how fast the world ? As fast as our arrogance.

Futurists from the 20th century predicted that labor saving devices would make leisure abundant. According to the great economist John Maynard Keynes, the big challenge would be that… Rather than…
— Read on medium.com/accelerated-intelligence/google-director-of-engineering-this-is-how-fast-the-world-will-change-in-ten-years-6f1e653b5374

— I am always intrigued when theorists use the word “we” — and a bit skeptical.

I am pretty conscious in my writing when I use “we”. I’m not perfect, though. But I try to use “I” when I cannot be sure I am talking about “us”, and I try to use “we” only when I am talking about an experience of the reader that should have been aroused through the reading. For example; as I make an argument or describe a situation, I will use the “we” to indicate where the reader should be in their conceptualization of matter discussed, as a sort of check in to see if everyone is on board.

The linked post I have to question, simply because it is obvious to me that the “we” he is writing about does not include me.

Much of what he assumes in the “we accelerating”, the symptoms and reactions/responses, I have not, nor do I experience. I understand that many people can relate to what he is saying — I do understand that people can identify with his panic, yes, but the way he is saying it sounds like he is overextending the experience of being human, as well then, overextending the possibility of what he sees as so terrible.

He is actually talking about “them”.

It is for those he is talking about, and that reality they live in, that brings me to have compassion for those poor souls.

I just can’t help but feel for them because it seems that they have been sold a bill of goods, and it feels better about it is they look around as see “us”.

But they are really only seeing what they are able to see.

It is “us” in so much as they might hope, but it is really “them” who are, supposedly, going to suffer from this ideological acceleration.

This is why I feel it is my responsibility to help people.

*

From my vantage point, everything is changing all the time and at the same rate. Hence, the view upon the world is a particularly cosmological view, an incorporated view which sees in the events of the world a correspondence with what is being felt, as these emotions inform his one is able to think about themselves and the world.

It is not therefore ‘the world’ or society that these people are talking about; rather, it is thier own sense of Being. In the same way as certain congregations of institutional religions throughout history have seen that the world is going to end in various ways and according to various evidences and proofs, so it is with the ideal of acceleration.

It is individual ontological perception, not existential foundation

Every generation has its reasons for the shittiness. That’s what being a modern human is.

*.

We are Only gonna die From our own arrogance

Means

That it is The arrogance itself which sets up a system of knowing which perpetually “kills itself” as its own ideological teleology.

How could hell be any worse than to live in a self-reflected world that you see as The Real world ?

…Maybe read some Slavoj Zizek.x

Philosophy and Guitar Equipment: The Tower of Babel

xThis isn’t about what you might think it is about.

I am going to attempt to speak to the problem of philosophy as it arises currently. This is to say, the problem of philosophy.

The problem with philosophy nowadays, if it was ever really any different, is that to say that we are now going to speak philosophically, or we are going to talk about philosophy, is no different than if I was going to say that now I am going to talk about guitar equipment.

What I mean by this is that to say that I am having a philosophical discussion gets no further as to its topic and content, then a discussion about What brand of guitar I use, how I like my frets spaced, or what Amplifiers I prefer and which are better.

The modern problem of philosophy is that it thinks, or it implies in contemplating or otherwise accessing philosophical material, that it is speaking about anything else that is not philosophical.

The analogy would be to guitar equipment Is so much as I might be talking about Ibanez guitars, the various electronic components that go into it, the artisans that made the particular guitars, the country in which they were manufactured, the pick ups used, the string gauges, I assume that I’m talking about, say, the politics in Western Europe, or my girlfriends decision making ability around getting a tattoo, or what it means to be an American, or what it is to exist in the universe. Discussions about philosophy are only speaking about philosophy In the same way that discussions about guitar equipment are only talking about guitar equipment.

I am fairly positive that many people who will be reading this post right now will think it’s a ridiculous comparison. But I say it is a valid analogy, and that philosophy, philosophical discussions, themselves get no further than philosophy. They do not even come close to addressing the water in the stream that is flowing along side along side the path upon which I am walking my dog. The various components existence, the actuality of, perhaps me being frustrated at the limits of my empowerment, philosophy never speaks to them or of them one iota. For, philosophy is only talking about philosophy in the same way that a discussion about guitar equipment is only talking about guitar equipment.

The problem with modern philosophy is that there is a particular kind of thinking, a particular manner or orientation upon what is occurring in philosophy which sees it self as addressing some thing more than philosophy itself, say, that it is addressing existence.

