It is not Becuase you are so intelligent or philosophically apt.
It is because the notion of Truth informs the core of an offense which holds up your system of sense and ability.
A logic of ideas supported by a fundamental and basic offense is called, in one instance, ideology, and in another, religion.
Ponder, great souls and great minds, how intelligence, ethics, and indeed the whole world itself, is contained by a knowledge that is nothing less than a religious theology. Less a system in which individuals of various cultures persist, than a manner which is the universe itself arising to be known.
— I don’t know about all the political things, all the inns and outs.
However, I do feel that there is a basic difference between eastern views upon what a human being is in the world and the Western view.
i’m not sure where I stand. However, some of my posts have suggested that the climate is always changing. It has always been changing. Just because we are now aware that we are part of the universe, in so much as, perhaps, human beings as an ideology are now manifesting an “awareness” of ourselves in the universe, does not mean that suddenly we are affecting the universe such that the climate is changing evermore drastically due to us.
I suggest that the interaction is Less One Direction, less reciprocal, and more coincidental. And this is to say, behaving together.
The climate changes. Becuase the universe is always changing, and perhaps we are not separated from the universe sufficiently to effect it in the way that we like to think we do in the West.
now, if this is the way that eastern philosophies and ideologies inherently promote a human being relationship with the world and the universe, then the approach might be more of how do we deal with the climate that is changing. That is, more than the Western manner and view around the question of how do we change what we’re doing so the climate doesn’t change (now, as much).x
Sometimes I feel that I am being drawn forward. And other times I am just making my Way, doing what I do because that’s what I’m doing.
Presently I am going through a phase of the latter.
I am not sure that I ever construct meaning intentionally. I never purposely sit down and make meaning from things.
Rather, I might be perplexed, or feel out of sorts, even lost, at times.
Sometimes I do ponder things like dreams, and a meaning will show itself.
Other times I’m not thinking about anything. And meaning still shows itself…
Such is the case when I opened my WordPress reader 5 minutes ago.
The beginning of this post shows the titles of the first three posts that were in my Reader.
Naysayers and reductionist psychological Science congregants may point to all the studies about how the mind will make meaning out of anything.
And yet, the conclusion of those kinds of studies never tell us how we are able to come to that conclusion, nor why that conclusion should be any less random than the meaning that the subject gained from a series of random images or words.
If a person has faith enough to set aside the psychological proof that a mind is just assembling random meanings into a string of meaning at all times, then I really have nothing to say to them philosophically, because they have not looked deep enough. They have only stopped where it suits them, as I say, for their faith. I have no criticism or argument to give them; for why would I critique or bombard someone’s faith?
Nonetheless, If I wish to take those psychological studies for what they’re really telling me, which is to say, where I do not hold back, I do not stop at my faith in what I already believe that I’m coming upon, then I might ask further:
What series of random events has coalesced in such a way to allow me to be presented to that particular arrangement of phrases or pictures that we are deciding is random?
Against what sense of truth are we deciding that any arrangement of pictures or phrases or words is random, such that the meaning that I am making (in that case) has no real basis? And is thus meaningless?
I could go on.
What these kinds of questions tell us is that science is not giving us truth of the universe. Rather, what science is likely giving us is merely a reflection of our culture, of our ideology, of an ability of mind, and not the mind itself nor the universe that arises in truth.
I say this not to resort back to relativity or mirror (or mere) opinions, or subjective perception. I say this to point out that if we reject all those routes into reality, we must find that indeed reality did not disappear, but that there is a truth which can be known which does not reduce to real faith, as I say, To the religion of modern ideology.
Again and again as I said elsewhere, I’m not saying that faith and religion is inherently bad or that it needs correcting. I am merely suggesting that this is the way that consciousness functions. When a person comes upon the truth of how consciousness is indeed functioning, what is able to happen is that the way we participate in the real ideology changes.
It is then possible that it is not so much that we make meaning, but that meaning is what we are. And further, that what we are is not separated from the universe in which we arise to meaning. A reduction to individual brains is able to be come upon and is indeed able to derive necessary reason and rationales. However, An opening of that same system reveals that there is a truth beyond that kind of limited orientation upon things – but a truth that the orientation upon brain/mind religion implicitly rejects. The religion of the scientific mind rejects any knowledge that itself does not support. That is why it is a religion: Becuase there is other rational and knowable knowledge that does not adhere to its cosmological mandates.
