Parts, Objects, and the Event: less and more

It is less a assemblage of parts that, placed piece meal into a storyboard semantic collage, that constitutes an event.

It is less the pieces of objects that come together in order for us to find and understand what an object is.


It is more the Event that brings about the whole instance and significance of what an object actually is such that parts have meaning. The object organizes knowledge around itself.

The weaving of threads brings material about to constitute a blanket, say, but that blanket itself is only partially available to knowledge through the material occasion.

The blanket arrives only at the event of being that is a blanket.

The blanket itself thus recognizes its material in a way that the material can not quite appreciate or comprehend of its object…

…the jump…The Leap is not made by hoping: It is not made at all.

Guattari and Deleuze’s Modern Teleology

Two Routes unto objects constitute the truth of the universe.

New Material Law

a = all possible material

b = all impossibility of possible material.

All the impossibility of possible material accounts for any thing that is not accountable as material.

a+b = every real thing.

Every real thing is qualified by either a or b.

x = the number of possible instances

An instance is a more-than-one. An instance never arises as one, since one requires an other for its ability to arise to itself. Any posit which argues differently merely proves this instance is true. That is, the definition is not true, but the instance itself is indeed true.

It can only be denied, but not proven so without the covert act.

An argument which does indeed argue something different, is subject to the condition of the universe, C.

C = (a+b) ^x

C is the entirety of possible universe.

Once this is found, only two possibilities arise:

The Real Material

And what we must then call

The True Object (Substance).

This fact is due to the redundancy of material in its possibility and impossibility, whether we call it material or use a different term for it.

That is, once we reach C, the true description of universe, then C becomes subject to being a condition of real material (either a or b).

Hence, it is not nothing that arises outside or beyond the universe C, nor other universes.

Rather, the nothingness that arises is merely part of the real universe.

This is true, since no possibility arises outside of its instance. For any other possibility, again, would be redundant.

The situation which confounds the reality of this situation is that such truth has knowable content, content that we may call substance, that brings into question the real condition of materiality (a+b) as a total accounting of the universe.

Therefore, since the true content of the real universe is not reckoned by or against or in relief of nothing, the true content of the universe is not simply everything, (as a platitude or truism), but must rather involve a different manner or orientation upon what real material objects are in themselves, and thus what information they are yielding to knowledge.

Two Routes upon or otherwise into things.

Unexpected synchronous object semantics

Be Your Own Rock




Sometimes I feel that I am being drawn forward. And other times I am just making my Way, doing what I do because that’s what I’m doing.

Presently I am going through a phase of the latter.

I am not sure that I ever construct meaning intentionally. I never purposely sit down and make meaning from things.

Rather, I might be perplexed, or feel out of sorts, even lost, at times.

Sometimes I do ponder things like dreams, and a meaning will show itself.

Other times I’m not thinking about anything. And meaning still shows itself…

Such is the case when I opened my WordPress reader 5 minutes ago.

The beginning of this post shows the titles of the first three posts that were in my Reader.


Naysayers and reductionist psychological Science congregants may point to all the studies about how the mind will make meaning out of anything.

And yet, the conclusion of those kinds of studies never tell us how we are able to come to that conclusion, nor why that conclusion should be any less random than the meaning that the subject gained from a series of random images or words.

If a person has faith enough to set aside the psychological proof that a mind is just assembling random meanings into a string of meaning at all times, then I really have nothing to say to them philosophically, because they have not looked deep enough. They have only stopped where it suits them, as I say, for their faith. I have no criticism or argument to give them; for why would I critique or bombard someone’s faith?

Nonetheless, If I wish to take those psychological studies for what they’re really telling me, which is to say, where I do not hold back, I do not stop at my faith in what I already believe that I’m coming upon, then I might ask further:

What series of random events has coalesced in such a way to allow me to be presented to that particular arrangement of phrases or pictures that we are deciding is random?

Against what sense of truth are we deciding that any arrangement of pictures or phrases or words is random, such that the meaning that I am making (in that case) has no real basis? And is thus meaningless?

Basis Truth

I could go on.

What these kinds of questions tell us is that science is not giving us truth of the universe. Rather, what science is likely giving us is merely a reflection of our culture, of our ideology, of an ability of mind, and not the mind itself nor the universe that arises in truth.

