The End of the Beginning of the End.

It is hazy on the horizon, but coming into focus…

The commencement to the hack is the end of the beginning of the end of philosophy as we knew it. Once undertaken the hack, we are out of time.

Just as science needed no argumentative convincing but rather was the convincing itself, so the begining of the beginning can take more than a life time to become a given truth.

We tend to look back at history and historical eras and clump vast swathes of time into bits of discourse, which then serve to grant us our intelligent postion that is the condensation of, say, 100 years of being human thought into a few sentences, a stack of essays and a shelf of books, and we think we know so much. And we so humble fill our lives to read the 500 obliged books and think that we do the periods and authors justice with our keen minds, colleagues and comrades filling libraries and data bases with so many works they could never all be read even with a Earth full of researchers– let alone understand what one book has meant.

And We Might begin to comprehend Kierkegaard without the contradictory religious and spiritual implications and see what is truly philosophical outside the conventional ideological frame. But then again, to be in despair to be oneself can be very comfortable…one can nearly make a living being in despair even!

*

The Object of the Subject begins to mark out the space that The First Part of the Philosophical Hack breached.

Out so soon you won’t even know you were hiding in the closet.

And then you must summon a bravery that most never will have to come upon — until you do.

There is no reason; there is no spirit. Those become anachronisms and statues to nostalgia which thereby open the door to the future.

We are called now to step forth.

Excerpt From “The Object of the Subject: The Philosophical Hack, the Second Part”

The Modern mode is defined by transcendence. Despite the various eras of the scholarly historian, modernity is an annoyingly persistent overlying of transcendence upon existence by reason; always there is a positing of what cannot be proven onto what is apparent and what is religious in this regard is the assumption of what should be apparent by all parties. The atheist is annoyed with the theists, and vice versa. The farmer annoyed with the trader of finance, and vice versa. The regular person is annoyed with technology; the Silicon Valley tech-star cannot understand how technology is pointless. Key-shortcuts on computers are annoying and frustrating to some while wonderfully efficient to others. History was incorrect in this way, and history verifies the various points we wish to make in that way. Everywhere and at all times modernity brings in the transcendent aspect to be concerned with itself; the Wall Street wizard who relies upon her wits to make powerful business deals; the business owner who does yoga to allow him to center on what he has to do today to make and sell the best pastries; the dog walker who has to negotiate eight dogs down a busy city street and pick up after them. Transcendence brings the appearance of reality into focus by presenting us the conditions for existence, from the daily insistences and nuances of social interaction, to the great and deep physical discoveries of science, to the spiritual-magical fronts of consciousness and other planes of existence. Transcendence allows for it all to “be-there”, whether it be ‘only’ thoughts or the ‘actual’ world.

—Cedric Nathaniel, The Object of the Subject — OUT OF YOUR MIND and into you hands…SOON !!the-subject-objects-prints
{Artwork from Society6 — https://society6.com/annalynnhammond}

Philosophy, Religion and Negation.

Here I am reading the paper that Was accepted to the conference at the University of Toronto, Negativity, Pessimisms, and Sad Affects in the Study of Religion Conference. Next week, April 18-19, 2019.  Right before THE GREAT ZIZEK PETERSON DEBATE!!

I just realized I said the name of the conference wrong in the video 🙂

 

 

 

 

I am not able to attend, though, so I made a video.

Note – the negation of the speculative negative theology can appear as a philosophical venture of arguing philosophical primacy as not a religious effort. We can call a move of bad faith, the “sickness” which permeates some avenues of philosophical effort; that is, a sickness unto death. Hence the problem Highlighted in my essay. See also this essay. This is to say that the problem does not dissipate through philosophy but is rather suspened, which then perpetuates real psycho-social aggravations.

My paper can be viewed at Academia.edu HERE. Even though I wanted to post the paper with resources, it looks like it has posted without them.

And HERE is the Researchgate listing, with references.

(Im pretty sure I formatted the paper incorrectly. Oh well. Learn by living, learn by trying.)

Maybe someone will want to give me some pointers.

*

Heres the three books I cited:

Carol Gilligan’s In a Different Voice

Graham Harman’s Tool Being

Slavoj Zizek’s Living in the End Times

>>>

* * * *

If you want to hear all the hoopla about the Zizek Peterson debate, just search Zizek Peterson debate.

Of course, I have my opinions, which can be found throughout my blog.

 

 

Who is Happier: Zizek or Peterson?

I guess we will find out.