Again: this is not to say that reality and knowledge about it is not real or does not function; rather, it is only to say that it is indeed real and refers to real things, but not true.
A second part of reporting my thoughts upon reading “Zero: the biography of a dangerous idea” by C. Seidel.
Recall that my work centers upon orientation upon objects as the significant philosophical issue of our time.
The excerpt pictures above gives a manner by which to apprehend the coupling of history and idea that informs subsequent reality.
“It is hard to imagine something with no width and no height — with no substance at all — being a square.”
The statement is not axiomatic. It is not a truism either. Rather, it is a cosmological statement, A statement that reflects a view upon the world that is taken to be accurate of the actual universe.
This is to say, if I can find an instance which takes a count of the mathematical conundrum that is presented, and yet defies the conclusion that appears automatically common and sensible, then we can say that the statement is reflecting a belief rather than an actual instance of a true universe.
I propose that it is not hard to imagine something with no width and no height that is also a square: It is an idea of the square.
Likewise: the area of a rectangle with a zero height or zero width is the idea of the whole universe.
These two instances, these examples I just give are exactly the opposite of what is implicitly proposed as assumed of the mathematics drawn upon for this book.
There is an assumed coordination between the physical reality of the universe and our ability to analytically and logically come to formulations about it, but along a particular orientation as to our relationship with the world.
In the exercise just in this particular post, we can notice that there is a gap, I kind of invisible space that twists the view that we have for that we gain. We miss that there is a difference between the idea of the rectangle and an actual rectangle, and we superimpose these upon one another. But the superposition does not align, and we glaze over that, we forget about it, we set it aside for the sake of our belief. This is to say that “our idea” is not actually “our“ idea. It is an idea that arises within a particular faith in what is being given to our knowledge. And we could even go so far as to suggest that the infamous poststructuralist analysis of the situation indeed finds subjective repression. Ideology posed as absolute knowledge.
This is very similar to what the sociologist Bruno Latour calls a pass in his book An Inquiry into Modes of Existence.
The main and largely unrecognized model for the human mental being is the Cognitive Model.
In short, it says there is a Situation, we have thoughts about it, These thoughts are automatically associated with particular emotional responses, and we act or behave. This behavior is an interaction with the world, and this interaction is the situation.
Now, the typical approach to mental health from the cognitive model is to eliminate that there is an actual interaction, and qualify it to say that there are things happening in the world, and then we have these perceptions upon them and those perceptions bring about this cycle.
While this model seems very intuitive and indeed it makes for a really good closed system by which science can then default to other situations that fall outside of the cognitive model, say for example, body chemistry, to this justify why we need an over abundance of medication to solve this fundamentally bio chemical problem, The model itself is only upheld through redundant conceptual reinforcement which ignore the actual situations which would otherwise disrupt its cogency.
The actual situation is indeed the human being in the world. The cognitive model therefore is very good for a first step kind of involvement in what is actually happening in a mental situation, or a psychic situation to use a couple words, but it fails in as much as it tends to perpetuate mental issues for the sake of justifying the model.
The cognitive model becomes more and more myopic, discerning to its own categories, and enforcing of scientific dogma the longer it stays around, the less people are actually getting helped, and the more money that is made through psycho pharmacology.
I’m not saying that it is not helpful, nor am I saying that with certain people and with certain type of situation it can be a total system of help and effective. But I am always thinking of the exceptions, and in this case it is the predominance of people with mental health issues that the cognitive model only gets a short way towards helping.
Then, often instead therapists and psychologist Fail to notice that there might be an issue with their basic concept of what’s occurring, and they continue the same method of approach to the problem. The problem continues to be conceptualized within the cognitive model, and they merely decide to intervene differently, use different concepts but upon the same idea that there is this cognitive flow functioning and that ideally it is responsible or at root for all mental health issues.
I feel there is a better way. This better way is to see that the cognitive model is like a doorway into what is actually occurring. It is a way to begin to conceptualize what is going on, but then also a way to problematize that concept for the client.
That is to say through the creating Problems with fundamental concepts, concepts that are assumed, thereby does the problem of mental health, the mental health issue, become opened up to the possibility that it is not really a problem. This is to say, that the problem itself is aggravated in that cosmologically intuited problem that cognition is something that happens within the human being which is essentially separated from the actual functioning world.
The problem here is then within the construct itself. We thus move into process over placating.
Two dynamics are that’s it play in the perpetuation and maintenance of a problematic heuristic towards mental health, and the cognitive model is that route in this.
