“The Only Exit From Modern Philosophy”
Mark Foster Gage and OOO
While reading it, I was come upon a significant issue where Harman is revealed to his metaphysics.
It appears Gage is an architect that only makes art, but his art uses the state of technology to make structures that appear like they are photos of actual buildings, even though the art may defy what we are able to physically construct as a usable building.
And here is where the issue appears, and is where I think Harman and OOO is finding most of its purchase in at least architecture (Harman works as SCIarc in Los Angeles, an architectural school).
Gage says that he likes to deal in structures that appear real, but are not.
Now, I know what he means, and that’s why in the paragraph above I tried my best not to use the word “real”, And instead use the words “actual” and “usable” and etc.
￼￼￼And this use of “real” by Gage appears to me fitting with OOO Becuase Harman says the real object withdraws from view, or is always kept neatly out of sight, harboring itself in the shadows.
Where I differ with Harman and this kind of OOO metaphysics is when I ask if the art that gage is making is itself real. Are the structures in his art real ? And my next question thus asked in what way am I able to even perceive Gage’s structures in the art itself is not real.
I have a comment on Harman that will only get answered after I die, maybe (lol) For the simple fact that Harmon will never stoop to answer my question or address my point. 🙂
Nevertheless, I submit that Harmans OOO is concerned with philosophical objects, and due to this focus, understands reality is hidden behind a screen of sense. We can begin to see that Harman’s real objects reflect that he sees himself as dealing with thought as the foundation of everything else, Becuase obviously he is using his proposal in a field of other equally valid proposals of thoughts, the actual object they talk about, then, withdraws from the discussion. In this way. Harman’s proposal falls flat so much as it indeed might have to do with real things.
I am skeptical of this kind of hinting that uses thought as unapproachable while foregrounding the discourse as though he is not merely using sleight of hand to not be using his centrality of thinker position.
And I think I thus see an irony that Harman attempts to avoid by simply remaining in philosophical space as though it is able to address all things outside of it. ￼
I side more with Bruno Latour, one of Harmans hero’s, ironically again. Latour suggests that reality is right in front of us at all times, harboring no actuality of itself, nothing hidden, but objects occurring within networks of objects.
What is in the shadows appears to me to be merely another kind of phenomenalism, yet of a kind that Harman decries.
I cannot but wonder how OOO has taken the full power of phenomenal assertion to argue a metaphysics that only has substance due to the motion that Latour describes in his book “The Pasteuriszation of France”. Namely, that Harmon must argue a shadowy reality Becuase Harman is involved in a kind of Pasturian scientific phenomenon where time moves due to a certain kind of religious adherence to phenomenal intension and its power to ignore what Adler and Hillman might call “inferior”. Harman, while his idea to me appears sound, is being used in a particularly dishonest manner, one which only acknowledges the “presence of the superior”.
See my posts on bad faith.
An event is a mark of where meaning takes the place. ‘The place’ can be anything, from a positive known-unknown, such as ignorance, to a negative unknown-unknown, such as a thing in-itself. These instances correspond to Badiou’s event as well as Zizek’s, respectively.
An event is a lacuna begun on one side of the sentence waiting for the other side; an event is the erasure of the lacuna, what Hegel could call a negation of negation.
Meaninglessness could likewise be understood in the same way as a lacuna. Namely, is it the substance that is supposed in the “…”, or is it more in line with Rudolf Otto’s version where the meaning is already gleaned from what came before and after?
Similarly we have our orientations:
Given an event which erupts into and or disrupts meaning: it is the difference between a sense which finds itself through presentations of words and the sorting out of what sense could be (is possible) made from the words and clauses already established — where there is a possibility of a meaning or sense which conveys to the person their own lack, incompletion, failure or stupidity, upon which then, toward either asset or deficit, one can build meaning– but then there is the case of already total sensibility that attempts to use words to convey “what already has meaning”.
The difference is in how discourse is used and is the issue more significantly than what is meant by any particular discourse. It is not about whether one is coming to conclusions prematurely or assuming what is meant compared to a thorough reading or consideration of the text — because even the deepest and most studied reading is still based in an assumed estimation; rather, it is more about the nature of the discourse in-itself, which is to say, how one is viewing the terms of the discussion that is at issue, and less what meaning one is making necessarily.
