Philosophy of Reference, part 1.

references check mark sign concept

I have brought this up in another post somewhere. Please put your answers in the comments.

I am going to give you the thoughts coming up right now …

In philosophy, why is knowledge based in referring to what past authors said or wrote?

For example, what is the value, say, for what purpose am I referring to another author if I came up with cause as evidencing four aspects which constitute the Being of a thing?

All Beings have a form. What the reason is for this thing to exist is the form that it is. The cause of a Being is its formal sense.

All Beings have, or are, matter. What the reason is for this thing to exist is that it matters; the material which constitutes a thing is the cause of its existence. The tree is the cause of the table, for example.  Or electricity is the cause of the internet.  Of course, because there is plenty of material, the essential Being of a thing can have various material causes.  The cause of a universal thing, a Being, matters, or is derived from material.

All Beings have, or are, motion. What we as philosophers generally know as an efficient cause.  What the reason is for this thing to exist is the motion that it evidences.  The agency which is the thing is that which it does, the motion it is involved with.

All Beings have and end, or what we know as telos, in the ancient Greek.  What the reason is for a thing to exist is that it evidences its own end, or as I say here and there, parameter. 

All of these causes interrelate and confirm one another to arrive at modern idealism.

— Cid Nate.

Now, a significant modern philosophical question is:  With what purpose I am involved in comparing, say, what I came up with here out of the blue, through sheer observation and its resultant description, to Aristotle’s causes?

(comment now, please)

I wonder, because I have to ask myself why a reference to someone from a long time ago is required to give my ideas credence and validity?

What am I doing when I reference someone who is dead?

I can understand referencing someone who is alive because we are involved with global capitalism. But to place all knowledge on a level field to say that the books of the dead people are equal to the comments from people living — I ponder if that is a valid proposition. But then moreso, what exactly is the purpose I am involved with in understanding that knowledge in this way? 

My formulation, the reason I come upon with goes to that in early human history:

Somehow, words had more substance somehow.  Somehow, if I quote an ancient Greek meaning, what I am writing gains more substance.  And, I imagine, that the reason why I believe and feel ancient philosophers have more substance contained in their words is because (again) those people were closer to some essential truth of existence due to their Being closer to the arrival of consciousness from our of prehuman and prehistorical “non-consciousness”.  

Which is to say, then, that the universe was informing them and their terms to a more true situation of Being. 

Why would this be the case?

(please comment :|)

I have stopped watching and listening to the news.

I am cautious and intelligent. I am doing my part to be safe and protected for myself and those around me. If you are also, you no longer need the Covid daily updates.

Now, the news has become nothing more than a drug dispenser for people trying to get their fix of the fear cure.

The irony of Covid is that one becomes no longer able to tell whether it is a sickness of the body, or a sickness of the mind.

Most people think fear is something they get from “out there”. So it is the news now is just feeding that dellusion. As if they know more then their fear will be satiated.


Knowledge is knowing that you are hungry.

Wisdom is knowing that you are full.

Be Relentless and distinguishing knowledge from foolishness.

The word “intelligent” in the broadest sense is most often applied as a categorical error. To say that human beings are intelligent in the same way that scholars or astrophysicist are “more” intelligent, is not a rating of degree but is actually a categorical error, a sort of ideological consolidating propaganda.

To say that human beings are intelligent merely says that they manifest differently in the universe than other things that human beings come across. To refer to intelligence as anything other than that is an ideological move for consolidation and equivocation.

For, obviously tucker Carlson is intelligent, but the word applied to him doesn’t really mean very much.

So it is that the task before us is to distinguish knowledge from foolishness.

Because the world is filled with intelligent fools. 

Knowing and Philosophy: View

Does meaning mean anything? What is the meaning of meaning?

In what way or when can a computer know something?

We can start anywhere. We can start in an arbitrary middle and find the modern subject.

…and thats fine.

Or we can start with something specific that is immovable and not relative.

We can start by saying that a computer does not know anything;

and, what are we trying to accomplish when we argue that a computer can know something?

What we try to accomplish by saying that a computer does not know anything is to make a parallel ontological move instead of a causal or vectoral ontological move. A move that is upon or to something that is not itself, as different than a move that remains itself, only moving; a calculus rather than an arithmetic.

It is to say that the human being is able to exist as an ontologically equitable object with a computer. Which moves tells us which ‘knows’. Where is the center? Is the sun moving?

Is thought moving?

We can thus say that a human being does not know anything, but more precisely as analogous to what a computer actually does — it does do stuff — that the human beings’ knowledge is a result of operation.

A computer does not know what is programmed or coded. It cannot know or conceive of what or how coding occurs. It is entirely unable through any of its processes, no matter what is programmed or coded, to know or conceive of what or how the coding comes into being or even what the code might actually be; any knowledge of such coding is ultimately merely an operation and not actual knowledge of the coding. The computer only knows what it does, and at that, in as much as what or how it does anything is entirely outside of its ability to know.

The human being is able to do things which appear to other human beings as though it is knowing something outside of its operation. Even while the first human is not knowing anything at all.

At all times no illusions exist.

A single human being is likewise able to think it knows something of itself.

But it is possible that what that person knows is entirely false, that is, unknowable.

The actualization of knowing only what another person (or thing) allows to appear cannot be communicated along a vector of knowing which understands self-knowledge as a kind of knowledge which everyone has access to or that occurs in every human being. For, it is equally possible that self-knowledge is a kind of knowledge for which only the other allows.

In other words; there is two kinds of knowledge which do not communicate accross a common category.

Philosophy exhibits these two routes at the same time, parallel in nature.

