An example of how real methods serve a conventional orientation of Being

Quote quoted From “Race Matters”. By Cornel West. Used without permission.

Of course race is a very central issue in the Western Hemisphere; I believe it is a central issue in many places across the globe as well. So, I support Professor West’s critical assessment.

However, I bring in this excerpt as an example of just what I refer to by my terms conventional method and reality as opposed to truth.

These not only involve race, but the issues of race exemplify what an anthropology of philosophy might entail: It is an uncovering and descriptive state aside from an ontological and meaningful state (side by side in a unilaterally dual manner, ala Nonphilosophy).

We can begin to see and comprehend how reality manifests less as a tension between discourses and what is encoded into them, but rather more as orientations upon such circumstance.

Reality is that condition whereby we live by, what could be called, ‘false narrative dichotomies’. It is not that we can choose to not live by them or ‘rationally’ disregard them Becuase they are unethical or faulty in some way; no.

It is that they constitute the very condition by which reality is manifested as such I am able to know myself as an active identity.

The issue of race exemplifies this condition well. For race and racism is indeed that (a) real condition whereby I am able to find myself. The courageous conversation thus to be had, especially about race but also about any social condition, is that discussion which arises when I am not discounting or invalidating the situation because it sits unethically with my sense of righteousness. A courageous conversation about truth is when I include myself as complicit in the uncomfortable situation that I am attempting to address honestly, to thus possibly change.

Reality is that exclusive place where I find myself against otherness through a ‘truncated’ meaning (Zizek/Lacan: Symbolic-Imaginary or Image/Symbol) and the truth is that place which includes all aspects of the situation whereby I find myself (Zizek/Lacan: Real).

The Criteria for Valid Human Knowlegde: Providence and human progress.

This is an activity which asks the thinker to consider what valid knowledge is. It is an activity as well as an argument as well as a test for the reader.

Are you game?

Let’s see how you do?

December 12, 2019. Next line. Just testing out the voice dictation on the word thing here. And seeing if I can just voice dictate some thing and still have it makes sense. I don’t know all the commands in order to voice dictate and get it to do exactly what I would want to do, but at least I can maybe write a bunch of stuff just from voice dictating and it will make sense.

OK. It actually takes that command to move to down one because if I say it it will move down again.

I have little motivation to sit down and write. I feel like I should have a compulsion to write all these things down, all these ideas I have, because I feel they are important and I feel that people would get a lot out of them. Yet at the same time somehow I feel they won’t be heard. And some of this is because I plain don’t have the energy motivation or gumption to have to promote myself and my ideas.

And then this brings forth the test for the reader. You may proceed.

about human knowledge: or what we consider knowledge as species or group or something like that. That we are progressing somehow through the work of novel ideas as if these ideas have significance towards our progress. One would have to say in light of just myself and my ideas that this progress then is necessarily biased. We would have to admit that really the only knowledge that we might be gaining along our progress of humanity is progress that is invested into knowledge by people who are so motivated that think what they have to say or the ideas that they have are so great that they put forth the effort so a bunch of people can read them. Which is to say that they have to learn to market themselves in a certain way if anyone is going to read them or if those ideas are going to have any sort of influence at all in the world, at least in the sense that we think of influence in “the worlD”. Because we necessarily have to admit that the ideas that we are getting, in this one small way of looking at it, are only particular kinds of ideas at that put forth by a particular kind of person. And if we are to believe that we’re progressing towards any thing in particular, just to say that human beings are progressing, we would have to grant that the knowledge that is coming to “us“ is somehow divined or meant to be or is somehow Bestowed by some sort of providence like some sort of manifest destiny.

But not only that, given that media has allowed for so many intelligent people to have their ideas Polyphia rated even without that kind of effort, we have to also admit than any idea we have towards progress is at once multi faceted and really not directed towards any sort of group process or group progress that we might think of in the sense of progress, at all. But not only that, given that media has allowed for so many intelligent people to have their ideas Polyphia rated even without that kind of effort, we have to also admit that any idea we have towards progress is at once multifaceted and really not directed towards any sort of group process or group progress that we might think of in the sense of progress, at all.

Basically at some point, really along any sort of analysis that is honest about what is occurring, we would have to say that there is no progress in the sense that we understand it, and at least in the sense of humanity as a whole except some sort of progress that we are utterly in capable of conceiving or perceiving.

In fact I think in the sense of the progress that I must have, and so much as I do feel compelled to try to allow myFlow more freelyflow more Through this voice dictation on word, I must concede to the truth of the matter is so far as I have an understanding of progress or I understand in a sense of purpose in my life, that despite all this education that I might have about how to format papers, how to submit them to such and such journals, have the proper credentials and schooling etc., that those avenues are utterly limited and any idea that I have a progress so far as me contributing to humanity in that way is such a small fantasy of progress in the real sHumanity that I must be involved withe heat .