On one hand, the cosmological separation of the individual from the rest of the world opens up a gap in conceptual space. This gap that can be only filled in one of two ways,
and that these two ways work to reinforce cosmology behind the scenes.
Number one. The gap is filled with this empirical enigmatic phenomenon called biology, but specifically brain and neurons and Nuro chemistry. The cognitive model can always defer the fundamental problem to be that of Nuro chemistry and Bio physiology. And, as these empirical approach never really solve the problem, but then serve to found and perpetuate a resource for doctors and other moneymakers as career and institution, The client themselves, why approached with a genuine compassion is never the less left out to dry. Strung along a route led by a carrot which is always transcendent to their experience. Placed in the hands of the benefit of the doctors and the therapists and the scientist.
Hence two; the other way to fill this gap is ideological. The reason why the default is to Nuro chemistry and biology is so that the ideology is either understood as a fantasy, or Theory, or as just resultant to the Nuro chemistry, which is nothing more than to say that we our individual human beings with Nuro chemical problems that is having an issue of concept and precept upon the world that is separate from us.
The ideology fills the function of a religious cosmology. For, the function of religion is not analysis, it is not that “God is dead”. The very notion that God is dead fulfills the religious function of the modern individual in society and the world. Just as its counterpart, religious theology in the institutional sense, for fills the gap involved in the strictly academic theoretical application of sense.
— I am always intrigued when theorists use the word “we” — and a bit skeptical.
I am pretty conscious in my writing when I use “we”. I’m not perfect, though. But I try to use “I” when I cannot be sure I am talking about “us”, and I try to use “we” only when I am talking about an experience of the reader that should have been aroused through the reading. For example; as I make an argument or describe a situation, I will use the “we” to indicate where the reader should be in their conceptualization of matter discussed, as a sort of check in to see if everyone is on board.
The linked post I have to question, simply because it is obvious to me that the “we” he is writing about does not include me.
Much of what he assumes in the “we accelerating”, the symptoms and reactions/responses, I have not, nor do I experience. I understand that many people can relate to what he is saying — I do understand that people can identify with his panic, yes, but the way he is saying it sounds like he is overextending the experience of being human, as well then, overextending the possibility of what he sees as so terrible.
He is actually talking about “them”.
It is for those he is talking about, and that reality they live in, that brings me to have compassion for those poor souls.
I just can’t help but feel for them because it seems that they have been sold a bill of goods, and it feels better about it is they look around as see “us”.
But they are really only seeing what they are able to see.
It is “us” in so much as they might hope, but it is really “them” who are, supposedly, going to suffer from this ideological acceleration.
This is why I feel it is my responsibility to help people.
From my vantage point, everything is changing all the time and at the same rate. Hence, the view upon the world is a particularly cosmological view, an incorporated view which sees in the events of the world a correspondence with what is being felt, as these emotions inform his one is able to think about themselves and the world.
It is not therefore ‘the world’ or society that these people are talking about; rather, it is thier own sense of Being. In the same way as certain congregations of institutional religions throughout history have seen that the world is going to end in various ways and according to various evidences and proofs, so it is with the ideal of acceleration.
It is individual ontological perception, not existential foundation
Every generation has its reasons for the shittiness. That’s what being a modern human is.
We are Only gonna die From our own arrogance
That it is The arrogance itself which sets up a system of knowing which perpetually “kills itself” as its own ideological teleology.
How could hell be any worse than to live in a self-reflected world that you see as The Real world ?
———- indeed! It is our next meal because what happens when we eat, what happens when we satiate our hunger? We digest it, we incorporate it, we become it.
—-and we excrete what is not useful.
And Some honesty arises….
Love it. Reposting it.
What does Nathaniel have to say ?
One should not help but make a notice to the coincidence and synchronicity that occurs between, say, work and experience and encounter with other through this blog and people all around.
