Subject and Object

I was reading a post about blogging yesterday. It said that in order to get readers you have to talk about “Eureka“ moments.

PThe blogger then goes on to describe how a eureka moment is when you realize some thing that you already knew. So basically, if you want to get readers then you should talk about things that people already know but they don’t realize they know yet.

I don’t think that I’m able to do that. I think that’s why Philosophy. in general has such a low count, a low interest. Philosophy. talks about things that you would know if you actually thought about it, as opposed to something that you already know that you just didn’t realize.

Existentialism was Correct?

The mid20th century existentialist authors were reacting to a trend that they saw in society. Much of the fear, it seems, of these authors was based in that the individual is disappearing. Existentialism is not really what we have made of it in our 21st-century pop-culture.

Awesome, dude !

Existentialism is a concern for the individual, One that arises in a moment to see the real issue of human beings is the apparent effort to not think at all.

The late 20th century authors such as Alain Badiou and Francois Laruelle really put a head to it. If the earlier authors say from the 70s and 80s, the post structuralists and the postmodernists for example, we’re describing this loss as a mechanical afffect, then the post post modern authors running into the early 21st-century were really talking about getting back to the individual.

Now, I know are you well read Philosopher is out there will react and say “no they weren’t, I don’t know what you’re talking about“. However, what we see clearly in these late post post modern authors, these post post structuralist authors, is that we had to learn a new way to talk about things because the individual has all but disappeared.

We see this in the topics that came up 1020 years ago, about the “end of history“, the “end of philosophy“, what non-philosophers would call “in the last instance”. What we see is that it seems natural for the social politic to use syrup (lol. Usurp) in common deer (commandeer) true notion’s, true expressions is that it seems natural for the social politic to usurp and commandeer the true notion, Expressions which speak about the truth of the situation. The social politic which generally does not want to reflect and think, has even commandeered these notions, thinking and reflection, such that now it means next to nothing. All that means is routed back to an individual choice which, as we see, is more and more determined by the power of society, of “group think”. I need not go into the multiplicity of examples that we see everywhere.

To my point, though, of the title of this post is that this is so much the case that subjectivity and objectivity mean nothing of a shadow of the reasons why they arose as a topic of discourse and critique in the first place. Hence, recently authors made fashionable to talk about the object, even now we see that talking about the object has lost its bearings as well, and has been subsumed in a social discourse which pretty much, rather than bringing about any significant change, is working more and more to retain the status quo.

It is this issue that will concern Philosophers of substance going forward. For, What we are trying to understand is the truth. As soon as we begin to understand what is happening in with reality, Society “revolts”, rejects what the commentary and critique is really telling them, and the people fall back into a distorted version of what existentialism was really talking about.

The Analogy of Truth

Pondering today…an analogy of mental health and orientation upon things.

The analogy from the individual.

“I think that my approach to understanding the world makes other people uncomfortable. And I think I was really sensitive to this throughout my life. I think that growing up I was not supported emotionally, and so in my sensitivity to peoples reaction to me Manifested me naturally in a state of constant distress. Perhaps Left on my own, I compensated for this distressing existential awareness, or lack there of as the case may be, by closing myself off from others such that all I had to deal with was myself and my perception of others. Due to this method that I devised on my own, automatically, one could even say naturally, a sort of counter active force within me defended against the onslaught of people who behaved With discomfort around me, by being relentless in my pursuit of where the other persons uncomfortable presence stemmed from. 

People liked me. And I enjoy people. Yet my way into the world was to search for the truth of others while also searching for the truth of myself, which, as I said, was really just an investigation into what we know philosophically as phenomenology. This is to say, that for the majority of my life I was only dealing with myself at all times. For, phenomenology is not just a way to think about things; it is a name of a type of total inclusionary strategy. 

The end of such phenomenological and philosophical approach to the world is ultimately the finding out that the end of the world is not the end of oneself, it is not that Suicide would solve the problem, But likewise neither humanity is going to kill itself, nor is the world going to be destroyed. The notion of suicide, the invasive thought of the need to destroy oneself that arises through the total involvement of oneself, is never feasible. We call this kind of mental health issue suicidal ideation.  some Studies have shown that people who suffer from intrusive suicidal ideation are involved with a different set of factors then those people who actually attempt to kill themselves. There is evidence to suggest that people who are only thinking about killing themselves — ideation — are not able to kill themselves, and that is why the obsession persists. 