It seems more sensible that I should produce things like I’m producing at this moment through voice dictation and whatever editing that might be necessary in a sort of institutional or conventional sense is completely unnecessary in the sense that what ideas I have are indeed intelligent and valid because they can be understood by people reading them without the formatting or without all that added after effort that I might put into having them published and some global journal or something like that onlineIt seems more sent to the more sensible route would just be to put my ideas down and have them published in an actual physical book and store them in as many data bases as possible regardless of what kind of editing I have may have done.

The assumption that intelligence must be reflected by a proper formatting now seems old and anachronistic and even archaic in the sense of a true value of ideas. Because anyone should be able to read what minimal amount of editing I do in this voice dictation, with the minimal amount of punctuation’s but without the title page and abstract and etc., and understand what I’m talking about such that I will have communicated an idea that they may or may not of had, but at least will validate something in the sense of humanity at some level .. it seems more sensible that I should produce things like I’m producing at this moment through voice dictation and whatever editing that might be necessary in a sort of institution or conventional sense is completely unnecessary in the sense that what ideas I have are indeed intelligent and valid because they can be understood by people reading them without the formatting or without all that added after effort that I might put into having them published in some global journal or something like that online.

For if there is a providence involved in that small and minuscule amount of actual information that is conveyed through the proper way of writing or the proper way of communicating ideas, which is to say with the abstract and the proper voicing the proper tense first person second person, etc., all those conventions of how to properly communicate knowledge, and indeed what is allowed to be valid knowledge by those conventions, in that same stroke, this, compared to the truely vast amount of intelligent ideas that are not jammed into the tiny academic containers, that is to say, due to that minute amount Of knowledge that actually gets communicated into this human progress, we would also have to say that the random occurrences of this stupid iPhone that keeps shutting off the voice dictation function in the middle of one of my sentences is also an active Providence in the same sense that the formatted and properly presented writings are . And we would have to ask how we are discerning which act if providence is more valid to reveal true knowledge, and communication of valuable ideas?

As well, And however many times that this computer that I’m speaking into somehow feels that it must randomly double a sentence or paragraph that I just put into word such that I write a whole paragraph and then I end it with a punctuation and then the computer reprints the whole paragraph after it again, and I leave it that way, in edited, one should say that this active providence is actually just as valuable as the random occurrence which has allowed someone to get an article published in any sort of journal.

however many times that this computer that I’m speaking into somehow feels that it must randomly double a sentence or paragraph that I just put into word such that I write a whole paragraph and then I end it with a punctuation and then the computer re-print the whole paragraph after it again, one should say that this active providence is actually just as valuable as the random occurrence which has allowed someone to get an article published in any sort of journal.

of knowledge that actually gets communicated into this “human progress”, we would also have to say that the random occurrences of this stupid iPhone that keeps shutting off the voice dictation function in the middle of one of my sentences is also an active providence in the same sense that the formatted and properly presented writings are..

Further; The difficulties that would go into someone being able to comprehend and read this piece of writing that I am putting down right now as I’m voice dictating into word, would be equal if not less to the amount of difficulty that it takes an individual to publish to get an article published in any sort of journal. One would have to ask what sort of sensibility, what sort of logic is going in to the validation of ideas that would make one sort of effort to contain valid knowledge where is the other sort of effort?knowledge that is not valid?

For all the effort that it would take me to edit a article, to edit a piece of writing in which I’m trying to communicate certain ideas, all the effort that it would take me to get it published in the journal, in an academic journal, and some sort of professional journal, whatever – anyone who is intelligent or thinks that they are involved in some sort of betterment of humanity or some sort of progress of humanity in the area of ideas and knowledge, would have to compare that that criteria of effort that is being exerted in attempting to read this very essay that I am voice dictating into word right this moment. One would have to ask them selves just what knowledge is valid and why.

Nonsense? Or valuable?

Were you able to make it through?

Is this knowledge (what you have found) more or less valuable than if it were published differently ?

Thought is not Thinking: A critique of philosophy.

Much like “the history of consciousness” is not about an essential attribute of the functioning brain, like, we might associate consciousness with psyche, but is rather about the analysis of an appearance of what it is to be human in the world, so “thought” Is likewise not about what might be occurring in the gray matter, so to speak, but is more about what appears as human in a general sense and under a certain light.

The reason why I point out this distinction has to do with my reading various philosophical texts and beginning to really understand what I (seemingly) naturally reject in my coming upon philosophical texts.