I say this not to resort back to relativity or mirror (or mere) opinions, or subjective perception. I say this to point out that if we reject all those routes into reality, we must find that indeed reality did not disappear, but that there is a truth which can be known which does not reduce to real faith, as I say, To the religion of modern ideology.

Again and again as I said elsewhere, I’m not saying that faith and religion is inherently bad or that it needs correcting. I am merely suggesting that this is the way that consciousness functions. When a person comes upon the truth of how consciousness is indeed functioning, what is able to happen is that the way we participate in the real ideology changes.

It is then possible that it is not so much that we make meaning, but that meaning is what we are. And further, that what we are is not separated from the universe in which we arise to meaning. A reduction to individual brains is able to be come upon and is indeed able to derive necessary reason and rationales. However, An opening of that same system reveals that there is a truth beyond that kind of limited orientation upon things – but a truth that the orientation upon brain/mind religion implicitly rejects. The religion of the scientific mind rejects any knowledge that itself does not support. That is why it is a religion: Becuase there is other rational and knowable knowledge that does not adhere to its cosmological mandates.

Again: this is not to say that reality and knowledge about it is not real or does not function; rather, it is only to say that it is indeed real and refers to real things, but not true.

…and further commentary.

Last year, I published a review of Sbriglia and Žižek’s Subject Lessons anthology, a review that can be found HERE. Sbriglia’s response has just been…

Russell Sbriglia responds

Thanks Doctor Zamalek.

Here is my small comment.

Note: I have not read the book but I am buying it presently. 

My comment is strictly on the contents and links of this repost.

It appears that there is a division that is made by the comments of this book That contrasts authors and arguments in a way that on one hand, I understand, and thus engage with as a sort of philosophical endeavor, Yet on the other hand, reject.

As we will find in my work, which I undertake from a counselors philosophical perspective, and not a philosopher per se, I enact a partition which groups components of the universe in a manner whereby nothing is excluded. Which is to say, the only thing that is excluded is nothing, which is always a moot point in its essence.

If nothing is not a moot point, then we are no longer talking about nothing but we are either talking about the material which constitutes nothing, or we are talking about the object of nothing. Beyond those two categories there is no other way to truthfully grasp what we might be referring to when we use the word and thereby understand the word “nothing”.

But that is a the point that is addressed by method and not by confronting the point itself.

The Conventional Philosophical Method

There is material and there are objects. There are ideas and there is reality. And then there is truth. If we are to be honest with what is happening, nothing significant arises outside of these considerations. In the context of my work, this is to say that everything else that we might talk about is real. The conventional method concerns what is real in contrast to what is true.

The Question of Truth

The various proposals that arise through the subtle contours of phrased definition, are subsumed in a kind of assumed methodology. This methodology perpetually avoids itself as an object of critique. This is to say that what we understand as philosophy in a general way is never confronted; in fact, the method is so assumed as integral to knowledge of reality, every philosophical argumentative subtlety given under the auspices of academic and intellectual production is able to be located and described to a commonality, as evidenced by this paragraph.

Hence, that which is transcendent the philosophical proposal is inherently excluded from its own kind of analysis by virtue of the fact of its availability as knowledge.

Yet also, that which is transcendent is able to be appropriated by knowledge, but this time, in fact again, necessarily excluded from the previous epistemological iteration.

The total epistemological description of this constitutes what is true of knowledge itself, that is, despite that typical philosophical method that perpetually avoids its own contradiction and constructs ideological labels to battle against its failure.

Flat Ontology is an idea that arises in some contemporary realist philosophical circles.

These circles amount to an example of how what is true and what is real is regularly obfuscated in the course of the real conventional method.

By the description inherent the necessary presentation of such semantics reveals a true description of what is actually happening in the universe despite, as well as inclusive of, the real arguments.

The Old and the New: Either{either/or} or And

Let me add a few more insights from my last post. I know I said I won’t talk about gender pronouns anymore, but it is actually very interesting. The …

Random Thoughts #4: Psychoanalytic Thoughts on Gender Identity and Sexual Difference

—- The theoretical society loves the status quo. Usually the way this status quo is maintained is through ideological reiteration, this is to say that all the contexts are replayed into new contexts as if the iteration is moving us forward out of old context, all the while repeating the same context.