People who see phenomenology as a way of thinking, as thinking denotes being, will be distressed as a way of Being, what many people have called “modern anxiety”; where as people who understand phenomenology as a total inclusive strategy will adapt. 

My point here is that the end of the phenomenological route of being is not physical death but psychic transformation. It is not a foundation of nothingness; it is a foundation of continuum. It is a giving up of that way of being which incorporates all things into its ability to know. Instead of a black hole, it becomes a supernova, a Big Bang. 

This psychic death does not kill the psyche; rather, the constituency, the manner by which the psyche is understood is transformed. The definition of psyche does not change. The meaning of one’s psyche does not change. The discourse one uses to describe the psyche, as well as the history and ideological components of everything that can go into what the psyche is and is understood as does not change.  In actuality, what changes is the constituency of the world itself. This is to say, what the world is as what is manifest.”

*

OK. That was so deep!!

People tend to investigate the world step-by-step and piece by piece. This is so common place and regular that learning itself, and indeed knowledge it’s self, is understood implicitly to mean one single method. The method is understood to be inherent to what knowledge is.

So everyone who learns things, or I should say, most people who want to learn and then go about learning how to learn are generally taught through modeling how To understand how knowledge and learning fit together.. And this is to say, incrementally, step-by-step, assessing and contemplating and putting together and trying different pieces, thinking different thoughts, considering different angles, etcetera.

At least, I think this is considered the “most enlightened” way of getting to know things and coming to understanding of things.

*

The Analogy of Limits.

“What I’m pondering today is that it could be that the reason why I have made people generally uncomfortable in my approach to the existing world is because that’s never been my method. I wonder if the anxiety and general worry that I’ve carried with me most of my life was really because people were telling me, the world, society, my parents, my teachers, we’re all giving me the implicit message at every turn that something is wrong with me.

What I am discovering now is that the way that I learn most effectively is just different than most people. The way I learn is to throw a hand grenade into the room. It explodes, and then I see the patterns that emerge. I watch how people react. I look at the damage on the walls, the coloration, the splatter, the screaming, the shut down, the rationalization, the fascination, the excitement, the bewilderment. 

I think this is why people have generally liked me, but generally always gave me the impression that they were uncomfortable and at a certain unease in my presence.

And maybe this is because I find out the whole dynamic and extent of the possible universe because I am like a bomb going off within it.

The explosion, the infinite expansion of a total mass, finds the limits of its containment. ”

Or maybe not.

The Analogy of Truth.

🌈🧑🏾‍🚀xxxxxxx

The Issue of Modern Philosophy and Mental Health: Disease as Ontologically Basic

xo

In modern philosophy, only one argument is Being formulated over and over; it is only the terms that change.

The basic and fundamental issue concerns if this is noticed or not. If it is not, then we have a multiplicity of issues which arise out of the individual’s immanent communion with transcendence.

If it is, then we have the total formulation of the existent human and the universe.

Kiekegarrd formulates the possibility of notcing this phenomenon in a number of ways. One in particular is the difference between what is ‘interesting’ and what is ‘genius’. And then there is the basic existential offense. This reverberates in the tongue And cheek saying “the talented imitate; the genius copies”.

Society is interesting…

*

This LA Times Op-Ed piece, Why so many people want to believe the election was stolen, got my mind wondering… The United States have seen ‘stolen …

Institutionalised

—– I like this analysis. That’s why I reposted it. And I agree. There is the freedom that is upheld because there is a system which works to assure the freedom of everyone within the system, and then there is sort of a religious belief that freedom is some thing innate to people despite the system.

And then I saw the Suicidal Tendencies video at the end. About six months ago I posted a post with this video in it, as well as one of the more recent videos from the 2000s I think.

In reading this repost, though, My mind went to a different place than politics: mental health.

Consciousness as Retreat

In our global mental health crisis, where pretty much everything nowadays has to do with mental health, I can’t help but wonder if it’s because there is no “non-systematized freedom” anymore. Everyone with any issue immediately is turned to “someone who can help them”, as opposed to looking to themselves first. For, they cannot, they are unable because that is how thier consciousness is manifested.

Let me try to explain.

Only Problem

I’ve talked about this with friends of mine. I think my generation was the last generation that honestly felt like there was some corner of the universe that we could be a part of that was ultimately our own. Where we felt free. Indeed, Grunge music from the late 80’s early 90’s was about the frustration that there was no more essential freedom to be had. Indeed, we hear this in Jane’s Addiction song “Nothings Shocking”

https://youtu.be/JVTsubtQjms

…but all though the Grunge bands that came to be called by various other genre names.