I think the shadowy-gray area, the area that people get all up in arms about when we try to define or locate the object of philosophy, is found because people equate “thought” with “thinking”. Philosophers tend to read other philosophical texts– no matter from what era — as though thought and thinking are reflecting the same essential substrate which is inherently and absolutely attached to the human being in the world, which is to say, the phenomenological subject.

“Thought” is not thinking; but “thought” can indeed be thinking under certain conditions; there is no philosophical text that is doing any thinking nor reflecting anything about what thinking might be , or, Perhaps the more precise formulation is under what conditions can we be speaking of thinking, and under what condition are we speaking of thought. Philosophical text often reflects thought, in the same way as “the history of consciousness” is reflecting the intellectual academies’ version of history. But The history of consciousness is not talking about human beings in their actuality; On the contrary, the confusion I see popping up everywhere in philosophy — which is the reason why I think many things that are included in the discipline or activity of philosophy should be more properly referred to as “critical thinking”– Is because philosophers often enough, it seems, think that once we enter into a domain that talks about “thought” they automatically associate a constellation of ideas as rotating or orbiting some essential object, but without recognizing that it is indeed an object that they are referencing; in fact they denying the existence of such an object by an activity of focusing on what The satellites are doing, focusing on manipulating the orbits of such satellites.

Philosophers tend to read philosophical texts without actually understanding often enough what the texts might actually be about because of this implicit assumption that goes in to viewing the text. In many instances, philosophy is founded on a decree of unrecognized doublespeak, at once speaking of an undisclosed object about how there is nothing undisclosed but that which is encoded in the speaking (discourse). What?

This assumption amounts to or can be analogous to a black hole when we look out into the sky and space; how long did it take astronomers to actually find and identify and locate an actual black hole? I don’t really know, but I do know that the reason why it was even hypothesized was because astronomers could infer the existence of a black hole by referencing a movement of bodies.

The problem with philosophers, though, is they are identifying with Being a satellite; philosophers identify themselves through the motion of being a satellite as an essential and central universal component. This is the meaning of speculative realist authors’ idea of correlation, as they embrace the idea of “the Copernican revolution” that displaced the earth as the center of the universe.

Many philosophers see their activity as involved in manipulating orbits (Marxist ideology) instead of understanding how the physical mechanics, as an analogy, of orbiting satellites-ideas function. And they do this so well as to create an impression that there is no way to be able to understand how the satellites have their orbits.

The reason why I associate conventional philosophical activity with religion is because of what is apparent about what is in effect, what is occurring by the evidence of (a certain method) of philosophy. And this is to say that if one understands this kind of reference, this picture that I’m putting forth, then one might be able to see how philosophers are implicitly rejecting certain semantics, certain organizations of meaning along typical fronts.

These fronts become camouflaged by the arguments that are contained within the closet structures of the argument itself. But, like I said, once one begins to understand this picture, one can begin to see a routine and typical rejection that occurs at the same place, along the same contours of meaning in a large swath of philosophical discussion. I call this typical rejection “offense”, and I define or I refer to religion in general, what we know of religion and what we associate with religious ideas, groups, cosmologies, as “concerning offense”. And this is to say, similarly or as an analogue, that it is possible to associate Christianity, for example, and into different types of Christianity, different denominations, by how they understand sin.

And I think the most notable and significant factor of religion is its method of trying to apologize for that which it is implicitly rejecting.

And this is to say that when I talk about philosophy and I bring my various discussions about what is occurring within a particular text, I routinely get objections to what I’m saying is if my discussion is suggesting something about the other author’s or philosopher’s argumentative position, namely, that their philosophy their ideas are wrong or incorrect in someway because I’ve pointed out this aspect of their discourse. And so what I routinely get back is an argument about how I am incorrect, and usually by that point I have to tell them that I actually agree with what they’re saying but I’m actually more pointing out what is occurring through their text, rather than discounting their text by pointing out what it is doing.

My usual analogy is a tree. It is as if me and a friend or a colleague are standing in front of a tree and I am describing the tree to the other, e.g. it is a Pinetree, it has long thin green needles, it has brown pinecones that are sharp, it has bark, it stands 40 feet high — but then my colleague comes back at me and says “I don’t think that’s green”; “what do you mean by 40 feet?”

My point with the whole thing is: what is the point of us arguing over the green Ness of the Pineneedles whether or not they’re green or not, whether or not they’re sharp, whether or not they’re short or long, or what criteria we use for those designations?

And by this question I am not saying that it is wrong to go about that method. I am not saying, “what is the point” as an expression of futility or condemnation; rather, I am actually asking into what is the purpose of proceeding in that way.