Rock and Roll philosophy

As well, an even more important and influential counselor-philosopher will be presenting a paper at the “Pessimism and Negativity in Religion” conference Put on by the Department of religious studies at the University of Toronto the day before: Me!

And I won’t charge you a cent to come hear me read my 20 minute paper!!

🤘🏾😁

Interesting that the University of Toronto is having a conference about pessimism and negativity in religion, and then the very next night they’re having the Peterson/Zizek debate on the topic of happiness :Marxism and capitalism.

Dude; that just sounds epic!

(but they don’t look very happy in their pictures)

The Philosophical Hack: The First Part. On Sale Now !

img_3830-1

Support independent publishing: Buy this book on Lulu.<>CLICK HERE to BEGIN THE HACK !

(hopefully the link will work.)

 

This is the First Part of a Six part series by Cedric Nathaniel.

Using Slavoj Zizek’s book “EVENT” as a platform, this essay is a hack into conventional philosophical reality.

It is indeed a hack: A repeated application of an algorithmic protocal upon a closed system. What is this closed system? Through the compromises developed through the Hack the closed system is defined while simultanously creating an opening to that situation many currently see as unescapable, which is to say, immenently and infinitely contained.  As part of this endeavor, the beginnings of a science of philosophy is thus put forth.

Mr. Nathaniel feels that philosophy which concerns the world should be able to be accessed by it. He thus opted to give readers bite-sized pieces to be able to enjoy and digest well.

A Comment on Ontological Equivocation and the Possibility of Plurality (repost).

The thought of Plurality came to be right now in coming across
Graham Harman’s plug for a couple new Object Oriented books. (or perhaps just ‘Realism’ books; who knows anymore. lol) In particular, the ideas of Tristan Garcia, the “Life Intense”.

Now, I have not read hardly anything of Tristan; what I have read sort of left me pondering. Now, I just read the summary of his book, I think I know why it is weird: I do not agree with his premise for the book, and, I guess, then, his philosophy. Again, just judging from what little I have read of him and then the summary, his view upon the world is totally different than what I see; I simply can only relate in as much as a believe that he is reporting on something honestly. 

This attitude of mine then is not about what argument he might be making. In fact, any argument he would make, I think, would be circumstantial, merely me considering how interesting it is that he came up with a philosophy on these equally interesting aspects of existence that I never encounter —

Or !

..that I may have already encountered. How could this be? It appears to me like he is reporting on something that I might have already reconciled. I can’t really know if this is true, though, because I will never encounter him except through his books, which already come to me as accounted for, on one hand, or, speaking of something that is merely interesting on the other.

So, I cannot discount his experience or his philosophy. It must be totally real and valid. Thus: whatever ontological proposals he makes is of another and different existence, one that is already contained in the proposals I make as a sort of foot note, a ground, if you will, but without the ontological argument. But further: That that footnote I might understand, is not a foot note in the condition of things for those who would see his proposals as significantly new. Hence: Plurality.

It is non sequitur to reduce his proposals to a necessity of mine, for, as Harman has suggested of things, that would be an overdetermination of the object at hand. His must then lay equally valid and real as mine.

OK, now that we might understand that strange coincidence…on to the significance of Ontological Equivocation…

reality_website_seasonheader_v1-1

“Even though there is something out there that is not the world-for-us, and even though we can name it the world-in-itself, this latter constitutes a horizon for thought, alwaysreceding just beyond the bounds of intelligibility.”

It seems I am beginning to give examples of philosophical analysis. Which is to say an analysis of philosophy, that non-philosophy has granted us but also my own work has seen an ability or propensity towards.

I got this quote secondhand from a re-posting of another blog (cite), and I’d like to point out some inconsistencies that indicate a religious posture and its attempt to bring everything under one philosophical ontological envelope.

One of the difficulties that comes with taking such a posture towards philosophy is that for other philosophers I would first need to establish myself as credible through their particular methodological paradigm; I am indeed working on getting legitimization to put some letter after my name for this purpose (right now it is: MACP:)) This is to say that the first defense of all philosophies that would be analyzed in this way would be to say that I do not understand what they are talking about. So in order to get to this point, a sort of ontological pivot (or break) has occurred such that there really is no ontology that I need argue any longer, As philosophers go, one first would have to believe that I understand the argument in question.

a further quote quotation from the same author is:

“The world-in-itself is a paradoxical concept; the moment we think it and attempt to act on it, it ceases to be the world-in-itself and becomes the world-for-us. A significant part of this paradoxical world-in-itself is grounded by scientific inquiry – both the production of scientific knowledge of the world and the technical means of acting on and intervening in the world.”