And I think it was this feeling of freedom which allowed us not to have mental health problems. Which is to say, it allowed us to deal with our mental health problems by ourselves, through our own artistic expressions, through our own life living, and strange communities.

But now, in a very Foucaultian way, I wonder if “the space of disease” has overtaken the body completely. Such that consciousness itself upholds no essential space of freedom, The consciousness of clinical mental health has so completely taking over the being of human, that there is no actual freedom, there is only freedom which is systemically permitted.

Thus is to say that perhaps this is where depression and anxiety really stems from, and a bunch of other mental health problems such as eating disorders and drug addiction. People are naturally, their bodies are naturally reacting to the conceptual limitation which denies that the body even exists in itself. So it is that “dysfunction” manifests because people are having no “outlet” to be themselves, that is, without being automatically accused by their own sense of self.

This is exactly the point that Foucault makes in his book, the English title, “discipline and punish”. Namely, that consciousness it’s self has been made or has developed into a self monitoring system. That is the point that he is making in that book. That consciousness itself is or has developed in a self monitoring action or activity. This is what subjectivity is. This is what modern subjectivity is, that the ideal of crime, the ideal of trying to control peoples behavior and move them towards a “civilized” manner, is to get the people themselves to monitor themselves. To punish themselves. To have consciousness which automatically disciplines and punishes themselves. 

This makes sense from my standpoint as a counselor, because we are finding more and more that the solution to mental health is to get back into one’s body. As counselors, not so much as psychologists and psychiatrists and those who adhere to the clinical ideal, counselors as a discipline of our own, see the problem from a more philosophical standpoint. And this is to say that many of us see the problem of mental health in the light that I am describing: That the imposition or development of synthetical a priori knowledge, Manifested as the symptom of disease, shows itself as real Being in so much as the actual body is ultimately totally excluded.

Coincidentally, this is what we find in the philosophy of phenomenalism; namely that the body itself disappears. The Self “in itself” disappears, objects “in itself” does not exist, and that the ultimate ground of freedom is found in the Pure Reason.

We then might discover the reason why reality is ultimately filled with problem, as well as technological solutions that seem to give us some solace at least for a minute, or distract us from the problem-saturated reality which is consciousness itself, modern subjectivity .

Foucault’s over arching argument, although oriented differently for our moment, is that the The body itself has been displaced as the ground from which knowledge arises. This is the argument that he makes in “the birth of the clinic”. Basically, he describes how in the 18th century our current paradigm of medicine, but indeed reality as well, was overtaken by synthetical a priori knowledge. He traces how consciousness itself took place by evidence of discourse. And this is to say that consciousness itself transformed reality.

*

Side note:

University of California at Santa Cruz has a department called “History of Consciousness”. Angela Davis and Donna Harroway and Gary Lease are more noted scholars of that department. The premise is that consciousness is itself manifestations of discourse. That’s it.

I am inclined in that direction, though I definitely was not when I attended there.

What happened after Foucault was what we call “Postmodernism”. I repeatedly suggest is that postmodernism As a philosophical kind of movement in academia, misunderstood-misunderstands what Foucault was really saying, what he was really indicating. This is not to say that Derrida Lyotard Deleuze Guattari And maybe a couple others misunderstood, but most everyone else, somehow, was misunderstanding what they were really saying.

Such “authors of the truth”, as I would call them, were describing how consciousness unfolds in history, automatically. But then, oddly enough, what seemed to happen is people kind of intuitively understood the historical motion, and took it upon themselves to manipulate discourse. So they then proclaimed that every human individual gets to create their own reality by manipulating discourse. And everything started to go to shit. Because that is not really what post structuralism, as again I miss applied name for what was actually going on, and postmodernism was actually describing. Both of these movements we’re trying to correct the missed understanding that kept rising every time someone would attempt to describe what is actually occurring.

This phenomenon, where even though people were conveying the truth of reality, somehow that truth was commandeered and co-opted for an agenda which didn’t have anything to do really with what these philosophers were saying– It is this oddity that then we find the philosophers which came after post modernist, what I call the “post post modernist”, Badiou,Laruelle, Zizek, These authors noticed this problem and then these authors philosophies are based on the perpetuated discrepancy between the truth of what the philosophers before were saying, and then the general academic application of those truths which were a mistaken application of the Philosophy.

