Commenting on Medieval storytellers

x

The 12th century was arguably the most ‘storytelling’ century of the medieval period. If the Dark Ages – which were not dark at all – were centuries …

Medieval storytellers

—–

I marvel at history and it’s commentaries.

I love this guys blog; he’s always got really interesting stuff about the middle ages and books and stuff like that.

Today I was once again struck by the huge swath of time, say the 11th or 12th centuries, that he generalizes to say that writers authors told a lot of stories.

It is interesting to me that a short two page essay, for example his post, could have anything to say that was remotely accurate about the “eleventh and 12th centuries of Europe”.

This goes to a very philosophical heart in me, One that just appears now and again, like a did today.

Think about your life. In fact, think about just the past month of your life, say. Think about all the information, all the experience you’ve had, the perception and conception of time, how a month can seem like it takes forever to pass, and yet once it passes it seems very quick. Think about all the thoughts you had about the world and all the events that were going on just in your hometown or the city in which you live. Think about all the multitudinous situations that arise every moment even three blocks from your place of living.

Think about how difficult it would be to summarize what happened this last month, just even in your own personal life, think about what happened at work, think about what happened in your local businesses, in your city news, in your state or country, in your nation. Think about what happened at the party that was at your local college fraternity house.

Think about what sense is being made when I go to describe any one of those situations. How accurate that description is.

Now think about I’m extending from maybe a couple hours out to only a month. The accuracy of any of my descriptions, whether it be merely today, the past week or even the month, is exponentially distorted even within one hour of description. Let alone if I try to describe or summarize what happened in the past month.

As well, i submit, I would say that there is no difference in the capacity for description between what I say happened merely in this past hour, or this past month. Whether I am describing the situation of walking my dog around the paths and open space and sidewalks around my house, or whether I am attempting to describe or summarize the events of that same half hour on any street in my city.

Consider The capacity in each description is exactly the same. There is not something “local” to my description of me walking my dog, and then some thing that is more extensive in my describing what is happening on any city block in Lodo during the same period of time. There is exactly the same amount Of information being condensed, there is exactly the same amount of information being conveyed, there is exactly the same extent which is being communicated. There is neither more nor less information in my summary and description of the past 10 feet that I have walked with my dog, then there is of my summary and description of what is happening in all the bars in downtown Denver off of Colfax.

Consider how you might understand the various capacities and extents automatically and naturally. As well, consider by what standards are you being able to assess and perhaps rebut the situation that I am describing in this post.

Now contemplate how this linked post is supposing to describe a situation of 1000 years ago. Ponder that he is summarizing and describing a situation that occurred over some 150 years.

I for one cannot even describe with any amount of accurancy what happened in my own life of the past 5 years, let alone a whole continent over 150 years.

What exactly is being communicated. What is truly happening?

The Dealing of Philosophy

by John Clark Philosophy is in decline. You hear it all the time. The evidence is regularly trotted out: fewer graduates; no jobs; no prospects; a …

The Healing of Philosophy

——- Physician, heal thyself!
I love this post. Not only is it a Nice reflection upon the situation, but I also think it indicates a problem in philosophy: it has no body !

I think one of the things that we found out in late 20th century Philosophy. and coming into the 21st-century, is, that human beings have an ability to cast its self it’s ideas, upon the world and make the World answer to its ideas.

This is particularly a 20th century phenomenon. To the extent that many of us are not able to read philosophy that arises outside of the 20th century within its own temporal manifestation. We simply are unabke to conceptualize what they were talking about in the proper sense of what they were talking about becuase of the manner that philosophy is prefugured now in the ideological context of nothingness; we hear everything, read all text, in the context of an atemporal yet universal code of words, of idealized thoughts of definition.

The issue with 20th century philosophy ever since Wittgenstein , but I might even say ever since Kierkegaard pointed it out rather specifically, without actually naming it I would say (lol. Kierkegaard talked about it specifically but never named it in a way that the 20th century could understand)– it is that we are able to become enamored with ourselves and us see the world in our own image. (Lacan’s mirror stage). And this is so much the case that we are unable to even consider philosophy that didn’t arise in our 20th century understanding of it: that is the definition of the end of philosophy that we had been dealing with for the past 20 years at least. namely, that philosophy argues its own self reflection as the valid point across all philosophical dimensions, time being that main component, that main dimensional feature of being.

And without going into the further discussion of this discrepancy that makes Philosopher is so adamant and adherent to their own view, as though ones own view is able to argue with someone else’s view, that is, is even able to encounter it– this is the definition of modern subjectivity that brings about the end of philosophy, anyway we want to put it, this is the fundamental and basic issue that we are dealing with. And, We might say, is the reason why “realism” has become so popular lately: as though suddenly we can change our interests and be able to change how we see things. We’ve been so caught up in ideas and thoughts, now we are trying to find what is actually “real”. 

But my point is less intellectual. philosophy argues itself into its own ontological corner through its reliance upon epistemological identity, which is to say, where we see and understand terms as identifying some thing that exists between people who think, but also between the thought in the world, thereby are we are caught ultimately in an idealism. For any other name.

This is what Michel Foucualt and perhaps others, were dealing with in their works; this particular issue that keeps coming up over and over again. Recall Kierkegaard’s work “repetition”.