Indeed, the world in-itself is a paradoxical concept, but I do not think his conclusion necessarily follows. This is to say that due to the paradox, the confusion must follow one of two paths, his path being one of the two.

This is to say, that the moment we think about the world in-itself we are left with a choice as to what we want to use as criteria for what path we should take. Then, the main issue that we face is if indeed we see a choice, and the fact that most often no choice is understood to be presented. If this be the case, then we have the basis for a contradiction which usually follows philosophers into their mistake which then demands an assertion of essential identity over the plain existence of the thing in question.

In this case, the choice is presented as a question upon the traditional philosophy of the West; namely, that the tradition has voiced and presented the situation in such a manner that makes sense such that I have only to make a choice upon this sense. The basis of the sense is not there questioned; it is intact and intutively sound: We can make no choice upon it. So, when we have done our studies and find all the secret knowledge hidden in plain sight of our sense with reference to the tradition of the Big Names, we come to a necessary conclusion: In this case, as soon as we think of the world in-itself is ceases to be the world in-itself and because a world for-us.

The non-sequitur involved in this conclusion is not found in the direct argumentation but is indeed embedded in the conclusions that have been already gleaned from the traditional understanding of the philosophers, an understanding that I say is a mistaken understanding, or more correctly, a different orientation upon things. Yet, in fact, if we are to stick with the tradition of the philosophers, it is mistaken in a manner that no argument can reclaim. Due to this phenomenological misunderstanding, what occurs through this orientation upon things is a receding of thought –indeed a withdrawing of subjectivity — into what 20th century philosophers called ‘world’, such that eventually we have philosophers involved in the assertion of ‘their’ world of sense and logic as though it indeed reflects the actual existence of the ‘our world’ or ‘whole world’. This is the paradox discovered in the above quote. We have a complete myopia of thinking for the purpose of asserting ‘world’ over ‘world’ as we understand that the intuitive meaning of terms that I have gleaned should amount to an ability to create more terms and associated definitions that will one day prove ‘true’ about the discrepancy that I have noticed of my phenomenal truth as I have faith in the given method of argument. I submit, also, that this is a mistaken understanding of what Badou has called ‘fidelity’. It is through this mistaken kind of fidelity that we have the basis of the problem that ‘patchwork’ (cite) deals with; a taking to the absolute ends the problem of the 20th century psychoanalytical philosophical mistake but without the problemization of self-reflection which should accompany all philosophical endeavors. The analyses and proposals which stem and proceed from this mistaken orientation upon things follow necessarily, even as those involved cannot see beyond their ‘intuition’ of the truth of things to say that it is ‘new’.

The world in-itself is only paradoxical under certain conditions; it is not a paradox to knowledge itself.

***

I wonder if Graham Harman or Tristan Garcia will ever read this. I suppose not: Plurality. lolA Comment on Ontological Equivocation

A Comment on Ontological Equivocation and the Possibility of Plurality.

The thought of Plurality came to be right now in coming across
Graham Harman’s plug for a couple new Object Oriented books. In particular, the ideas of Tristan Garcia, the “Life Intense”.

Now, I have not read hardly anything of Tristan; what I have read sort of left me pondering. Now, I just read the summary of his book, I think I know why it is weird: I do not agree with his premise for the book, and, I guess, then, his philosophy. Again, just judging from what little I have read of him and then the summary, his view upon the world is totally different than what I see; I simply can only relate in as much as a believe that he is reporting on something honestly. 

This attitude of mine then is not about what argument he might be making. In fact, any argument he would make, I think, would be circumstantial, merely me considering how interesting it is that he came up with a philosophy on these equally interesting aspects of existence that I never encounter —

Or !

..that I may have already encountered. How could this be? It appears to me like he is reporting on something that I might have already reconciled. I can’t really know if this is true, though, because I will never encounter him except through his books, which already come to me as accounted for, on one hand, or, speaking of something that is merely interesting on the other.

So, I cannot discount his experience or his philosophy. It must be totally real and valid. Thus: whatever ontological proposals he makes is of another and different existence, one that is already contained in the proposals I make as a sort of foot note, a ground, if you will, but without the ontological argument. But further: That that footnote I might understand, is not a foot note in the condition of things for those who would see his proposals as significantly new. Hence: Plurality.

It is non sequitur to reduce his proposals to a necessity of mine, for, as Harman has suggested of things, that would be an overdetermination of the object at hand. His must then lay equally valid and real as mine.