Lately I came across the notion of variance as a way to begin to talk about what is actually occurring, as opposed to talk about what is still being maintained. Coincidentally, I came across a paper, and a Number of authors who are beginning to incorporate the concept of variance into critical ontological estimation.

While these papers generally locate themselves under the heading of “new materialism”, I myself tend to approach from a real object ontology of substance, which, somewhat ironically, some of the new materialists are altering their own conversation toward a view where substance precedes or grounds matter.


It is very possible, and appears historically consistent, to see that the idea of psychology came out of a kind of misinterpretation, what was 200 years ago more understood as the substantial and direct manner of coming to the truth of things in reality: The idea, amd it’s methodological correlate, idealism (empiricism, phenomenalism and most -isms are at thier root idealist).

Limited in overt ways to peer into the truth of reality, 200+ year old man used the most reliable instrument he had : Reason. Reason was more reliable than any of the instruments they had otherwise. And so the whole system of self reflecting through reason was generated into an institutional ideology and translated into what they were loosely calling at the time science. (See Foucault but also the critiques of his ideas.)

Nowadays, we tend to think that just because a word sounds the same and because we use the same word, the same meaning is transferred through time unaltered. .This is so much the case that even as we might find in historical analysis an alteration of the word, we still implicitly understand our contemporary and current use of the word as the meaning that must have been implied at all the times.

What I mean to implicate is that psychology itself still reflects upon the human being through its original idealism that was accompanied by 19th-century philosophy.

I’m not necessarily saying that it is wrong, but I am saying that if we take current knowledge as indeed current knowledge, which is to say at all times generating a type of newness that is not reflected from history, but indeed can account for historical change as the present is the manifestation of that change at all times, it is not then very difficult to see, in contrast to psychoanalysis, a “psychology” evident now that diverges with a greater fidelity to the truth from the old historical idealism which informed what psychology once was. Such a divergence is reckoned in the new materialism as concerning variance between states, disjunctures in ontological reckoning which cannot be properly reconciled to a further unitive or ‘smooth’ transitioning of a single measure.

Such variance can carry into other areas, such as semantics, so that then the smooth unity which is usually conveyed by the word semantic (for example: everyone makes meaning) and the conventional ontological assertions, itself only references one domain of meaningful register. Similar to how constraints of gravity determine viable living structures only to a certain domain or scale within a parameter of variance, such that insects and microbes no longer adhere to those gravitational constraints, we then must admit to a kind of pluralism as knowledge that does not imply a further unitive domain of a unitive ‘knowledge’; for, that implication of knowing — a single domain of knowledge — itself occurs within a further disjunction, scalable, or meaningful, only within its own domain where meaning is universally human and accessible by everyone through the, again, common discourse or what we call communication.


The conventional estimation of Psychoanalysis has become more food for Philosophy than it is a real substance upon which Philosophy should find itself. Similarly consistent, the philosophical use of the close reading of Psychoanalysis shows itself as having little to do, anymore, with the actual psyche it supposed to be analyzing. Quite contrary to what it presupposes, such anachronistic misappropriations of Psychoanalysis work in reverse to reify a kind of religious cosmology. Less about what human consciousness is as what it is actually doing as it is evidenced, and more about a certain kind of idea which argues itself and its way of viewing over actuality; in as much as we attempt to retain an ability for a close traditional methodological reading, Psychoanalysis is an anachronistic manner of thinking that holds to manifest basically theological ideals about mentality today.

Tradition and semantic lineage is indeed sufficient to enforce a type of thinking and a way of coming up on the world that is consistent with itself, which is to say, enjoined with a Faith by which the evidence of actuality is distorted, blurred, and moves to conjure an ever-presence of the past in a present in the place of the actuality of the changing present.


The short comment upon the link is: it holds little water to the actuality of the situation because it is based in an ideal mapping of actuality to theological dimension.x

the Concept of Matter and then it’s Object as well

(4) (PDF) Scale Variance and the Concept of Matter | Derek Woods –
— Read on

—– And, in terms of the Object of the Subject, see:

A Holiday gift: Objects and Subjects

“The true substance of things lay in the depths, while the dramatic power of material churns and crashes like waves on the surface.”

A paraphrase of Graham Harman, I commandeer his polemic to notice a felicity to the actuality of the situation.

We are taught, both religiously and philosophically, that The truth of things lies in our subjectivity. We are taught that all the drama that’s occurring, all the argumentation, The passions, the perceptions And conceptions, the interaction, is where we are to look for the truth.