…and Somehow I feel like we might differ on what is actually occurring even while that difference just highlights how the view is the same…I ￼feel that there is an analysis that would tend toward thoughts synthesizing with brains functioning coming to conclusions of an entirely human mechanism. Yet, I come from the opposite direction to say that we are coming across the same motions of concepts in the polemic itself. The world is manifesting and for those who can see “it” report on it, just as it is the unfolding of our individual beings, just As it is the unfolding of the universe. But that’s just a very loose and rough description of two sides of the same coin; I’m not sure we need to make them exclusive and attempt to reduce to another “what is actually occurring”…
Nevertheless, as simplicity of what I see in reading philosophy just confirms it —- from my perspective, from my angle of view, it is not that ideology is going away but quite the contrary: It is that ideology is becoming functional. Like a fish swimming and water, the fish does not notice the water, it is just it’s natural environment; the water essentially disappears but it is actually just everywhere. This is really what I see happening in a real sense. Drowning, I resist. I choke on the water; I attempt to deny it ￼.￼Yet, as many have reported, supposedly, for a couple seconds I’m actually breathing water and I am fully relaxed…￼
I totally get — it — the plunge into nothingness in nihilism. I’m not sure what I would have to say, except to reiterate the same terms that is used in the various discourses: I fully comprehend and resonate with where it came from, the process, and where we are at.
Personally, I don’t think that incredulity towards meta-discourses eliminates meta-discourses. I am quite skeptical that I am able to question a meta discourse now and then to have myself exist “suspended in nothingness“. For me the real suspension in nothingness is utter identity loss, and inability to make any headway in the world, and yet that also is a certain corresponding adaptive metadiscourse which remains in the background as a sort of “philosophy” (what Is indicated in the band “The Covert Sound Philosophy”). It is a perpetuation and insistence of doubting everything as an identity that makes me locate meta-discourses as something that I am not involved with. This denial then￼ helps me attempt to assert my identity of getting nowhere in the world and being generally unhappy and defaulting to a certain resolve in such a state To point to ideology as if it’s something these “poor unintelligent wretches” are involved with while me and my Nietschean Uber Mench gets to sit back and proclaim How justified and superior I am to all these other stupid religious animals. In other words, I am depressed because everyone else is stupid. ￼Really??
…coincidentally, and I do mean happening at the same time at all times, this is exactly the condition of my being despite how I would want to resist it and live a life arguing against it, as though I was forging some identity that everyone needs to recognize. Strange how I remain in my small world with little identity because I was so smart as to question every meta-discourse that I came across…
No, I do not believe that there was ever a time that me nor you nor anyone else was succesdfully avoiding existing within Meta Discourse. It was just silent, held back in irony, as a sort of sarcastic spite, like I’m better than you, but then all the while really just asserting my identity of being a pissy complainer to those pussy bitches who don’t question their existence in the proper manner…
No; I think it is once I recognize that what I was asserting in my nihilism was really everything that I was denying, but denying for the sake of my attempt to forge a new ideological identity, once I get to the end of that curve, what happens is that I become part of the ideology, the ideology the Meta Discourse actually takes hold of and begins to function properly As because that’s what’s been going on all along despite my intellectualization of the matter.
——————The re-post here starts out good; I like the introduction. The “solution”in the meditation practice, on the other hand, is up to the reader.
“Take what you need and leave the rest.”
Personally, I am not in a place Where I am able to understand and apply such practices as framed in a way such as this re-post does.
There is no argument that can be made to me, and I feel if we are honest with ourselves then there is no argument that needs to be made to me because If such practices were valuable and vital to my existence and being then they would make sense to me and I would practice them.
The beginning of that repost talks about how so few people see that the world is their own reflection. And then it gives a meditation that can help people to see the truth of the situation, or be free or whatever.
For me, it just reminded me of the philosopher/psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan.
In particular, if I am not completely misinterpreting his ideas, yet accompanying them with the sensible extrapolations of time:
The modern world of individual identity is based in the state of alienation. Alienation can be said to be brought about through an identification with the image. In Lacan’s idea, The child sees its reflection in the mirror and identifies with the reflection. It is called “the mirror stage”. The modern world, the modern social world, can be said to be caught in the mirror stage.
Identifying one’s Self with the image, is itself the ontological state of alienation. This, in a way, disembodied Self thus looks back into the Real world with anxiety, or angst, for it is unable to overcome the trauma which has occurred in the formation of ego around the image as it views its originating body. The non-Self (image) thus erects a fantasy to help relieve the trauma. It there by does not see its actual Being in the “non-image” but indeed sees a world that is not itself, which is in Lacan’s terms, the imagined world, ie the (modern) fantasy.
Symbols thereby become a sort of fetishized substance, a magical device, which are understood by the alienated identity to be able to bring the world into communion or coordination with its non-Self. This situation develops as a Marxist dialectic called ideology, but is what Lacan calls a “mistake” or “misunderstanding” of, what I call, the Truth.