OK, now that we might understand that strange coincidence…on to the significance of Ontological Equivocation…

reality_website_seasonheader_v1-1

“Even though there is something out there that is not the world-for-us, and even though we can name it the world-in-itself, this latter constitutes a horizon for thought, alwaysreceding just beyond the bounds of intelligibility.”

It seems I am beginning to give examples of philosophical analysis. Which is to say an analysis of philosophy, that non-philosophy has granted us but also my own work has seen an ability or propensity towards.

I got this quote secondhand from a re-posting of another blog (cite), and I’d like to point out some inconsistencies that indicate a religious posture and its attempt to bring everything under one philosophical ontological envelope.

One of the difficulties that comes with taking such a posture towards philosophy is that for other philosophers I would first need to establish myself as credible through their particular methodological paradigm; I am indeed working on getting legitimization to put some letter after my name for this purpose (right now it is: MACP:)) This is to say that the first defense of all philosophies that would be analyzed in this way would be to say that I do not understand what they are talking about. So in order to get to this point, a sort of ontological pivot (or break) has occurred such that there really is no ontology that I need argue any longer, As philosophers go, one first would have to believe that I understand the argument in question.

a further quote quotation from the same author is:

“The world-in-itself is a paradoxical concept; the moment we think it and attempt to act on it, it ceases to be the world-in-itself and becomes the world-for-us. A significant part of this paradoxical world-in-itself is grounded by scientific inquiry – both the production of scientific knowledge of the world and the technical means of acting on and intervening in the world.”

Indeed, the world in-itself is a paradoxical concept, but I do not think his conclusion necessarily follows. This is to say that due to the paradox, the confusion must follow one of two paths, his path being one of the two.

This is to say, that the moment we think about the world in-itself we are left with a choice as to what we want to use as criteria for what path we should take. Then, the main issue that we face is if indeed we see a choice, and the fact that most often no choice is understood to be presented. If this be the case, then we have the basis for a contradiction which usually follows philosophers into their mistake which then demands an assertion of essential identity over the plain existence of the thing in question.

In this case, the choice is presented as a question upon the traditional philosophy of the West; namely, that the tradition has voiced and presented the situation in such a manner that makes sense such that I have only to make a choice upon this sense. The basis of the sense is not there questioned; it is intact and intutively sound: We can make no choice upon it. So, when we have done our studies and find all the secret knowledge hidden in plain sight of our sense with reference to the tradition of the Big Names, we come to a necessary conclusion: In this case, as soon as we think of the world in-itself is ceases to be the world in-itself and because a world for-us.

The non-sequitur involved in this conclusion is not found in the direct argumentation but is indeed embedded in the conclusions that have been already gleaned from the traditional understanding of the philosophers, an understanding that I say is a mistaken understanding, or more correctly, a different orientation upon things. Yet, in fact, if we are to stick with the tradition of the philosophers, it is mistaken in a manner that no argument can reclaim. Due to this phenomenological misunderstanding, what occurs through this orientation upon things is a receding of thought –indeed a withdrawing of subjectivity — into what 20th century philosophers called ‘world’, such that eventually we have philosophers involved in the assertion of ‘their’ world of sense and logic as though it indeed reflects the actual existence of the ‘our world’ or ‘whole world’. This is the paradox discovered in the above quote. We have a complete myopia of thinking for the purpose of asserting ‘world’ over ‘world’ as we understand that the intuitive meaning of terms that I have gleaned should amount to an ability to create more terms and associated definitions that will one day prove ‘true’ about the discrepancy that I have noticed of my phenomenal truth as I have faith in the given method of argument. I submit, also, that this is a mistaken understanding of what Badou has called ‘fidelity’. It is through this mistaken kind of fidelity that we have the basis of the problem that ‘patchwork’ (cite) deals with; a taking to the absolute ends the problem of the 20th century psychoanalytical philosophical mistake but without the problemization of self-reflection which should accompany all philosophical endeavors. The analyses and proposals which stem and proceed from this mistaken orientation upon things follow necessarily, even as those involved cannot see beyond their ‘intuition’ of the truth of things to say that it is ‘new’.

The world in-itself is only paradoxical under certain conditions; it is not a paradox to knowledge itself.

***

I wonder if Graham Harman or Tristan Garcia will ever read this. I suppose not: Plurality. lol

Excerpt from the Upcoming “The Philosophical Hack.”

An excerpt from my upcoming book “The Philosophical Hack“:

Deleuze through Zizek about the speech act and the Event.

 

91b64qjfctl

 

(This is a test of this voice feature of Word and iTunes.  I think going forward, I will slow down Alice’s cadence. And perhaps look to an app that does this text to voice a little better. )