We tend to ignore post-structuralism’s critique as merely another subjective argument. Namely, that post-structuralism as a philosophy appears to arise from nowhere, has no basis, ultimately having no substance that could’ve made the argument or pointed out the various things.

And everyone seems to just take that as a given. Indeed the whole comment of Post-structuralism is that subjectivity itself, while involved in these various negotiations of historical and discursive elements, is ultimately repressed by them, the truth of the very interaction repressed, is denied, is excluded from the negotiation itself as subjectivity, the knowledge-power. The conclusion that we tend to rely on and work with is that, well, the truth of the matter must be that human beings and the world lie only in their subjectivity.

The radical truth which begins to describe the fallacy of orientating substance upon the exchange of materials concerns objects, and ultimately, the truth of the situation.

As this rephrase tells, true substance lay in the shadowy depths.

So ironically, it is a counseling, it is an anthropology, as I call it, which uncovers the true substance of what we’re dealing with between the Selfand the world, what true universal objects are in themselves.

Conventional Philosophy. becomes ultimately this place of politics, this place of “playing around”, at once comedic, at once tragic. We find d that a group of human beings which attempt to find itself and themselves in a substance of material negotiation – ultimately these human beings become fucked up. They don’t know how to behave. They begin to collapse in upon themselves, to create discord and problems everywhere because ultimately the source of “there being” it problematic in insubstantial.

The failure of the enlightenment is the victory of ideological power which subjugates human beings to its whim despite themselves.

It is not “we” that are subjects of ideological power. It is that we are involved with a faith that ideological power is synthetically a priori not only to our own very ontological substance…

….And the substance of everything in the universe



The Simplicity of Substance and the Lengthy Post

I have been re-approaching philosophical ideas that have long held a deep significance for me. Because my life has been basically informed by an incessant and consistent questioning of what I am coming up on, I am finding that I am merely continuing to be what I am, which is, for a term, in motion.

I think this last round of doubting comes about because I am realizing that I am more concerned with actual people than I am with my ability to think great thoughts.

Now, what is strange about this is I am intensely antisocial in general while at the same time at ease with being social in a certain context or a certain framework. I generally hate people (groups) but I love and am very concerned with people (individuals). 🌏


This is very Zizekian, from the Zizekian standpoint of media/ideological primacy:

“I do not love the world….I pick and choose who and what I love.”

So far as “the world” might be an ideological fantasy established through magical symbols, Zizek, the critical theorist/media critic-turn-philosopher states unequivocally that “love is evil.”

What he means by this is that we are persuaded by an existential anxiety which pervades the maintenance of the fantasy– that is, due to our investment in the truth-value of the fantasy (the value is gained because it prevents us from having to encounter that which we are most of afraid of: the dissolution of the fantasy, or death) — to love the world, to extend an ideological hand out into the grandiose narcissist world because the idealism inherent of the fantasy is we are ‘in this together’, so to speak, individually yet identically.

The modern individual is ethically bound to, at least, trying to love the world. But in the whole, he doesn’t have a clue how to actually love his sisters and brothers around him. The imaginary world establishes intuitive subjective barriers which serve to maintain the ideological modern identity at all costs against his neighbors, while extending out ideals to the “universe” or “the world” where we all must try to get along.

So; yet in truth he denies what is really occurring; which is, we are all being selfish and choosing certain universal things and people to love, and not really loving the world.

It is this tension of modern subjectivity we deny through the institutionally normalized and sanctioned “state of” anxiety which then in relief shows our ultimately ‘sinful’ nature: “In despair to will to be oneself” (as Kierkegaard puts it) is the condition of the modern man concept of love which avoids its true nature: hence, it is evil because it is an ideologically sanctioned “global” love that misses the intimacy that we generally misconstrue in the notion of agape, or man’s love for God. Since, God in this modern sense, is indeed a “usurper” god which takes the place of brotherly love to which agape would otherwise return to reflect in God itself, that is, in the world.

Zizek is, of course, referring to the modern ideal of love by which humanity defers itself and by which humanity is regulated to its conceptual ability.