And if you’re still following this and you’re just seeing how much more ridiculous this post is, then I will draw your attention to philosophy itself, what actually happens in the “philosophical Arena”.

*

Consider the following:

Is there something called ‘philosophy’?

Well, as I begin to contemplate what philosophy is, as I perhaps attempt to do some research into what other people say philosophy is, I invariably find that there are different little pockets, different “schools”, various academic fields. I find that as I come to some sort of opinion about what philosophy may be and I begin to write about it or talk about it, I invariably find that only a small group of people or even care about what the hell that I’m saying. And the small group of people will call them selves by some sort of name, for example “continental” Philosophy, or “analytical” philosophy, feminist, existential, idealistic or idealism, patchwork, realism, materialism, deist, Muslim, empiricism, scientism… I bet I could write a post that is so filled with types Of philosophy, just listing the names, that you would stop reading before You ever got done with the list. Never mind if I would ask each of these names of schools what they thought philosophy was. 

So on one hand, there is no such thing as philosophy. There is just this word that we use to categorize what is basically nothing at all. It’s not even proper to say that they are different ways of thinking about things, because as soon as I say that, then there’s gonna be some other school of philosophy that would say no that is not the case, and amongst those no’s there would be an infinite amount of other ideas about why it is not the case, as those would divide up into an innumerable amount of sects and denominations all of which consider themselves philosophy and have deep and profound ideas about what philosophy is.

And some people still ask me why or how I could possibly suggest that philosophy is a religion.

You can Google the paper that was taken by the convention in Toronto a few years ago: Philosophy religion and negation, I think that’s what I called it. i’m sure I got a link to it somewhere in my blog.

But I’m not making an argument here about what philosophy is or what it is not or whether it exists or whether it doesn’t exist. Because then I would just be involved in an exercise of ridiculousness. sometimes I just go ahead with the ridiculousness because, hell, we got to do something, eh?

…but In fact I find myself right in the middle of the problem of modern philosophy.

*

However, I think my analogy is not philosophical in the slightest sense. I think it is absolutely true and real. When do I ever encounter discourse, say, while I’m walking my dog?

My answer: only when I start to think about how discourse might be occurring while I’m walking my dog. In a way of speaking, there is no extension to discourse. What I mean by this is that there is no fundamental “discourse” that underlies me holding my iPhone, pushing the voice recording button, me speaking, and the computer algorithm printing various symbols, let alone the Internet world of code and electricity that is upholding this performance, for another word. Similarly, there is no “data” which underlies any of this situation. In fact, I could even go so far as to say there is nothing underneath at all, and even as I might argue along a certain line of extension, ultimately we find that the end of that Telos nothing at all. Not even contradiction, but exactly a reasoning which finds itself in nothing.

*

My analogy to guitar equipment holds. For I could have just as much a meaningful conversation filled with substance and existential depth in speaking about and having a discussion with someone about whether a Vox tube amplifier sounds better or is a better quality than say a fender solid state. I could have months long conversations of idealistic substance and meaningful profoundness around whether a 64 Stratocaster is a better guitar for playing blues then a Japanese 1980s Gretsch. Whether or not an MXR equalizer is better than a boutique equalizer made by say, Earthquaker pedals.

*

The issue that is not that philosophy has no substance, but what is assumed of substance, what is assumed as common, and so much as we indeed a rise in the modern context, is not getting anywhere further than the tip of its nose or the momentary irruption of sound waves in the air.

Sure, it’s real. I deal with it every day, so do you, all over the place, and a myriad of discussions about all sorts of topics.

Yet, the
Significance of this moment is not found in eternal relativity.

Indeed people still have discussions about philosophy as though they’re finding some profound truths, as if they’re discussing something with supreme depth and significance. this happens. It’s happening in all of those sub discourses, all of those various threads that are talking about which TickTock videos are the funniest, which punk rock band sounds more authentically punk rock, which pop music star has the best moves.

These discussions are not wrong or bad, but in so much as philosophy crowns itself as the king or queen of all possible discussions of significance, thereby does it miss what is actually occurring philosophically.

This is the problem of modern philosophy: there is only modern philosophy, and that any other philosophy which has a supporting describing adjective Attached to it, such as pre-modern, postmodern, mideval, ancient, ultimately arises only in the modern context, Which is to say, only in as much as people are talking about it at the time that they are talking about it yet while they believe they are talking about something which is extends to it or from it, and it is much as we are able to notice this situation. As well, Only in as much as someone tells me that it is saying anything about my life, the world or the universe, for indeed never is it encountered in my daily activity except when it comes up. There is nothing underneath, and hence what we call modern ideology, or in another way, the philosophical religion. 