We find with these post post modern philosophers that they just figured this is what is going to happen, that this problem cannot be corrected. That no matter how much we try to describe the truth of reality, most people, academia in general, will misunderstand and use the misunderstood meaning For the sake of the synthetical a priori knowledge. or modern agency.

The post post modern authors just take it as a given that the truth will be used for an agenda that misunderstood the truth of the philosophy they read. This is Badiou’s supporting argument, that the truth is left behind; as well Zizek’s described situation aka Lacan psychoanalysis, as well Laruelle’s reaction was the reason why ‘sufficient philosophy’ is, basically, insufficient.

And yet we find this same situation described in various ways through all of the authors of the 20th century. We find it written and rewritten over and over using different phrases, different coordinations of terms, different terms all together, all of these philosophical discourses attempting to get at this problem of The real situation. This notice of this basic problem of modernity begins with Kierkegaard.

Modern Consciousness and Disease

And so here we are now, a presidential election event that manifests the essence of both sides of this problem, and Biden and trump. Ironically…

…we find it pervading our world in a very real way. We find people everywhere with mental health issues that are more aggravated than they ever had been in the past.

And it brings me back to the necessity for grounding knowledge and what is actually occurring, deriving from the body itself in coordination with, as opposed to only by, of the synthetical construction of given Ness, which we call disease, the symptoms of which being imposed upon Being as consciousness — this is the modern problem, the significant philosophical issue. It is this issue, then, that the Realists attempt to confront, albeit not very well, because they have missed the basic pervading issue of modern thought as it is manifested as Conscious Being.

Clinical medicine has so overtaken reality that now peoples whole bodies are unable to be accessed. Disease itself has taken over the body such that the body is identical with the diagnoses of disease...

Rephrase.

So when we listen to the Suicidal Tendencies song called “institution”, it should Really give us pause. Less as some nostalgic funny group of people playing hard rock, but actually more how it was back then when people who were just trying to live their lives, kids, us, who refused to be “depressed”, or to have “anxiety”, as a disease.

Instead we used these things, we took responsibility for these things of course, as just the way we were, and we used them to go forward in life. Free. However fucked Up we were, we weren’t blaming anyone else. We were just asking them to let us be.

But they would not. That’s what that song is about.

…But not that everything was all good back then; i’m just using that as an analogy…

And now everyone is so anxious and depressed there’s almost nothing you can do with that, nothing you can do for them except to give them medicine, something that is not their body. And yet still they go on in their lives ultimately sick, of themselves, of the world, with really no solution except to take medicine and hope for the best.

…and I will try to help you come back to your True Self, founded in your Real body…

It makes me wonder…

Community of the Absurd

”i’m not crazy… you’re the one that’s crazy.”

 another part of the solution advocated for mental health is connection and community. 

And so the real issue for our times so far as mental health but indeed reality itself, is how to we find connection with the body, thinking and intelligently being, without falling into the trap of systemitized synthetical a priori knowledge?

But more so, how do we get someone who is so indoctrinated into clinical medicine, as the basis by which reality is understood and perceived, to find the body within that saturation of synthetical disease?

xxx

In the philosophical sense, the political sense, as well as the real sense?

o

Does the Banach-Tarski Paradox Anticipate The Two Routes Upon Objects ?


This is the best vid I’ve seen all month!

I definately am Not a mathematician, but this vid explains this paradox pretty well. And, despite the scope of his conjectures at the end, a significant philosophical question would concern whether reality presents a sufficiently able manner for conceptualization to encompass all that we are able to know?

The precipitate of this first question thus moves retroactively as opposed to redundantly:

If we can take the initial object as any real object, then we can likewise take ‘reality’ itself as an object which itself is real. If we are to understand anything, communication of reality must be involved in some manner.

The initial issue, then, is if what is proposed to have been communicated is able to be viewed and understood as not having been communicated. And then if what was not communicated is able to come through as this latter view, that is, what has not been communicated being communicated but not in the former instance and not a replacement of the former (what was indeed communicated is not nullified by the communication which was not communicated by the proposal of what should have been communicated)?

#thetworoutes.

The initial contemplations upon truth can be found in Nathaniel’s The Philosophical Hack.

The Object of the Subject

Wellness and Oppression

wellness is not about being well; unless you are already sick.

I saw this article this morning through my Apple news. my wife sent it to me; she’s definitely not caught up in this type of mind control, but I can’t know for sure that similar type of thinking and reflection don’t go through her mind at times. She passed this article along to me because she is more concerned with instruments of oppression than she is about keeping up with the Joneses.