So, I am saying that we should be able to distinguish what we are actually doing when we say that we are philosophers or that we are doing philosophy. And I say this because if I am standing at the tree describing the tree and then my colleague next to me is just sitting there questioning the categories I use — to me, while we both might be doing philosophy, we will never get anywhere because we are doing two different activities.

And I think my biggest gripe is with this is the kind of deconstructionist or whatever philosophy that likes to lay claim over the entirety of what philosophy can be, as if merely asking questions into definitions holds the entirety of valid philosophy wherever the word is spoken — I think this does not strengthen philosophy as a human endeavor but actually devalues and weakens it. Such a method that claims philosophy at the expense of any other type turns it into something that’s pretty much useless except to accel the person that can claim their superior intelligence because they can ask more questions then the other person is willing to define, as if at that final moment when the other person gives up with trying to find out that this “deconstruction-definition” person Can as last claim the superior argument. It is so utterly capitalistic that it kind of defeats the point of the word “philosophy” itself.

But I’m not saying again that such a method is incorrect or invalid or wrong. But I am saying that we should notice that that particular type of way of doing philosophy is a particular type and is not “philosophy” as a whole category that it assumes and imposes it itself to be.

Socrates was not about shooting down his opponent. What is dialectical is the effort to come to a consensus. I think the mass amount of a certain kind of intoxication of our societies has led philosophers to a certain type of self aggrandize, self interested, thought-capital oriented “thought producer” Who has appropriated and conceived what is Socratic in a kind of disgustingly misinformed and misunderstood manner.

My point is simply : let us identify this kind of conventional, critical thinking based, philosophy as what it does so that we can put it to proper use, use which is best fitting to what it able to do.

And then retain the term philosophy for the actual human-universal questions of significance. Perhaps we could begin this new philosophical enterprise with discussing perhaps we could begin this new philosophical enterprise with A discussion about just what is honesty. What is it to be honest?

Before this blog was called “the philosophical hack” it was called “constructive undoing”.

And perhaps some of you readers may be able to make a correlation there.


Consider this: by the very term “speculative realism” the authors are hedging their bets.

If anyone was there when or after the speculative realism conference occurred and then the few years after: what we saw was a bunch of people , the audience, all of a sudden getting very hopeful, but then as those authors continued to produce their various ideas on philosophy, the interest in them faded quickly. And that is because they had something very powerful to say, but then they either backed off or didn’t really understand what they were onto.


The answer goes to why I think Graham Harman has the strong position.

The Point of the Slavoj Zizek Vs Jordan Peterson debate: An Assessment

Slavoj Zizek Vs Jordan Peterson: An Assessment
— Read on

Thanks Neotonos! I agree with much of his assessment.  He hits on some significant turns of the debate; Im glad, because I didn’t really want to assess a play be play.

I’ll use this repost to give my final comments on the Z/P debate.


It’s intresting to me that none of the commenters saw what I saw, which is, really saw any big picture. It really is, like Neotonos said “like a bunch of people reporting on a cricket match”. To my eyes and ears, it really is like people miss the debate for the spectacle. I think Noetanos gets a little more involved that the others I’ve read, though.

First off; yeah, I get it: people wanted a WWF slam-a-thon, of whatever that WWF thing is.  Zizekians wanted Zizek to take Peterson apart, and the Petersonians wanted him to show Zizek where he is stupid liberal, or something like that. These two celebrity philosophical figures represent a certain polemic in the philosophical world; people wanted a battle.

The thing is, if you have been listening to Zizek lately, and understand Peterson’s general effort (which he does use his point in the Z/P debate), both are actually more concerned with the world than they are just political voice boxes. Both actually care. They both advocate responsibility.
You can listen to and read my essay about the current state of philosophy HERE, the essay I wrote before the debate. One of the main reasons why one can tell they actually care is because they don’t give a shit about towing the political lines.

It is interesting to me that people seem perplexed about Zizek’s apparent shift from what they understand as his usually Marxism, and his basic support for capitalism. But if one is familiar with Zizek’s philosophy, he has not changed his view; rather, he had elaborated more upon the situation given the condition at hand.