Any position which poses to escape this modern world is ultimately using modern techniques in order to posit that there is some thing else that is knowable which is not modern. and this is to say that the view or orientation upon things which understands The various modes of discourse, that is, thought, idea, communication, knowledge, just to name a few, which imply or otherwise understand it’s self with reference to the implied extension is really a line of flight, a revolt from the abyss, or what we must call in all honesty now: a denial of the truth of the matter at hand.  or, what we should also understand as a reaction against an implicit offense to the way of Being by which we regularly understand and conceptualize existence, ourselves, the world, and the universe. 

This significance of philosophy I think is best summarized by Heidegger’s eternal question which resonates even to this day, into this post right here: have we yet begun to think? 

xx

On one hand, there is the content semantic which evidences a telos which is never fulfilled, the Lacan- psychoanalytical “master signifier”, or, the vanishing mediator, the “great catastrophe”, which informs the meaningful sense of the universe as it should be.

…and then there is…some thing else…which speaks of the universe as it is.

The philosophical/critical modern academic method

Abstract: In this paper, I argue that people should think a certain way about things, and believe in the semantic content that such thinking portrays. I give examples that everyone should already understand, and hopefully provide a route to make sure they are not making a mistake about what they are understanding. I then further claim that everyone should understand that they are deciding upon whether or not they want to understand my thesis, and that by making such a decision, they are probably making an argument against what they already know by virtue of their understanding the argument I am putting forth.

x

Inconceivably true.

People simply will not understand. Even then…

Imagine a group of musicians, a band, who did everything possible to not be famous and be rich.

They changed their name every show so they would not make a name for themselves.

They made no records.

They were well known in the music community and even wrote songs, actually gave songs to people who did become famous, songs some of which made a lot of money and became well known, some still well known today. They never asked those people for royalties or recognition again still to this day.

One could say that they trusted existence.

This group played extensively around the West Coast of the United States. Frequented Burning Man before it was a thing. They were regular installments at “desert parties” in the Western States through out the 90’s. And the “Tunnel Parties” in the mountains above Los Angeles. Raves and experimental sound festivals and “be-outs”.

They were specifically anti-establishment, but not anti-human or anti-actuality. In fact, with such integrity this group went about their business, so genuine and authentic thier music resonated with people, by 1996 they has become known as the band that one simply knew about, but no one wanted to ruin. A sort of purity left in the world that everyone who knew wanted to keep. To see and hear and experience the group and thier music was pure word of mouth and happenstance.

It is simply unbelievable to most people, and I think that was the point: give people something they could absolutely not believe and they would thus know that something legitimate actually existed.

Most people ask: Why would anyone do that? Why would anyone try not to make money and not be famous? To make an effort in the opposite direction, not simply “letting it be” in the all too typical happy-ending story where then one becomes famous and everyone loves them. Rather, to purposefully make an effort to not have that happen? Simply inconceivable.

And yet the most legitimate confirmation that capitalism is not necessary for the future same results to occur, minus all the bullshit identity crisis and “personal transformations” that we, again, know all too well is undefeatably and undeniably human.

To have some thing distinctly true that exists authentically, that arises and occurs despite all the modern tropes.

People simply cannot conceive of a group of people, a music group succeeding — for all purposes of artistic integrity and popularity– without making money or seeking commercial fame for the simple reason which reflects a certain orientation upon the world which was being challenged then. A kind of challenge which is mostly beyond anyone nowadays, even as it was just barely hanging on 30 years ago, a residue of philosophical motifs. 

And it became, like, this weird situation, this unbelievable situation that began to happen in so many places all around the west, a sort of precipitate from the 60’s. And a code, of sorts, came out of it. It really was miraculous and gave us faith in the world, again, in a weird way.

Of course we think of the book “fight club”, and the quote that comes out of the book,

The first rule of fight club is that you don’t talk about fight club.

The thing is, is that this book drew upon something that was already occurring, and again the author used it to make a living from, as a writer would, as an artist should and would. But where that came from was something that was actually occurring — that shouldn’t be possible — that was kind of more authentic than the existential ‘bad faith’ way we all usually must eventually live anyway….

Because the thing was with this group — that is, if you asked anyone about the group, anyone who knew, they would deny that it existed. Lol. It was the funniest thing! It was the weirdest thing! And they still do and will !!