It got me to thinking about curvy women or larger women or just whatever the correct word is for the other 99% of the real women who are not the mega media image of oppression.

By the way: I am not trying to get in an argument with people who might read this who might say that I am using incorrect terms or not politically correct or am using some terms that might offend people. I admit I don’t know all what the hell words to use so To not offend people, but I am open minded enough and intelligent and understanding enough to know that I might be using words that might bother people or that might offend them in someway, and so here I am, and I apologize if I’m not using the correct verbiage.

Ok.

So it seems to me that any non-media obsessed real woman is told that she might do better if she just accepts her body The way it is. And I don’t mean to be stereo typical to say this is women only because I’m sure there are plenty of men that obsess over making their body fit into some “accepted standard of wellness”. But I think the sane thing is that people are OK with themselves; I think that is the universal standard of being human for every aspect of being human: everyone just wants to be OK with them selves and should be, no?

I am going to get really philosophical here because I am a counselor and I am a philosopher so here we go.

The article above is a kind of critique of An oppressing discourse. It addresses what at least I see and I would imagine the author understand, as a kind of oppression that is being an acted upon people across the world having to do with body image, food, and behavior in general including reaching over into psychology. Please note;My little bit right here is not making a comment upon whether the article is right or wrong or true or false; I think it is right and I think it is true, but this post is not critiquing that article nor its methodology; I am more using it as an occasion to point out or indicate what I understand as the two routes.

The short of my position is that everyone is exactly the way they’re supposed to be. The real issue then is why people don’t feel that way or think that way about themselves. Now, also I am not suggesting that there is some sort of “actual utopian ideal human being that is totally comfortable with themselves”. Rather, I am indicating a certain manner of being that human beings are.

Everyone is exactly the way they’re supposed to be and perfect in that way, whatever it is. I think that is a good statement of really what we’re after so far is human being in the world; I think when it’s all said and done and we’re sitting there taking our bong hits or drinking a glass of wine at the end of the day, ultimately we want to be OK we want to feel OK we don’t really want to be angry we don’t want to be sad we don’t want to have to do all the myriads of negative self talk, etc.

OK, do you have that picture?

The next question is: why are we not? The real question that comes up in everyone’s mind is why am I feeling bad about myself; why do I think my large body is somehow not too “well”; why do I doubt myself?

And I think the answer to that is telling: The typical answer to that is always that something else is making me fucked up. Now, again, I repeat, I am not suggesting that we need to come to some sort of inner acceptance within ourselves. Of course, that is what we have to do, but that is not the point that I am suggesting, nor is that the medium upon which I am placing this discourse of this post right here.

Already, if you are understanding what I just wrote then you might be able to begin to understand what I mean by two routes, or, two orientations upon objects. Subjective and objective is of the one route. The idea that there is some thing that is making me do something that I would rather not do, or is making me think a certain way or behave a certain way –that is an absolutely valid and real way of understanding oneself in the world.

But I’m getting at something when I do that I feel is more significant. I was tempted there to say “more substantial”, but I try to tend away from suggesting that something is “more real” or “more true”. I am not involved in this essay right here, of the two routes, in a capitalistic frame of trying to discern what is more correct or better. I am more concerned with establishing a ground of facts.

So we might ask ourselves where the idea that I am perfectly OK comes from. And then along with us we might ask ourselves where the idea that something else is making me do something or look at myself in a way that I don’t like comes from also.

In particular I point out the part in the article above that the author points out when she finally got comfortable with eating intuitively I guess, where she just Kaina eats what she wants and doesn’t trip out on it too much, she has the same body that she has had through all her obsessing about the various diets and the binging and they’re restricting and the eating healthy and all their various facets of trying to stay skinny, I guess.

What this says to me is that however she was being, she was not being in any particular way because something else was telling her to be that way. Rather, that both of those real items were arising in existence simultaneously and conspiratorially for her being.

Now try and keep in mind the two routes as I’ve tried to describe them briefly so far in this essay as I go forward: it is not that society is erecting this image of women and people such that then people get low self-esteem and want to do terrible things to their bodies or eat only lettuce or work out three times a day seven days a week. There is no element that is causing them to behave in such a way or to think in such a way, if we can include thinking as a kind of behavior.

And to stack up on that kind of awareness, I’m going to bring in something a little more personal to me; because I am a white man, many people would probably say I’m filled with shit commenting on this kind of stuff. Which I admit maybe I’m overstepping my bounds and I am actually filled with shit, that’s OK, I’m totally open to learning where I might be failing.