It is the difference between viewing and dealing with what is right there in front of us, and what is supposed to be lurking behind the scenes of any situation. The object itself is right in front of us; the lack is the assumption/ presumption of a deeper truth. The approach is evidenced in the difference between a science and a religion.
I seem to have found a significance for Anslem’s proof. It may be that it is not significance for whether God might exist, but, as I have said, significance for how I present ideas.
We will start with the rendition from Princeton’s site. I think they have a pretty good rendition there.
Without all the strict logical hoopla, I think the simple way to put Anslem’s idea is that God exists because we can think of It.
The significance of this notion appears to disrupt what we generally consider of time, it’s ‘natural and directional’ progress.
The Princeton site says that Anslem was addressing a particular issue that, actually, we still find totday in atheism. Basically, Anslem is confronting two ideas:
1.He understands the claim that God exists.
2.He does not believe that God exists.
Now, I have done only the most preliminary research into Anslem and his ideas. I am just taking the very popular simple version, and considering these two situations. There is no ‘hidden’; whatever Anslem’s results most probably are quite apparent, and the ones that are not – well, what point am I trying to make here? I have already said in my earlier post that there is no logical argument that sways me in any direction or causes me to believe something I didn’t before. So any extension of argument must be involving something else; perhaps I am attempting to get at what this something could be.
I think the main point Anslem makes is that, as Princeton puts it, this is an inherently unstable condition of being. What we might call the ‘founding essence’ can be understood to be responsible for this instability. Somewhat similar to a ‘thing-in-itself’, this founding essence would be a kind of gravity well, if you will, of mental activity. The instability arises because of the knowledge (the known-ness) of what something is able to be. The question arises: How can I know what something is if it doesn’t exist? The basic assumption in this question, what philosophers tend to lump into the category called ontology, is that existence is, that there is no need to discern what existence is because to argue for or against the being of existence does nothing to displace the argument except as much as it merely denies existence. The point of saying something exists thus should equate with what can be known, and so the instability of the situation is found in the human ability to choose on whether what exists is actually true. In this case, though, Anslem is dealing with the basis of all that exists as a category, namely, God; God, in this sense, as we cannot but apply our modern sense to consideration of it, is merely the name of the category that contains all that can exist as an active element, the element by which all else can be said to be. The extension in time to Heidegger’s ‘Being and Time’ can be understood as a factual description of this situation, and thus, rather than an opening up unto Being, ironically as a closing of Being unto itself and thus a factual description of what human beings do: The identification of the in-itself of human Being. More on that elsewhere.
The resolution that Anslem posits of this unstable situation occurs because of the foundational nature of the knowledge itself. In this Medieval Christian context (which I argue is still a modern context), the resolution (the clarity, the definition) that must be referred to must be understood in a context not so much of mind, but of the essential God-inundated mind that is able to uphold and entertain knowledge, which for our context might be the mind that exists. In short, the condition of knowledge is/was such that all things referred or otherwise are established in existence due to an absolute situation, a situation whereby all things gain their status in the universe, what we usually index by the idea of an absolute ethics, in a manner of speaking. In this condition it thus appears that a reflective mind will naturally be drawn into the the contradiction involved in making a choice as to the (true or false) existence of something that (already) exists (in essence), and will therefore correct (or become the correction) the instability by virtue of their own existence (in the absolute universe, or the universe that is indexed by absolution). The question of whether something actually, or physically, biologically exists, such as a race of human beings that live in the midieval antipodes,
unicorns, dragons, spirits, extraterrestrial aliens, etcetera, has no baring upon existence because of the absolute reference and access of mind to God (existence). What can be incorrect of knowledge as to what is true of existence finds its resolution in the posited (assumed) basis of existence.