😆

that’s the true beauty of it, that it still lives on right on front of people’s eyes and ears.

It became like this unwritten code of this large group of people — an amazingly large group — that would show up at these various events. And maybe 4 out of 10 times, maybe 2 or 3 out of every 20 venues …Around certain cities — even in the middle of nowhere– there would be a band that would show up with some stupid name and the people who knew, knew. And the beginning of the show would be like, maybe, a normal crowd for a Tuesday, but after the first few songs, the word would get out and the place would be jam-packed, people standing out on the sidewalk just mulling around, being part of the “be-out”.

And the people who didn’t know just thought it was pretty good and sometimes a little weird. But some would hear the songs, and they knew. And it was the best thing. And then later on you could hear them, a couple years later maybe, some famous band playing some of the songs in a different way slightly, commercialized, solidified, packaged. Think grunge and alternative mostly, but even some of the harder rock songs, even a few pop tunes, were written by this same group of people, unknown and working hard to remain so.

Listen to the old, and even newer, interviews with some of these famous rockers. You’ll hear it if you listen. Foo Fighters; Hole; the Mentors; Rage Against the Machine; Concrete Blonde; even No Doubt. And those were just the ones who’d been around from the beginning.

Well, there’s much more to be told. And maybe I’ll do that as we go on.

This is what the Covert Sound Philosophy was, and is. Except that CSP now has kind of just become kind of a nostalgia. A kind of beckoning back to what was, a real truth, a surety, a kind of good feeling that there is something legitimate in the world that we can hang onto without having it be a capitalist product...or before it must become one.

— and with the full irony intact nowadays as CSP is making records.

Because it is a commercial sound product now for sure. 🤘🏾🧑🏾‍🚀xxxx

The first rule was an unwritten rule. It was a rule that just came up out of necessity, out of an imperative toward legitimacy and authenticity.

Unbelievable. Truly.x

Being Modern Mindfully

I have been reading a huge textbook on mindfulness. It is truly a gargantuan book for mindfulness: a thick textbook with everything, from history, through philosophy (East and west), neurobiology…everything about it. Very cool.

One of the things that strikes me, though, about this very academic, clinical and scientific, conventional approach to Being, is the great assumption that is invested in the kind of knowing presented in this book. In short, despite all the uses it finds for mindfulness, for which it recruits Buddhism as well as Husserl and phenomenology, and others, it becomes very noticeable what this book represents by the kind of knowledge it promotes.

Let’s see if I can explain.

The analogy that comes to mind for me is between what is posed in various ways.

There is a, what Husserl calls a Natural manner of experience and Being, and then there is what he famously calls phenomenal reduction aspect. Mindfulness is proposed as a kind of western phenomenalism reflecting or mapped into eastern knowledge.

The issue that comes to mind for me is around or next to what I understand is the core of mindfulness practices. Mindfulness practice promotes awareness without judgement.

I feel this is the best definition to be had. Any other, I feel, loads conceptual artifacts upon the effort.

For example, the extremely loaded ideal that mindfulness is an achievable state of Being. To my mind, any achievable state of Being begs a basic question about Being itself. But that question is larger than this post.

Now my question:

If mindfulness practices are about developing or cultivating awareness without judgement, then what is the notion that there is or we should want mindfulness practices saying about awareness without judgement?

It seems to me that by virtue of its formulation and actualization, it is inherently judgemental. For, by its existence, a judgment is implied about the situation.

So then; what is that really saying about any state of being?

Despite any argument, before we could say anything, just in contemplating and considering what I have laid out so far in this post, we would have to say that the situation itself is a problem.

The reason that this is significant for me is due to my fundamental axiom, a sort of basic or grounding substance from which all things arise. This is: there is nothing wrong.

There is no problem. The basic philosophical assumption that goes into any philosophical work of substance must stem from the ground of, basically, nothing. And, if we are going to translate this into a practical situation, this nothingness must equate to a situation where there is no problem.

( Slavoj Zizek calls this a catastrophe ! )

This is particularly interesting in the context of mindfulness in so much as — at least the author of this textbook, but I have heard many other authors and speakers talk about mindfulness — an ideal state of being that a person can achieve called mindfulness is posited…

…The very idea of that state of being (mindful) is that problem is already handled at all times.

Now, what does this really mean?

Does it mean that we’re happy and content all the time?

While I do love mindfulness as I understand it, which is to say, as the practice of cultivating an awareness without judgment,  I think it is a ridiculous proposition that a human being could achieve a “state of mindfulness being”. It’s like setting one up for failure in the act of trying to help them.