The Truth is that the ideological world is ultimately the Self occupied with a mistaken identification, and this alienated state thus reflects the world as not the Self. Which, ironically, is the Truth.
Hence we have a segue into the meaning of Kierkegaard’s critique of Hegel: The irony of the “either/or” ontological question is that the question (as method for coming upon the world) itself is based in a mistake. As well, the imaginary “truth” which reveals itself at once as ideological as well as a way to overcome or get outside of it (revolution) arises in the encounter with the symbol because the symbolic world and the imaginary world are indeed what allows for the dialectical and thus ideological world to appear and function truthfully. So it is the Real world is that which actually is “absurd” with reference to the symbolic-imagined fantasy which arises through trauma as post-traumatized identity (modernity), which replays the originating trauma through disembodiment (reason, idea, etc…).
The issue thus is less how to overcome the fantasy, and more how to deal with the originary mistake which manifests through shame as trauma, that is, the inherent vacillation of guilt, shame, and anxiety that arise through the basic ideological default of existential choice, what Kierkegaard calls sin or despair to will to be oneself. Which is then the basic offense that The West in general knows colloquially as original sin.
Today, though, often enough, this kind of discussion is discredited outright in the move toward an ideological importance of reality. This is due, then, to the basic denial that arises when individuals (but the world, society) find the symbolic way through the trauma is closed off. Hence the fantasy routes modern individuals back more firmly into the fantasy, such that the questioning itself becomes blocked (PTSD) as, now, an ideological mandate: A true religious commandment (again, see Kierkegaard): Thou Shalt Not…
The alienation is thus overcome through a new religious devotion to the truth of the fantasy. The dialectic which then will arise is de facto a continuance we know as PTSD.
There is much more to be said here, but we can get much of it through Slavoj Zizek’s Philosophy.
–from “Re-visioning psychology￼” by James Hillman.
The modern idea of ownership permeates into every thing that we think. This preoccupation with one’s “owned” ideas manifests world as some thing to be or to have as owned. Hence we have the eternal problem for the modern individual which shows up in one instance as rational subjective opinion in a world of argued relative opinions, and in another instance as mental illness. We might even begin to discern what mental health is by understanding how it seeks to commandeer the problematic modern individual￼￼￼￼￼ which is — by the plain evidence of all the problem it vomits everywhere by simply being itself — ideologically and institutionally mentally ill, by placing it in a “positive spin”. For I think the most salient and pertinent issue of philosophy and not only psychology is: What exactly is mental health?
We tend to ignore this question as well as ignore the absurdity involved in the object of mental health by trying to reduce it to some physical state of brain or some organizational state of some “pure” mind, by trying to bring about various conceptual apparatuses￼, or simply talking about “ways” or practices that we can do to thus be mentally healthy by the doing of them. But none of these ever really tells us what mental health is except maybe a sort of stillborn fetus of modern science to poke and prod at.
And the people who are really suffering are the ones who mostly get to remain in a state of suffering￼ overall.
Why do we continue to remain so myopic towards a problem which doesn’t seem to be responding very well to these narrow idealistic methods? ￼
But this is not really to make any sort of criticism against processes, interventions, and other efforts to help; for sure, we have to try.
￼￼ Here, we are taking on the interface or relationship between psychology, activity, and philosophy. ￼
￼The most pertinent philosophical discussion of modernity￼￼ in this regard was made by￼ Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari in their book “capitalism in schizophrenia”, but indeed their work is saturated with the attempt to come into a plural solution to the problem of the singular self. ￼
The issue, though, that we find permeating philosophy, or what I call conventional philosophy, can be viewed through the adjective pronoun “we”; for, what those philosophers pronounce in their philosophical works, in their psychoanalysis in one sense, is exactly “not” we, but indeed that group of people which is only able to understand humanity as a generalized and common, modern, “we”: Meaning, not the We that arises as world to form the contours of self, but indeed the modern We which is the presumed isolated self within a world of individual isolated selves “out there￼”￼, huddling in cold groups, ￼￼and indeed only of beings associated with the category that we call human. The We doesn’t think of the We which involves rock formations, buildings and quarks. Anything that lives outside of this, what I call, religious and theological designation, we label and denote as ethically inferior and or in need of correction due to its epistemologically implicit error of cognition.
We might then ponder what indeed the idea of correction is manifesting around in this regard. ￼What is this idealistic calcification attempting to protect?