The Medieval as well as Modern mind is consistent in this ideal of progressive understanding of the universe. What is significant of this orientation upon progress is the mind’s innate access to what is true of the universe with reference to an assumed basis of that truth, what we can say is an assumption of stability unto which all knowledge will inevitably resolve; despite whether we posit that there is no actual resolution or that everything is flux, or whatever conditional conditions we define, the result of any positing is always toward ends, toward a resolution. Even if we say that the universe and the knowledge of that universe is completely and utterly contingent, this contingency must be absolute; hence we say that the effect of such terms within any scheme of knowledge or organization of definitions is what we can call a “founding term”.
Oddly enough, we are able to find purchase into understanding what human beings do by looking at what philosophy does. Not, as Graham Harman might have it, that everything we might do automatically falls into a subjective appropriation of semantics that defies our attempt to locate such philosophical behavior. Rather, at some point we should be able to locate a mark by which we are able to be dismissed from this correlational philosophy that wants to avoid any critical gaze upon its method.
Once we find this mark (which I do not go into here), we can extend this situation (of existence and deferment) to apply to everything that might exist: Within this situation, a person can understand and then decide upon it. There is no thing that escapes this formula, and Anslem is making an accusation about it: It is unstable, and it will eventually resolve itself to the conclusion that the thing in question exists, in his Medieval case, God, and in our Modern case, perhaps, the object of empirical physics.
The point he relies upon is the idea that God is the greatest being or thing that can exist, for, so long as we can conceive of something greater, then that is not God. Similarly, we can use this conversely and say that because we can conceive of ‘that which nothing is greater’, this greatest thing exists as a foundational ontological ground of Modern effort as well: The ‘greatest’ thing is the most substantial.
What interests me is that this simple notice occurred late in the 11th century. Here, already, is a situation made notice that no one noticed until very recently, like 10-20 years ago with the philosophers such as Alain Badou, Francois Laruelle, an then for the younger folks (of the time), of the Speculative Realist Conference. In particular, the idea is that there may be something that exists outside of our knowledge (not necessarily our ability to know), and as for in this situation, that which is greater than the greatest thing we can know. This category has brought modern philosophy (again) to consider things like void, nothingness, chaos and such things, and the corresponding ideal that whatever works to create identity is all good. But if we are honest, we might be able to glimpse the same ruminations of Scholasticism (St. Anslem is said to be one of the founders of the Medieval Scholasticism), occurring in our Modern philosophies, but under different terms. Indeed; I argue (along with Jean-Francois Lyotard apparently) elsewhere that Postmodern scholarship is really a religious apology for Modernity.
In this post I confront the veracity of some of our current philosophical modes and arguments by asking what seems to me to be a most obvious and significant question, a similar question that Graham Harman asks of Heidegger’s “tools“: Why did no-one notice what Anslem had opened up until now, some 1000 years later? We are able to understand Anslem’s argument to this day; no one proposes that the thinkers 1000 years ago were any less astute than our thinkers today. Why is it only now that we are addressing the possibility of what might be ‘beyond’ or ‘at root but not part of’ (Badou’s consideration of set theory) knowledge? And then we might even ask more confounding question if we find that philosophers during the interim of the thousand years also considered the same question over and over.
I submit for consideration that we have gotten not very far in philosophy. We might begin to understand the vastness of time and how slowly and incrementally human beings, as a group, accomplish knowledge, and how it is much more like a science than philosophers are capable of arguing. Indeed, if we think into this situation, we can then find often the situation that we have already come across elsewhere; namely, that on one hand philosophy is the way we situate the conditions of our times, how we work out logistical problems of being in a semantic world, and on the other, merely reflections of people (the authors) in-themselves. But if this is all philosophy does and is doing, then we also might see that we are actually merely re-contextualizing not what what has already been contextualized (as thus a re-contextualization), but in actually what we’ve already done, making the same arguments over and over but under different terms. We are reminded of Shakespeare’s “a rose by any other word…“.
