universe, then C becomes subject to being a condition of real material (either a or b).

Hence, it is not nothing that arises outside or beyond the universe C, nor other universes.

Rather, the nothingness that arises is merely part of the real universe.

This is true, since no possibility arises outside of its instance. For any other possibility, again, would be redundant.

The situation which confounds the reality of this situation is that such truth has knowable content, content that we may call substance, that brings into question the real condition of materiality (a+b) as a total accounting of the universe.

Therefore, since the true content of the real universe is not reckoned by or against or in relief of nothing, the true content of the universe is not simply everything, (as a platitude or truism), but must rather involve a different manner or orientation upon what real material objects are in themselves, and thus what information they are yielding to knowledge.

Two Routes upon or otherwise into things.

Christian Apologetics and Predication

I enjoyed this essay of Christian apologetics. It makes a good point as to predication. In short, what he means by predication is that which enjoins reason to reality.  He is making the argument that one either predicates this end situation upon man himself or God.

Aside from the strictly Christian terms, I think this is really the case at hand. However, the issue that I have with this Christian apologetic is in using no different means than that of any other argument. I disagree with his sentiment and his strict argument. The reason why it falls into the category of Christian apologetics is because ultimately he is making the argument that all predication has to be founded in God and not in human beings.

My point is that I could just as easily make an argument why it should be founded in human beings themselves.

So really we’ve just come to a stalemate. Because, what we are really dealing with here is the power of argument to convince or persuade, and then ultimately a decision upon what one wants to believe. In short the Christian apologetics really come down to whether or not one believes in God as the end of predication, or whether one believes that human beings are.

Decision and Denial

The significant feature of predication should be understood as involved with the intention through which the content of discourses manifest.

I will go out on a limb here To say that the issue of predication necessarily reduces to two Possibilities. The issue around significance has to do not only with what we are predicating the idea of reason and reality upon, but indeed upon the predication by which we come to the conclusion that it must be of man or God. 

For The significance of which I speak Is that such a choice is already predicated upon man. And this is to say that “Man or a God” is predicated upon reason, and that’s what we are really asking into philosophically but also apologetically with reference to religion: from where does reason find itself.

Reason is left exempt from the problem because it is assumed.

It is the predicate upon which not only the posing of the question but the possibility of choices to answer the question reside. Reason itself is never in question; rather, it assumes that reason is a ‘one thing’ that itself addresses, but as well, that which is left out if the debate.

Reason must be established either through Mans ability or through God. In other words, the question itself is redundant. In short it merely says that reason posits choice, that ultimately we only have two choices — and you better make the right one!

God and Truth

I am going to go out on another limb here. I’m going to assume that what is intended in the argument for predication upon God, is in actuality something which is “not God”. What I mean by this is that ultimately if I say or argue that the end of predication is God, I have asked another question implicitly about the end of predication that is God. In other words, what is God predicated upon?

So my answer must be that there is no difference between the Christian apologist and what I call the conventional Philosopher. Both are ultimately assuming that reason can find itself as a predicate, and this is exactly Kant’s idealism, exactly his point of the synthetical a priori.

In a very Lyotardian manner, The terms that we are using to set up reasonable arguments to find some ultimate end of predication, to come to some sort of conclusion about reality and about our existence, this particular manner that supposes to reduce to something that falls out of predication or somehow find some term that identifies that which is not predicated, which is to say, not defined, is ultimately a contradiction in terms.


The question of orientation upon things thus falls to our orientation upon the terms themselves, that is, The truth that is supposed to be indicated by the terms that is never found in the content of definition nor the intension inherent the argument.

Yet where philosophy or Christian apologetics find this rhetoric to be indicating nothing, (Reason or God) thereby have we found a particular orientation upon things. It is not that we have found something absolutely positive against a defined negativity, a defined absence. Rather, it is that we have found where one particular method of organizing, discussing, and presenting Reality has failed…

…yet where reason yet endures and persists, albeit in truth. Truth thus can be spoken about, defined, delineated and yet not be required to answer to conventional philosophies reliance upon a singular definitional Foundation for everything that can exist rationally, which is to say, that singular epistemological universe where we have a choice upon what we want to believe. 


The Chrysalis

"For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro' narrow chinks of his cavern" -- William Blake

Note To My White Self

The reflections of a white man confronting his personal privilege and racism.

The Orthosphere

Wherever an altar is found, there civilization exists - Joseph de Maistre

Object Relations

"A Word of Substance"

Random thoughts

Random musings about everything.

Wise & Shine

A community for writers & readers

A New Vision for Mental Health

New and interesting things are happening in mental healthcare – find out about them here and help shape a new vision for mental health

Mental Health 101

Author/Writer @ Thought Catalog, LiberoMagazine, Invisible illness&TotallyADD peer supporter trainee I blog to bring awareness to mental health issues

Secrets of Mental Health

The Choice is Yours!

RTS -Mental health

Facing The Challenges of Mental Health


To live is to battle with trolls in the vaults of heart and brain. To write; this is to sit in judgment over one's Self. Henrik Ibsen

Mind Beauty Simplicity

living with less gave me more to live for

Olivia Lucie Blake

Musings of a Millennial. Life, The World and Everything In Between.

Damon Ashworth Psychology

Clinical Psychologist

Mental Health @ Home

A safe place to talk openly about mental health & illness

The Absurd

piles of dog-eared books, fountain pens, poetry, romance and despair, existential crisis, anarchy, rebellion


Want some motivation,this is the place


Bio-Blogger is an excellent source for collaborations and to explore your businesses & talents.


Just another glitch in the matrix

Filosofa's Word

Cogito Ergo Sum

Climate of Sophistry

Climate science is sophistry...i.e., BS.

Tallbloke's Talkshop

Cutting edge science you can dice with

a joyful life

happiness joy love kindness peace

The Twisting Tail

the world turns on a word

Mytika Speak

Where Logic and Feeling Unite

Notes from Camelid Country

A travel blog from Bolivia to Belgium via Berlin

Heroes Not Zombies

becoming not being.......

Emotional Shadows

where all emotions are cared for!

Soulsoothinsounds's Blog

For those awakening divine humans

Peacock Poetry

by Sam Allen

Union Homestead

An urban homesteading family move to the country; still a story of trial and error...a lot of error!

The adopted ones blog

Two adoptees - one vocal the other not so much...

Conversations on finding and loving who I am

Let's have an open conversation about life.


Change your thoughts and transform your life

Tips from Sharvi

Tips to make your daily life easier!

mulyale mutisya

what the eyes have seen, ears have heard, being has experienced and what the Spirit has felt.


One minute info blogs escaping the faith trap


The musings of a Londoner, now living in Norfolk


Everyday musings ....Life as I see space, my reflections and thoughts !!


Tales, Thoughts + Tribulations of a Free Spirit in Suburbia