The body was “cut away” by the surging force of the intellect, until the ‘gaze’ that the intellect identified with the object became the whole of interest: This is clinical medicine. The body was replaced with a holistic version of the intellectual gaze of sense. Disease became positive and the body negative until we now no longer even an ability to ground knowledge except in the gaze-idea, the knowledge-power of the subject of reality.

And philosophy has supported the whole notion the whole way. The basic issue is that Philosophy has removed itself from the body by which it originally gained credence.

Yet, in contrast to the modern ideological development and to point the view to where it does not want to look: I will go so far as to say that there is nothing that exists in the universe that does not have a body. And this is to say that everything and anything that has any sort of truth that we work with is a body. Hence we find many authors talking about this very thing, even though they might not put it in terms of “a body”. Many authors talk about how Philosophy. has just become subjective abstraction, various idealisms caught in their own subjective worlds asserting themselves over other peoples essential Transcendent represented in words.

The problem is that we are talking about nothing; we are talking about talking. That philosophy has become an eternal argument about vacuous idealism.

thanks post guy!

x

xxxxxx

The Critique of a Mistaken Synthetical A Priori Knowledge

If Kant gave us a first bifurcation, and Ludwig Wittgenstein gave us the second, then Michel Foucault gives us the third.

From Foucault we have the subsequent “post modern” discourses which then evidences what we could call ‘structural’ bifurcation; which is to say, that which becomes bifurcated is the ability to have a view due to the language as it is viewed.

Foucault gives is a very clear explanation of what happens with the Postmodern — one manner of which leads directly to Donna HarowAy of my previous post; we could say that Donna is an example of the clinical tradition:

(From “The Birth of the Clinic“)

“So it is not the gaze itself that has the power of analysis and synthesis, but the synthetic truth of language, which is added to the outside, as a reward for the vigilant gaze of the student…
…In no sense was the clinic to discover by means of the gaze, it merely duplicated the art of demonstrating [that the student could remember the corpus of previous experience] by showing.”

The point he makes here is that actual reality is left behind as the remembering the clinical ((read: corpus (technology, as opposed to the actual body) of a priori synthetical knowledge)) knowledge is rewarded due to the student being a part of the group of people who are developing a set of diagnoses which more and more leave the body (patient) behind as an empty place holder for disease, as opposed to that for which diagnosis is meant to treat (the actual body).

The postmodern tradition which sees a a body of priori synthetical knowledge justified over the actual in-itself real body is the tradition by which Donna Harroway finds her place: The world of fantasy to which she then posits a solution of more fantastic words.

The actual real world is missed and set aside in the argumentation which is based upon an assumption that the world is created by a priori synthesis. What happens, though, as we are seeing, is that the world gets more and more screwed up because knowledge for itself is posited in having no responsibility for the actual world that human beings live in actuality.

I’m not sure how many more time I could say it, Becuase, just the same: no argument about the non-existence of God will ever be proven to change a congregants religious faith. The same with this postmodern faith.

*

But my point is not that she is necessarily incorrect; rather: Why does she feel compelled to use such obscure and verbose language to express such simple ideas?

It shows something about what is really happening when we personalize what is actually occurring to an actual body that is the person herself. Something that mere argument consistently and purposefully avoids or misses: Denial. (Don’t Even kNow I Am Lying)

It shows, as again Foucault speaks of elsewhere, that the act (a body which is doing the crime) of the crime is being set aside for the sake of an embodiment of crime (an idea can only be argued against), as a person can be criminal instead of merely what they do. Here, it appears opposite, in true postmodern form: Donna is excluded or shielded from her act (the act that her body, or person, is doing) by virtue of saying things that appear intelligent but are actually based in assumptions of a body (stereo-typed person), that is, never dealing with the body (world) as it is right now in front of her gaze. She is lumping the act into the body as though they are one and calling it justified. And this is exactly what Foucault warns against (see my earlier post about Age of Consent).

x

Nonetheless; Harroway has a semi-famous video she put out I think in the late 80s where she talks about history and knowledge as like a ball of thread or yarn. (I have that posted somewhere). Her point is that at no time are we ever encountering nor finding “what truly is happening or happened”, but that we “pull threads” from the wadded and tangled ball of yarn and then see that line or string as representing “history” or knowledge in general. But in actuality it is always a tangled ball of yarn.

This analogy is what I draw upon also by the term “modernity” or what we view as modern. What upholds an idea of history/knowledge is a faith.

Society and the world suffers when we disclose the nature of reality and impose it upon people in general, simply due to our knowing what is true. This is irresponsible Becuase humanity to function well and smoothly needs its fiction. It is not able to do well under an imposition of truth: it needs faith in reality.

The idea that the truth should be understood by all is a fallacy Becuase what happens, as we see, is all sorts of mental health and social problems. The ‘regular’ human psyche cannot process well, cannot reconcile such “high knowledge” without all sorts of compensatory behaviors. Such behaviors are the messed up ethical world.

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.

https://www.mediamatters.org/tucker-carlson/tucker-carlson-says-calling-out-white-nationalism-racist-attack-white-people-and

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

apple.news/ARUxB7-6bQCmfjLAPKiXMEQ

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

https://doctorzamalek2.wordpress.com/2019/12/31/video-of-my-visit-to-tijuana/
— Read on doctorzamalek2.wordpress.com/2019/12/31/video-of-my-visit-to-tijuana/

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..