Upon this conclusion, we are careful to not move too fast as we might then jump to the conclusion that such an idea should negate the ontological status of what I am calling conventional philosophy, as though such a proposal should then move beyond what we have and what we get through philosophical method. This is not the case. It seems near ridiculousness to figure that we can commandeer reality by a stroke of the pen (or a keystroke) except that we might be involved in such philosophical endorsement; we should then ask how is it that am I to get beyond it merely saying something in a particular manner? No. We cannot ‘turn’ the truth of the matter; we have but to see the power that is invested in the leviathan of religious interests, of maintaining a particular formation and method to know that, as the philosophers have argued, I cannot escape it unless I wish to perform some magic, perhaps some discursive slight of hand. We should ask if we can be done with all this trickery of the ontological police. Then, all we have to do is speak of facts instead of the essential Being of things, to speak teleologically instead of ontologically. We can argue the conditional nature of real essence for the rest of eternity and never get anywhere further than circling back and forth away from and back into Medieval type scholarship. And thats fine, and thats the point: This is the factual nature of reality, the impossible aspect of what we have to deal with in reality. Of course there will be those who will argue that what the philosophers are doing now days is not Scholasticism and who will produce all sorts of argumentative and ultimately circumstantial evidence to support their claim. Great! Perfect! Does this sway me to believe something that I don’t already know? The proper response, in this case then, is that this is not a proposal toward any popular or social change, and in fact it has little to do with how political ideology might be at any moment; we can of course use it for such purposes (identifying our moment from the past conditional moments of history, for example, etcetera…), thats what Badiou and Zizek tell us…
We are not so much learning anything new as much as we are justifying our limited manner of Being in the world, and this is an end in itself that should be heeded but not as a call for change, as though we can somehow transcend what we are — we can only transcend was we identify with as political and ideological subjects. Rather, we should see this situation as a mark of what is true of being human, as a mark of significance, which is to say, a mark of fact. So another of my indictments of philosophy: Despite all the great discursive gymnastics and the twistings of subtle argumentative semantic juxtapositions, philosophy works to avoid having to look at itself as a human behavior. Conventional philosophy refuses to allow itself to be seen as an indicator of behavior, perpetually argues itself as an exceptional incarnation of divine intuition and inspiration, a blank spot of Being, and then uses this fact as a means to absorb all activity under its purview back into the real political and ideological limit — to say that this is all there is. I see the constant and basically automatic referral of all things ‘thought’ back into this kind of philosophical pond is self defeating to the effort of progress, even as progress itself is routed back into this (touted) ‘speculative’, or ‘realist’, or ‘post-post-modern’ maxim. It is no wonder outside of capitalism is so difficult to think!
As Amoreinblog has argued somewhere, perhaps anthropology is the way out of this philosophical conundrum; despite all the philosophical misappropriations of ideas involved with the AIME (An Investigation into Modes of Existence) project of Bruno Latour (even by Latour himself, lol), his book can be read as an argument for the need to open up a space (perhaps, in his terms, create a pass) whereby we can avoid this modern philosophical whirlpool that we have been involved with for at least 1000 years. It seems that only now, with Postmodernism, but as of late Post-postmodnerism (must we find a Post-Post-Postmodernism also?) do we really get an idea, but also an actual way to understand and realize what human beings are doing.
Time itself may be the issue that is involved with Modernity invading as it usurps all discourse into its machinery. The issue that opens up after Postmodernism (but is not itself Postmodern scholarship) is the break from Enlightenment Ontology. So it may not be so much that we have to philosophically get out of this temporal mode — that kind of move would be philosophy attempting to avoid itself through arguing itself out of itself, redundantly, establishing as it maintains reality for everyone. It may be as simple as admitting that there is no escaping the philosophical limit, and realizing a kind of anti-Husserlian manner: Of finding the independent object in the bare fact that we know that there is an independent object, and perhaps that we need not speculate about how it can be so in order for it to be so. Of course we can discuss how it can be so…and indeed we will, but that does not mean that we cannot stay where we are at and let the pagan-Christian rollercoaster come around again and again.
Maybe we need to make a clean break.
Kant, Latour, and others: The Pass.
2/8/2017 Part 1.