My daughter died suddenly two months ago. It was a purely random event, she died of viral meningitis. Sure, we could probably sue the hospital and get to the root cause of it and get people in trouble for malpractice and stuff like that because no one diagnosed her with meningitis until it was really too late. So put that aside, that we could’ve retaliated. There is also no reason why she should’ve got it, no one we know nor no one that she has come in contact with has meningitis that we can find her that we know of. The doctors hypothesize that it was just kind of a perfect storm of infection that got into her brain.

I am dealing with it pretty well, I suppose overall. But even at times I find that suddenly I will randomly start to cry. Sometimes, or actually somewhat often, Some innocuous thought our image, like a tree or a song, will lead over into some sort of reminder that Marley is gone or some other thing that Hass to do with various things around her death, and I find myself getting emotional and getting teared up. And it is kind of interesting to me in a way that something will start that kind of cycle but then there is this also kind of sub cycle where some part of me feels like I have to continue in that cycle and ruminate and be emotional and miss her and be sad. I’m not making judgments upon myself; I’m just looking at it through an intellectual lens; I am fortunate to be studying counseling and so I had many people and do have many people that are helping me on this path.

So, of course I can say that I am grieving I am involved in the process of grieving still and that the reason why I cry at times that seem random is because, is caused by, this outside thing that is my daughter having died. There is something that occurred that is not me that is making me behave in a manner that I would not otherwise enjoy. As I said, not only do I find myself getting welled up with tears at random times, but then there’s also a further kind of talk to myself of myself that somehow feels like I should continue to dwell in these images and thoughts of loss and sadness and death and missing her, etc. it literally is as though something from the outside, something that is not me or something that I’m not in control of controlling how I am being, how I am viewing myself, how I am behaving, how I am thinking, that I really would not like to have to go through.

And yes all you psychologists out there, don’t read this as though I am in denial or I’m trying to reject my feelings or anything like that because I’m not. 🙂 I am positive that no one would choose to have to mourn for someone they loved dying. So I’m not saying anything about maybe criticizing myself about the fact that I am mourning and grieving; I am not beating myself up or trying not to grieve or trying not to feel.

OK I just had to clear that up, because this is a philosophical consideration based upon a real valid and significance experience that probably millions of people go through every day.

So if we look at the fact that I just start crying at random times. There is no immediate cause that I can really know of; of course, Though, Ido it all the time: I reflect upon myself (like I am doing here, coincidently, lol) and I can say oh it’s because I went into her bedroom which is still set up the way it was when she was alive. I can say that oh the cause that I just started crying randomly was because I brought some water into her lizard into her room. But that’s not really the cause. Maybe we could say it is a proximate cause; but I’m not getting into trying to define a system right at this moment. So if we back up, we get into the general category of grief trauma and loss and so we have to say that my behavior overall is conditioned, or caused by, the loss of my daughter.

Yet, there is no reason that she died. Without going into all the various aspects and break down all the arguments of possibilities about why she died or the cause of this and cause of that, The very simple conclusion is that she got sick for some unknown reason, and this sickness developed until she died despite the best efforts of her doctors. But that doesn’t really give us a true cause; it satisfies a desire for reason, but only if I don’t think about it too much. 🧐

So what I’m really saying is, what I really must be saying is that the cause of my grief cannot be found. There is no reason why a cry at those specific random times; sometimes there is a trigger, other times it just pops up. Because, if I say the reason is that Marley died, and then I say that there is no reason why she died, I would kind of have to say also that the reason that I am grieving has no cause.

And so I must repeat again, here, I am not making a reduction in my thinking to justify or somehow deny the fact that I am in grief or that Marley died or that all that stuff.

This is the nature of the two routes that I’m trying to convey: The basis of the two routes is that they are mutually exclusive and do not reduce to another common unity. The fact that I can understand this ontological truth does not mean that somehow I am comforted by it or somehow I’m trying to deny the fact that my daughter died or trying to prevent myself from having to experience grief or sadness. There is no underlying psychology (Reason, cause) which links these two aspects; and this is to say that where a linking is understood, there we have fallen back into the one route. And that the distinction that I am making is the nature of the two routes, the nature the way that consciousness indeed functions: reduction is a particular function of consciousness, it does not necessary constitute consciousness toward its entire truth.