In the debate Zizek even alludes to his earlier work about Marxism, of which he says he’s not going to take the debate that way; it is obvious to Zizek that Peterson has not read Zizek enough to be able to address the subtleties involved with Z’s “Marxism”. He highlights his Hegelianism. But the reason for this, I think, is because Zizek was not concerned with showing how Peterson is a ignorant fool (like many of us were hoping). Zizek’s point has always been Marxist in that the subject is a state of being which is involved with a dialectical reality which shows up in the Lacanian manner at all times. That is; through the symbolic order mediated by what is ‘imagined’, or what is the real fantasy. This fantasy is manifested in the (further) dialectic between what appears should occur due to the symbolic presentation. But there is a problem (as we understand the “barred S”). When the subject attempts to speak about what the symbolic world is presenting, a transformation takes place: similar to Derridean issues of subjectivity, what was once the true meaning of reality is noticed as a fantasy. The issue within this world, though, Is that one has to be able to notice it (clean house; think).

It is in this dialectic that Zizek locates his Marxism, because it indeed functions to supply all the multiplicity of material for and by which the subject is able to act in reality. There appears to be an element or aspect which oppresses the subject’s ability to appear in the world. This is why Lacan’s “Real” is impossible; because reality presents that which appears to not exhibit a contradiction in its terms for existing as such. It indeed shows aspects of its operation everywhere as contradiction in the, what i call conventional and what Zizek calls naive, sense, but because the withdraw that this ‘Real’ enacts occurs in the dialectical relationship with the symbolic-imaginary domain, as I just said, manifesting an appearance of real truth. As Cedric Nathaniel discusses in his book The Philosophical Hack, it is this ‘real-truth’ that is the political world.

There is no “actual” reduction to the usual traditional-conventional rhetoric or some “actual” political state where the “pure” Marxists or the “pure” capitalists exist because these supposed entities, states, or situations are –yes — already occurring in the discussion, as Nathaniel discusses, of term-object identities. The idea of ‘identity politics’ is a mistaken or distorted use of the the concept of the Term-object Identity in the same way that reality is a ‘mistaken’ apprehension of what is Real. They are dialectical mechanisms.

Now, the situation that I described above is the real political situation. It accounts for why we are having such huge discrepancy in political ideals and ability to get things done in government across the globe. It is the situation of what I call “no communication”. This situation of no communication is what Zizek refers to when he says that he does not see a way out of our capitalistic situation of inequality and exploitation, because it is exactly the ‘equality’ which is posed in the politically real estimation which is able to skim profit off of the ‘excess’ which occurs in the dialectic between what is true and what is real, between what is ‘equal’ in the dialectic of relation of what is Real, and what is ‘unequal’ in the dialectic of what is real politically. This current process of existing in which humanity finds itself now, seems inescapable because it is indeed how we function ethically, which is to say, in remaining fidelitous to what we know as true (Soren Kierkegaard defines this space, and Alain Badiou describes our activity within it).

OK. Peterson, on the other hand, sees a ways out. Both philosophers (Z and P) do not see any constructive point in continuing with the regular status quo situation which they both see in their ways. They both do not simply give up and be naive nor inauthentic (in the Kiekegaardian sense).

In another lecture, Peterson gives us a similar description of Capitalistic nihilism, of the situation that Zizek cannot see a way out of: Peterson describes the situation of larger projects losing their ability to be effective. His idea is thus that we must begin with the smallest or more local project. As he says, we must clean our own house first. We must begin with ourselves, put our own houses in order. He thus extends this manner of being able to get honest with oneself and associates it with a Christian kind of theme.

Both of these philosophers thus pose the same question, have a similar manner of understanding it, and also see that the only way through is, indeed, Capitalism; we must use what we have, and stop attempting to escape the problematic situation through all sorts of fantastic psychic mechanisms (for those kinds of ways of denial enforce the philosophical correlation). Hence, Peterson’s “see how apparently antagonistic positions can work to communicate”, and Zizek’s “think!” as their closing statements, respectively.

Yet, to focus on the small, segregated, details of the debate is exactly a capitalist manner of approaching discourse, even if one says they are Marxist. The hard Marxist activists are indeed perpetuating the capitalist agenda by constantly reifying routes of control for the capitalist congregant (all of us). It does not matter what kind of revolutionary (or fundamentalist) state would do or say to assert a proper manner to have reality because reality itself is being informed by the ontological exploitation of subjective excess. Hence, political-reality is that inescapable condition where philosophers find themselves. And yet, the move seems to be to stop attempting to be Gramsci-esque proponents for the masses, because so long as this kind of philosophically ‘enlightened’ manner attempts to alleviate the struggle of the disenfranchised, the activist has only asserted that those she would help are indeed lost, as they both become as now a positive historical cause.

Yet I am skeptical that siding with the super-wealthy (as some have already decided is best) will be any more effective, for they, as a general class, are “large scalers”, abusers of excess, exploiters of the world, creators of chaos and confusion.

Ok. I could go on, but I think Ive made my point. And if you ae really interested, you can always read mine and Nathaniel’s books.