Beyond the ideological love, by reflection, any love of a transcendent world is a narcissism, a pathological version of the human being. While within the fantasy, the narcissism is justified through the fantasy erected by trauma and told or narrated as “just human” , the “all too human” who takes on little responsibility for his actions, while erecting layers of intellectual and ideological facades in grandiose defense of them. Hence, the love that is evil is indeed, on one hand, a carnal love based in the libidinal control of the ego which then moves to impose or identify itself with the super-ego material norms: the subjective ideological identity.

Yet on the other, love is evil from the transcendent standpoint because the love I would have for the world that is my sisters and brothers, that is, not put off to a mere grand idea, is an evil and absurd activity.

So ironically, items that I pick and choose to love are in or of the reality that I cannot but be involved with– this is an evil manner of doing things. Hence, I do not love the world from Zizek’s standpoint of an ideological (media critique) analysis.

But indeed. I should not love the world in this way, so I don’t. Instead, I pick and choose to thus remain consistent and cohered to that which is the fantastic manner by which I must apprehend the ideological world.

The true love I profess is not modern, thus from the modern ideological standpoint, it is evil.

I won’t go on.

(Please don’t) 👨🏽‍🚀


You got your Materialisms, and then you got your Materialica.

I think I did a couple posts about materialism already. But hold onto your conventional seats!

Here is the You Tube video which explains the usual meanings of Materialism.

My work is about religion and truth, finding what these are. As a counselor, for sure, I am concerned with what such ideas and every other might mean for the sake of helping people enrich their lives. As a philosopher, though, I am more concerned with what they are.

And, my ability to do this is highly philosophical. The reason why it is highly philosophical is because philosophy itself wields a great power over people’s reality and how they think, though I think most people would say it holds little power. Why, then, does everyone (straw) rebut arguments with what one means? I say it is because of the philosophical paradigm we are in currently, what i call the modern paradigm, which I say is defined by the parameters of modern and post-modern and it’s symbolic mode is capitalism. In general, it says that meaning defines the world, and that all meaning is subjective and personal, what some call correlationalism. Then some philosophers are telling us that there are things Nevertheless outside of this correlation that effect us. I’m kinda in this outside way of viewing.

Anyways, you can look through my posts, as well as read the book THE PHILOSOPHICAL HACK to get into all this stuff.

Ok. If we are to move on, get to something new, then we have to attempt to drop some burdensome methods for ideas and ideas of method. Get simple. Many philosophers have said that what is true should be the simplest.

So. To do away with the potential rut of murky confusion of Materialism’s, I simply ask : what is material?

What is the material of science ? Of baking? Or roofs? Or thought? Of blankets ? Of discourse ? Of the chair? Of this essay? Of philosophy ?

It is the stuff that is there to work with. The material. The material of cooking is the stuff the chef is working with. What is it exactly, you ask? It is exactly the material there that she is working with: meat, onions, herbs, water, oil, expertise, diners, tables, knives, customers, health codes, cockroaches, fire traps, napkins, steam, temperature, etc…What is it though? It is the material. And I am tentatively suggesting that all material is religious material.

So also, because people, by virtue of traditional ideological categories, love to not think, I hesitate to confirm the trending myopia and add another term, as though the myopic thinking is correct.

–> maybe the better term for what I’m talking about is Materialica 🤘🏾💀. It is not monism or pluralism: it is both. It is a critique of all the “-isms”. It’s claim is that all the “-isms” are a capitalist operation of consumerist distraction of the human being from the nature of its thought. It is a manner toward coming to actualize or realize the truth in a manner that is no longer offending to the ideological subject. Anew way to speak of truth that does not reduce to spiritualism (see?) Nor idealism. Yet not to invalidate such Routes as indeed functional systems of meaning.

[y outube

On the more naive note:

I am not sure what many people call materialism is a good name for what they are talking about. Physicalism or consumerism I think are better more specific terms, maybe alienationism. I feel like when the philosophers came up with the idea of “materialism” they were using it in a sense as opposed to ideas or some sort of spirituality. And then currently people are like to use “materialist” to mean superficial or someone that’s into buying things and having items. I think all these various types of meanings, like meaning in general, serve to confuse many people when we then move into thinking about things on a more serious level such as philosophy or critical thinking.

The term “education” is another one of these terms that can likewise confuse the actual picture that we have in front of us. Because we are educating people, so we have a larger number of people a larger body of people who consider themselves educated, and they indeed are, but they likewise figure that their intelligence is able to extend into all areas of understanding equally.