I’m saying that these events arise conspiratorially in the same sense that there is nothing wrong with my body. There’s nothing wrong with me. I am exactly the way that I am supposed to be.

And so coming back to the article that lead this post. Accepting who I am as a person with all my flaws, whether or not I’m binging and purging and doing tons of exercise every day and being on comfortable with myself and otherwise worried about people not excepting me etc., is both at once caused by other people and arising coincidently. And these two ontological situations do not indicate a further unitive cause.

And so the radical idea I think I’m trying to suggest is that me being OK with myself has nothing to do with rejecting that thing which I understand as causing me to be in a way that I would rather not be. The fighting, the rejection of that perceived outside force really, it seems to me, just reifies the fact that I am not comfortable with myself as a type of comfort. It allows me to be in this particular world that I know so well; the reduction we call “world/subject”. I call this the cosmology which positions the subject in reality.

The radical move of the two routes says that I am never removed from the struggle in reality even as I am entirely OK with myself, and at that, even as I might be totally in shambles. The world is not causing me to be any way; neither is something wrong with me. They are Co-incident, parallel. The reduction to a further “psychological” meaning is ultimately of the one route, the “real world”, the cosmological argument.

And that is not an indictment; it is simply a fact.

Repost: Notes on Orientation

Notes on Orientation

https://realityhc.wordpress.com/2019/05/28/notes-on-orientation/
— Read on realityhc.wordpress.com/2019/05/28/notes-on-orientation/

Note: This author’s notion of orientation appears to me to get very close to describing a reduction to what I am calling Routes, which I also call two orientations upon objects.

Yet, in my proposal, such Routes do not reconcile. But I am intrigued at this author’s effort Becuase it seems he or she is coming very close to grasping what I call the issue at hand.

So here is my comment on the linked post:

I like it. But then something bothers me about it. Also.

I’m not entirely sure what it is that strikes me as off —

– I think it is good as a sort of psychological sense. Like, if someone is looking for a pseudo-scientific-Philosophy to help them with “life’s meaning”. I’d say this is a good one.

Yet also, it appears to me you move through 3 stages in this theory: 1 and 2 . A pretty good bridging of phenomenality with the rational thinking subject. 3. Purpose.

My issue: 1 and 2: I’m am not sure that this distinction is not a conceptual device which functions from (3) instead of toward it; but together they make a nice bond, for sure.

Phenomenality, as I understand it, is the correlation of thought and world. The Phenomenon is existence; it is that the whole field is understood as existence, And yet within this field there appears something that does not seem to accord with the experience of the field; i.e. that there is something that appears to defy that everything is the known field. This situation is a phenomenon: the explanation is itself an effort to sort out a particular contradiction into non-contradictory states. This seems like what you have done, and then the last part is to fill the last gap that comes about in the contradiction of sorting out the non-contradictory aspects of the (first or primary) contradiction.

What is a Philosophical Hack?

What is a Philosophical Hack? The answer is quite philosophical. 🙂

But in this philosophy a number of things are challenged which then indicate that the hack must arrive from an aspect or element that exists which is not philosophical.  This is a sort of truism: A thing cannot be in relation to another thing unless itself is first a thing.  This is the problem with philosophy as we know it: Philosophy depends upon as it actively re-inscribes and enforces a particular regimen of power of bringing into existence the absolute truth of the universe; namely, in this case, everything is relative. Relativity is not a natural absolute and essential

truth that we come up on through our human ability of reason, it is a particular establishment of power.

One of the first imperatives of the philosophical hack thus must outline or bring into view not merely the postmodern critique of power which then ironically replays itself to maintain the systems of modern power already in play, and at that, as it is supposed to be bringing about emancipation or a removal from of that very power-state, but more how this power itself is not an omnipresent and omnipotent aspect of a fixed and closed absolute real universe. 

Key is the disconcern the hack employs in its effort for truth.  Not merely another power play of false promises but indeed a recognizing of truth about humanity and the universe in-itself.  Indeed it is less a disruption than a revealing despite populism and identity politics.

The Philosophical Hack uses analogy with terms borrowed from what we know of science to describe the issues involved in being able to identify a thing that is called philosophy: Quantum physics is a project of physical description which does not comply nor answer to what we generally call classical mechanics.  Quantum physics is nevertheless a viable and true manner (albeit theoretical) of coming upon –and application of — the world, but indeed its methods and concepts do not fit nor concord with classical conceptions of the world, even while quantum conceptions may explain the classical in manners which classical physics cannot reconcile or even agree with; both nevertheless function and operate.