Sometimes, one is lead back into a certain truth that does not again circle back into various truths. For example; this computer that I am typing this essay on functions to allow me to make this post. But we will not yet, right this second, get into the Kantian syntheticals and analytics because those are an example of the meaning of this essay. So; the fact that this computer functions to allow me to write this essay and post it so that you are reading it right now, is true. As an analogy to my point here, It is a singular truth, yet some philosophers and theorists would want to knock this down through, what we could call, “The Method of Treachery”, which, basically, is modern-post-modernism wrapped up in a painting called “The Treachery of Images”, by Rene Magritte. Such game players would often come back to say that the statement ‘this computer functions to allow me to write this essay and post it so that you are reading it right now’ functions as truth, but is not, in itself, true. My question then would be, how is it that they may make that statement and have any meaning whatsoever? How can we say that everything is just propositions, just statements? If something is functioning, then how can what it functions to do be anything but true?
In this we must now address the instigation of Emmanuel Kant. In his “The Critique of Pure Reason”, he states what prompted his investigation: He was attempting to account for what we generally know as superstition, or superstitious beliefs. The motivating assumption was the common human being involved with the common ability and capacity for communication, education and intelligence; in short: enlightenment. He was attempting to account for how it is that something which seems so foreign and silly to him yet still functions for people; as well and by extension, how is it that ignorance does not know itself as ignorance.
If you are not able to see the connection I made; I am saying that indeed there is a computer here and I am typing on it, and you are probably reading this on one also. Some of the people that we have come to see as great thinkers and philosophers would say, no; the so called ‘computer’ there is just that, “so called”, and the computer itself we have no clue about what it may be in itself, so the statement I made about it being a truth is not so true, and could be false. So then my rebuttal is how they are able to come to such a conclusion? Specifically, if the true situation I point out is only true within a certain condition of proposal (I am staying away from using the term ‘discourse’ here for now), then how does the rebuttal have any veracity? I could say the same to your statement; for, are you not using it in a function of truth? If it is only probably or possibly true, then what we are talking about is utterly nonsense, and we should just shut up right now.
So it goes for the next 80 years or so until we fall into the pit of nothingness out of which a new humanity is hoped to outcrop from itself to become something new or different. We have the compendium of arguments and assertions of nihilism and then ‘new realism’. And then I ask: If it is all based on nothing, why hasn’t the world imploded? Why isn’t the world just gone? Here is Kant’s problem extended out of the hegemonic and colonialist righteousness: How is it that we could be wrong?
What appears to me to be missed in this whole history of depression and
“self-imposed tutelage” involves the question of this kind of redundancy; namely: If every statement of truth is at most only partly true, then why are we hanging on to that one part of the truth of the statement (to sum) “Its all propositions” that is true and setting aside the probable 99.98% of the proposal that is not so true? It seems to me that there is a whole generation or two of ‘profound thinkers’ that will sit there and argue over the inclusivity and limitation of statements (that they are conditional and contingent upon unrecognized given meanings that are encoded into the means of the proposal), bring up the ‘proofs’ of Delueze and Guattari, and Derrida and such, and yet never even consider how that very situation they argue has very little of the veracity that they suppose for it in its use. If I may: Through all sorts of manner of avoiding their own condition of Being, they will reference other author’s ideas, as if the sense they have of these authors thus accounts for their Being is a world because is ‘makes the most sense’. Again: the Issue of Kant.
It seems to me that such a line of discussion, while metaphysically and therefore religiously very interesting, is practically nonsense, despite if we can use it for anything but creating problems and justifying one’s faith. (Im not getting into the discussion about faith and discourse here; see my second book of the series, The Philosophical Hack , called “The Moment of Decisive Significance”. ) Keep in mind also that I am making a distinction here and that it is always possible that any author can miss the significance of her or his own work; as I suggest in my first book of The Philosophical Hack, Kant’s thesis of propositions allow for us a distinction that carries through to perpetuating a cloudy philosophical arena, and at that, apparently on purpose; the conspiracy is maintained by repeated reference to what is common and lowest: That which reduces must always consider one more that is lower, to then include it, raise it up to the reductions horizontal plane, to justify one’s raised position by asserting that what is lower or less is not but equal (Note: This is the opposite of the Ontological Argument). In this way, the insecurity that always accompanies denial (again, see the books of The Philosophical Hack) is justified by imposing a potential of intelligence upon the lower who otherwise would not know of its lesser state, but that he exists in a potential defined by his superior. This is all to say that Kant’s claim was based in a particular moment, and that once the moment plays, he must then not be saying anything about propositions, but that propositions evidence a particular division in the accounting for human existence.