The prime example is from my posts on the Z/P debate ( just a few posts earlier); I think of the, what, five people who I noted who commented on the debate, only one even came close (barely) to understanding with the debate/discussion was really concerning. And this is not to say that people are not allowed to have their opinions about things or that we’re not supposed to discuss things, but it is more to say that if, for example, I want to program a computer, most of the people that would have opinions about how to go about it or what the programing actually entails or what needs to be done logistically or actually, so far is the actual coding — i’m not sure that we would take everyone’s opinion as having equal validity and substance. But indeed everyone is allowed to stand around and watch someone program a computer for a particular task or addressing a certain problem, and then they are indeed allowed and permitted with validity to go off and talk amongst their selves about the experience and what it could possibly mean in their lives etc. and indeed, in our day, the nature or the task that that program accomplishes indeed affects all those people regardless of what their opinion is upon it.

Yet with computers people will readily recognize that what they are talking about really has nothing to do with the computer programming that’s going on.

For some reason as soon as we say “philosophy” then everyone’s voice is equal, As though everything they have to say is intimately and inseparately involved in the ‘computer programming’ itself.

There’s something going on here that we’re not recognizing Or admitting. A categorical confusion.

But I am also not saying that academics have the singular privilege of talking about philosophy and that no one else has anything to say about it. In fact I would say that academic philosophy is involved with the same type of social dynamics as that of a bunch of people watching a computer programmer; I don’t think that it is valid or is indicating something particularly true to say that academic philosophers, as a group, as a category, are exempt from the same type of social dynamics. I think we have a again a false idea of what is occurring, as if confusion is what we’re supposed to be looking for and depending on.

(confusion occurs before breakthrough, btw)

In a way I’m calling for a complete re-structuring of how we understand the human being, it’s world, and reality. Our old traditional categories, including the scaffolding upon which we organize these terms, are starting to no longer serve us .

So this is all to say that the idea of “materialism” falls prey to the same kind of generally permitted confusion; I mean it really is almost like it’s some sort of rule that everything Has to be as confusing as possible and then that is the most true of being human.

I suggest that indeed there is a type or kind of human being that indeed exists as ideological confusion, Whose ontological presence is indeed manifested as confusion.

But we need to be careful here because of the postmodern Maxim that allowed us to see the problems of authority, oppression and subjugation, and how privilege works. But I submit that this kind of “Deconstruction” only exists within a conceptual whole. It is only within the idea that there is this one unitive arena (universe) that racism can have any power at all. And indeed, again, it is within the unitive ideal of the term “idea” it’s self that points to the religious function of being human.

Authoritarianism, totalitarianism, despotism, sovereignty… All these kinds of designations of power relations only occur within a concept of an absolute unity: less as ideological constructions, but more as indeed conditions of the real world of being human. But likewise: this human set (the kind that finds its ontological truth in confusion) is not ubiquitous to being human. Post human and trans humanism attempt to grapple with this, but I’m not sure they really get us anywhere because of their association with unproblemitized fantasy. They take the phenomenal centricity to ends end through simply ignoring the problem of centricity.

This is the great philosophical problem before us. I see.

And I wonder if indeed all these problems with race and misogyny, basically the issues of feminism, are not them selves issues that need to be allowed to play out at all times. That perhaps there is no Utopia, even as we work towards that ideal.

It is in this sense that I work towards understanding what is true and religious in the sense of things in themselves as opposed to subjective ideological meaning.

It is not an idealism nor materialism. It is an idealism of materialism or a materialism of ideas. It is not either/ or, but and.

I might add: the enlightenment is said to have failed. But I submit, it did not fail because of the ideas it was processing, if indeed it has failed.

Rather, it failed Becuase it’s assumption was that there is a common subject of the universe called the human being. As though all human beings fall or can fall under the same rubric. Less a Postmodern tenet than its failure.

And yet it continues to function.

A Critique of Sam Harris

A Critique of Sam Harris

A Critique of Sam Harris
— Read on

This got a little long for one reading on a device for me. but I did my best graduate school skimming and focusing and picking out parts that seem important, and I got to say been put down a really good explanation and argument for his materialism.

As many of my readers may know, or may not know, I tune on the side of materialism, but to me it’s just a simple statement, as everything is philosophical material.