Presently, philosophy is caught in a “classical” , or what philosophers have called correlational, mode, what I have called together as a true form of subjectivity (subject-object duality) to no longer challenge and to thus identify as conventional philosophy.  The key to this move is thus to see that just as quantum physics does not negate, invalidate how classical mechanics indeed operates and functions, the identification (the operations of the hack) does not invalidate nor argue against the modes of conventional philosophy, even while it may challenge its method towards absolutism (in whatever forms its takes). Rather, the hack consolidates objects unto themselves by showing the weaknesses in the systemic facade. This move thus concerns an orientation upon objects because the hack allows conventional philosophy to be itself, as a thing in-itself to function as its does. The move is thus two-fold, unilaterally dual in its estimations and methods.

The book by Cedric Nathaniel is involved with the the first efforts to make visible what is invisible and sacrosanct to the conventional philosophical mode.

16175_3_bonis

THE PHILOSOPHICAL HACK: The Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Event.

THE SECOND PART.  Coming to a thought near you.x

A Game Theory take on the question of God’s Existence.

In an earlier post, I explored What I feel is a more sensible application of Pascal’s Wager to God’s existence.

Now I am attempting one founded in game theory.

Goes like this:

I like what someone said: I am an apatheist.

But my version is:

God does not need my belief to exist.

This then could go around something like this:

* god exists:: Is It communicating with anyone?

How can We, as a group, know which individual It is communicating with?

1) we (as a group) cannot know for sure.

2) we can know: some are right, some are wrong.

A. Power is evidence of who God is communicating with. (War)

B. Or, no power is evidence. (Peace)

2) God is communicating.

A. No one knows who (1.)

B. Everyone can know.

If God can be communicating with everyone then the question becomes:

– can we accept that someone else May have the correct communication?

This last Does Not reflect back to the first person pondering for a double-back contradiction. Instead, the answer only concerns the possibility of the other person having the correct communion. It has nothing to do with ‘agreement’.

This can be consistent with game theory (if I remember correctly) with sides equally powerful which is able to destroy the other conclusively.

Matching moves under condition:

– I will not shoot if you do not shoot

– if you shoot and I am not destroyed, then I will destroy you.

It is most beneficial to both sides if the each person places the impetus of truth on the other person, into the possibility that the other is indeed receiving a valid and correct direct communication from God.

——-

And then some more, Not game theory possibilities:

…. I have a different way of putting it.

I say that for philosophy, the proper issue is of The 2. This is the Kierkegaardian question; though K speaks of the relation of the relation to the relation, the actual issue he is dealing with is the 2.

0- is nothing.

1 – is the universe. By definition, it is something as opposed to nothing. It is unitive and perfect, if given that nothing is flat, or not knowable = zero has no content.

2- admits the duality of knowledge. In as much as we may know of the universe existing by virtue of it not being nothing, we know of the Two.

But wait…

3. Is multiple. From here, all permutation arises. Like the three-body problem, with the three comes the introduction of multiplicity. It is the first indication of Reality.

Hence, also we have with the Three the introduction of transcendence. And thus the possibility of mediation, the central Cartesian subject, the subject of science, and the withdrawn subject. It is in the Three that every form of religious and spiritual reckoning arise, due to the phenomenon of the thinking subject of transcendence.

Hence, the issue of the Three is actually the indication of bifurcation; the question: “Is communion with an aspect which is outside of Reality possible ?” Is operative. This is the central ontological question:

Is the mediation between two opposing elements? Such that the human being is the third element which then can commune with a Real God?

Or

Is there no mediation, and reality itself Contains the Ideal Of communion as it’s operational mode?

In this last, the significant issue is thus found to be of the Two. Because the issue of the Three is unsolvable aside from mere subjective assertion of propriety (view, opinion). The issue of the Two changes the game by leaving the three as outside of solution, where the content of zero then remains in relation to the One, is therefore not flat and is knowable in possibility (0,1 or finitude) as opposed to infinity (multiple).

The Stoned Ape.


The Rational Animal.

“The philosophical process could be described as a human being noticing and then transcending her animal condition of the moment. It is thus the process of coming to the full rationality of the human animal for the time, and describing it. The description is thus the symbolic culmination of irony, at once only knowing of the pure knowledge of her animal rationale but then also describing it to a full systematic which is then viewed to be speaking about something that is the furthest point that rationality has stepped from her animality. ”

The Philosophical Hack.