Kant is not saying very much about how propositions establish worlds, nor how to find a world through dissecting propositions. The academics that would learn and teach Kant’s method (Again: see the first book of The Philosophical Hack) as a kind of means to find out something about the addressor or some world is perpetuating a particular kind of world in the process. I have argued that this kind of world is real, but also that Kant was talking about a different kind of world.
So, at this point we find at times that one does not always realize the true meaning of what one says; others tell one the meaning of what one said. We find, further, that we cannot always rely upon an ability for finding out just what people meant by what they said; that no matter how they try to explain to us what they meant, we simply do not understand. The idea that we can reference an author herself and in all instances, as her original intension can be discovered, find out what she really was saying, is, as I say, a real occurrence, an occasion of real faith. My question is, if what someone said is true, then why are we still discussing it? There is a whole ‘world’ of great thinkers that have no idea what this question might entail, even while arguing with me about the meaning of it. The meaning is plain: If discussion is the only thing that establishes the ontological foundations of reality, then why are we still arguing over what this is? I call this the real principle of redundancy.
These notions describe an aspect of philosophy that, further, we could put under, say, a principle of veracity. This principle would point out only two possibilities in the nature of communication: What is true; and what is misunderstood. Yet in as much as there is an indication of a divergence, a point or moment where or when the idea behind, say, (as our example) Kant’s notions of the proposition actually define such polemical situation (of what is true and what is misunderstood), we are capable of understanding that what is misunderstood constitutes the aggregate of cause for further discussion, and due to this predominance, this overwhelming normative aspect soon comes to be understood as the omnipresent situation, such that we begin to understand the default ‘given’ which informs all (conventional) philosophical method, so that it must and could only argue itself to that state of nothingness which underlies all things, and to further thereby be able to argue (as speculative theory is a real operational mode at all times despite what definitions are in place) the truth of reality founded entirely in discourse. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
more in a bit….
Perhaps the title should have included “non-philosophy”. lol
This talk concerns the opening whereby philosophy is indicated to its method through the ending that supersedes its domain. Specifically, and in the context of Francois Laruelle’s “Christo-fiction“, that which supersedes any conventional appropriation is the quantum. In particular, there is no philosophical posture that is able to bring any feasible critique against its own effective omniscience, omnipotence and proposed as assumed omnipresence. The indictment is made unto its method, which is the argumentative method that is made by agents of transcendence. This alternate posture is thus outside of (conventional) philosophy’s purview, since its route is one of scientific verification over the conventional argumentative method. This alternative method is thus of allowing for a particular framework in which philosophical experiments are allowed, but it no longer includes the framework within its domain of critique.
But we are only at the very preliminary stages of this work; we are in the long game. This talk is an attempt to lay the theoretical groundwork (the breaking of ground has already occurred with the likes of Laruelle, Badiou, Zizek and Latour, to mention only the few still living), to describe some of the conditions by which such a foundation is needed and will be laid. It departs, albeit significantly, with the recurrence embedded in the conventional method’s approach, whereby human beings have access to resources that while arising from some ‘unknown’ source (immanence, transcendence, biology, neurology, evolution, creation, or whatever…), a source that is never found but at all times presents itself within the discourse that proposes to be ‘finding it’ through the conventional method of delegated agents (what I say are ‘agents of transcendence’), nevertheless still function effectively to supply a true reality, elements of which I call ‘True Objects’; the delegation process instigated by humans is at all times assumed to have the support of providence, regardless of what people might assert as the discursive conditions of such providence (such argumentative establishments are redundant).
This alternative route, in its beginnings, is involved with the effort thereby of verification. Currently, seeing that the conventional philosophical method works to obscure facts, we are involved with creating an opening whereby the facts may be noted, upon which such a scientific method may be laid. The only way forward in the effort, it appears, is through the enactment of a partition.
(I just noticed that it cut off about the last six minutes of the talk. Sorry).
The first Webcast of the Philosophical Hack