But I like the simplicity by which Benjamin situates idealism and materialism. And his historical analysis and projections into present political analysis I think hold water.

But philosophically I would have to ask, for example, well sure the church split a long political lines but why did those lines fall where they did?

I think at some point and such and analysis and in pursuit of answering such a question, eventually we would have to come to pure speculation and argument, and I would submit that speculation in arguments are based in ideas, but not merely ideas that are relative to their conditions, but ideas that indeed function as though they are attached to an essential object: idealism.

So to me it’s a chicken or egg situation, and then I even go further and I ask how do you decide whether or not you are on the side of the chicken or the egg? Do you ponder the various arguments of idealism and materialism and then spontaneously something makes more sense to you than the other side? Is that occurring because the conditions create this situation for you (which is just another way of talking about a transcendent ideal), or is it occurring because you are remaining true to yourself (which would be another way of saying a fundamental material of self)? It seems to that to make any argument about what might be true or false or more actual or more true or more Real, that at some point you have to simply act and behave and think as though you are not just a nexus of conditions. It seems hypocrisy and contradiction pop up at every juncture.

This brings me to the radical middle. So to speak. And it is this radical middle that really defies either position, that of idealism or materialism (that is, except the materialism that simply states everything that arises to knowledge is philosophical material). And I think people as world identities have great difficulty realizing this radical middle. It really is that people argue this circularity of their position to avoid recognizing the actual situation that they’re in.

Then we look at history honestly and we can come to no conclusion about whether it was political forces or ideological of forces or idealist forces, that is. We have to admit at some point that it’s all just fashion and that indeed whatever opinion were coming to is a part of that fashion, part of a motion that we really have no say in. Which is to say, except in as much as we maintain an idealist position of our ability and understanding and grasp of thought.

Resiliency Mental Health

Dr. Amy Marschall, Licensed Psychologist

A New Vision for Mental Health

New and interesting things are happening in mental healthcare – find out about them here and help shape a new vision for mental health

Mental Health 101

Author/Writer @ Thought Catalog, LiberoMagazine, Invisible illness&TotallyADD peer supporter trainee I blog to bring awareness to mental health issues

Secrets of Mental Health

The Choice is Yours!

Facing The Challenges of Mental Health


To live is to battle with trolls in the vaults of heart and brain. To write; this is to sit in judgment over one's Self. Henrik Ibsen

Mind. Beauty. Simplicity

living with less gave me more to live for

The Tony Burgess Blog

The Home Of T-Bird From The Dork Web.

Olivia Lucie Blake

Musings of a Millennial. Life, The World and Everything In Between.

Damon Ashworth Psychology

Melbourne Clinical Psychologist

Mental Health @ Home

A safe place to talk openly about mental health & illness

Self Care & Mental Health

Know Your Worth; Own Your Life


Format your brain for knowledge transfer

Object Relations

"A Word of Substance"

The Absurd

piles of dog-eared books, fountain pens, poetry, romance and despair, existential crisis, anarchy, rebellion


Want some motivation,this is the place


Bio-Blogger is an excellent source for collaborations and to explore your businesses & talents.


Just another glitch in the matrix

Filosofa's Word

Cogito Ergo Sum

Climate of Sophistry

Climate science is sophistry...i.e., BS.

Tallbloke's Talkshop

Cutting edge science you can dice with

a joyful life

happiness joy love kindness peace

The Twisting Tail

the world turns on a word

Creative Expressions

Professor Ashok Misra shares with you literary expressions.

Mytika Speak

Where Logic and Feeling Unite

Notes from Camelid Country

A travel blog from Bolivia to Belgium via Berlin

Heroes Not Zombies

becoming not being.......

Emotional Shadows

where all emotions are cared for!

Soulsoothinsounds's Blog

For those awakening divine humans

Peacock Poetry

by Sam Allen

Union Homestead

An urban homesteading family move to the country; still a story of trial and error...a lot of error!

The adopted ones blog

Two adoptees - one vocal the other not so much...

Conversations on finding and loving who I am

Let's have an open conversation about life.


Change your thoughts change your life

Tips from Sharvi

Tips to make your daily life easier!

mulyale mutisya

what the eyes have seen, ears have heard, being has experienced and what the Spirit has felt.

Paul Militaru

Photography Portfolio


One minute info blogs escaping the faith trap