The question of change is: what happens when the manner by which change is able to change itself is changed? If the manner by which one understands change is itself changed, can the person see this change ?

The operative question is thus:

can you see it?

Counseling and Philosophy

Counselors are not the scientists. The scientists are the psychologists, neurologists, social workers and psychiatrists. These latter tend to defer to the numbers into the Givens with Little question.

The counselors are the ones that acknowledge science can at best account for only a small portion of the human experience and why anyone may behave in the way that they do. 

It is plain despite the faith in science that psychiatry and such would invest in the scientific/medical model of mental health, that while the bones and organs can fit into such a organ->problem->symptom scheme of disease, the mind and mental issues do not fit simply into such a model of brain. That anything which has to do with the psyche, mind and health must necessarily concern philosophical foundations of knowledge, and not merely scientific appearances.

Aliens and Knowledge

This was in my Apple news this morning.

I wonder what your reaction is to it.

I have to admit, my first reaction was, people are gonna think she’s nuts. My reaction was not, that’s bullshit; we don’t know if aliens exist.

.And that kind of struck me as odd but at the same time reassuring and philosophically salient, so far as we are coming to understand what the actuality of our existence may be through an object orientation.

When you think about what this woman is saying, one almost Hass to come to the conclusion that aliens must necessarily exist, and that they are probably on earth right now.  and the reason why these are the conclusions is, as she says, the universe is so unfathomably large. But not only this; if if one then thinks about what might be outside of the universe, and then contemplate just what we mean by the universe, the sheer possibility involved in the limitation that goes on in our capacity to think and understand things points to the fact that our knowledge is drastically small and myopic.

And this is what 000 says which shows that the philosophical interest it’s really about orientation upon objects, so far as it has to do with human beings, and not so much about what human beings might think ontologically, which is to say in our cosmological and bias founded “Knowledge”. And when we think about science, from my Lehman on scientific understanding of what science gets us: Science just gets us what we can use, it just scrapes A sufficient amount of understanding from any object in order to get some use out of it, while the majority of the substance of that object lay totally out of reach and uninvestigated. 

video of Harmans visit to Tijuana

video of my visit to Tijuana
— Read on

Knowledge is not the whole of cognition.

Knowledge either overmines or undermines. We do need knowledge to survive. What things are made of and what they do.

But knowledge is not the whole of cognition.

Philosophy is not a type of knowledge, not a claim of how to have knowledge. 

Philosophy is the love of wisdom..

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 ?


— Read on

great post!!

Yet/and… read on…

I am not sure that we need to use the term “hyper objects”. I think that term functions and works to miss the significance of objects in-themselves. if I were to use the term “hyper objects” in the context that I am understanding it, at least through this link post: It’s as though I am approaching a great significance, and as I get closer to it then all of a sudden I need to turn away and completely ignore and miss what the significance actually was and create my own subjective interpretation of what I actually never encountered. The speculative term “hyper object” is an evangelistic manner of retaining subjects under its theological dominion.

In a very real sense, it’s as though existentialism of the Sartean kind (revolting from the abyss) is in fact less a rational ontological truth, and more A functioning of religious theological dogma for the purposes of Establishing and maintaining a transcendental subject of offense (ubiquitous politics).

Nevertheless, This post link is a perfect extrapolation of the theme that Zizek mentions somewhat frequently here and there: The significance of modern critical theory and philosophy is that while it thinks it’s self as a player in social activism, it’s discourse has nothing to do with “the people”. The masses, or the people, cannot be appropriated by philosophy nor critical theory; rather, the appropriation links back to its own assertion of power, as though it is getting at something new; as I say in places and as Cedric Nathaniel will argue in his book, the world that is encompassed by modernity and postmodernity cannot even reach “the mass of people” except through denying that “the people” as a universal object actually exists in itself. This situation that philosophy/critical theory has gotten itself into is ultimately correlational unto itself. The issue thus is not how to get out of correlational existence, but how we deal with this fact.

This post is a perfect example of the motion that I just described: As soon as the people attempt to act for themselves, the agent of critical theory (and the general congregation/constituency of the theoretical religious body) have to impose and discount it, make it marketable, discount the people themselves because the people acting in themselves and for them selves actually exhibit a manner of existence which does not accord with the theological mandates of critical philosophical theory of the One Reality: The People exhibit no excess, no margin for profit. The irony of this contradictory activity is eternal, and is why we must locate such idealized activity within the envelope of transcendental law, A code of laws “given from God”.

I am excited that this post mentions GrahamHarman In what I see as an appropriate use of his philosophy in something that is not architecture — because this is the first post, even though he’s referencing an article from 2009 or something, that I’ve seen anyways, that is beginning to understand or somehow reflect upon the world as though it is filled with objects, and as well seems to be beginning to comprehend it self in the context of universal objects as opposed to a common humanity of inter-relating subjectivities. But but of course, this is not to say that there are not interrelating subjectivities, but only that The universe of interrelating subjectivities is not the only universe that can be known, and that indeed interrelating subjectivities are objects, or, is an object in itself.

The caveat to this, though, is that I fear that such theoreticians will still be involved in the attempt to reduce this kind of alterity, this disparity, to another common manner to link power to its absolute ideological object, and completely miss the significance that they almost came upon.

But in the meantime, like I said, at least people are beginning to notice them selves in the context of universal objects.


We are just beginning to see, to actually be able to view, what human beings do. We are just beginning. This is the long game…

….But all that is for other posts.

The Defining of Religious Space: The Secular Fanaticism of Indifference

The Secular Fanaticism of Indifference

The Secular Fanaticism of Indifference
— Read on

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

But also…

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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