Like I said in the beginning of this post, to me it is an idealism. And what it’s really indicating, what it is really trying to get someone to, is really the fundamental and basic working ontological knowledge that there is no problem.

Because human beings are indeed human beings that are constantly faced with problems, we have to find the moment of this mindful proposition within the context that it is indeed arising in this moment:

Modernity is problem.

Mindfulness is awareness without judgment. 

xxx

Confirm Humanity

I just did a captcha. And, I’ve seen it before, but for some reason this morning it was phrased a little differently, the reason why we have to do those, and it just said “Confirm humanity”.

😎

I think it’s totally great and it’s totally funny at the same time. But this morning it just entered my consciousness slightly differently than I think even the funny phrase was intended.

For, as maybe some of my readers might now or not, I question that humanity even identifies something that’s common, A common body of creatures called humanity. And one of my posts somewhere I even suggested that if “so and so” is a human being then I must be something totally different because of how ridiculous this person was; and I mean this in a very serious way.

I don’t mean it as some sort of oh interesting intellectual thought experiment. Of course, we could take it as a interesting philosophical thought experiment if you want to. But, I feel when we get to the edges, the perimeter, of what knowing is, what knowledge is, what thinking is, as some thing that arises in the universe, things start to change.

I’ve even pondered in this blog somewhere how this kind of “knowledge of the perimeter” is what has been commandeered by conventional knowledge under the term “esoteric”.  The body of knowledge which conventional knowledge miss identifies under the name of “esoteric” Is really a knowledge that conventional understanding has not experienced, and so misappropriates.

And then we really do get into this idea of what it is to be modern, at that, a modern human being. The very idea of modernity is an encapsulation of irony, a necessary move to either side of the fulcrum which irony represents, And it is the close association of modernity and irony which at once forms the precipitate of a state which arises outside of the individual thinker, but as well, a subject which perpetually ignores the condition of power under which it forms it’s human identity, which is to say, as a functioning global citizen, say.

🥸 So here I am being struck by a phrase “confirm humanity”, and on one hand I understand it’s asking me to confirm that I am indeed a human being as opposed to a bot. Then on the other hand it is kind of an interesting indictment of my presence in front of my phone screen, asking me to confirm that indeed there is a humanity which exists somewhere “out there” on the other side of the screen. 

x

Is the Modern Religion making a name for itself? Metamodernism

I’ve been hearing that metamodernism is the next stage in the march of history toward progress. Metamodernism will synthesise modernism and …

Can Metamodernism Sublate Modernism and Postmodernism?

—– Thanks Philosophics! Great post.

The title of my Repost is a little tongue in cheek, but not really if you have been following my blog.

I suggest that Modernism and Post-modernism define the Modern Religion.

The simplest explanation that accounts for all the facts is my approach. As a loose generality:

Modernity is definition.

Post modernity is deconstruction.

Of course there is more to them, but I think those two definitions, ironically, define the religion: through the definition I find ways that the definition is not sufficient. Thats it. Im not sure how any knowledge that we can call knowledge is not ordained and presented in that way.

Then: There is no more to a category of knowing and activity than those aspects. Together they constitute the Modern Being: identity and its concordat nothingness.

People just gotta do something to make a living. Meta modernity is it for intellectualism now, I guess.xxx

The Issue of Modern Philosophy and Mental Health: Disease as Ontologically Basic

xo

In modern philosophy, only one argument is Being formulated over and over; it is only the terms that change.

The basic and fundamental issue concerns if this is noticed or not. If it is not, then we have a multiplicity of issues which arise out of the individual’s immanent communion with transcendence.

If it is, then we have the total formulation of the existent human and the universe.

Kiekegarrd formulates the possibility of notcing this phenomenon in a number of ways. One in particular is the difference between what is ‘interesting’ and what is ‘genius’. And then there is the basic existential offense. This reverberates in the tongue And cheek saying “the talented imitate; the genius copies”.

Society is interesting…

*

This LA Times Op-Ed piece, Why so many people want to believe the election was stolen, got my mind wondering… The United States have seen ‘stolen …

Institutionalised

—– I like this analysis. That’s why I reposted it. And I agree. There is the freedom that is upheld because there is a system which works to assure the freedom of everyone within the system, and then there is sort of a religious belief that freedom is some thing innate to people despite the system.

And then I saw the Suicidal Tendencies video at the end. About six months ago I posted a post with this video in it, as well as one of the more recent videos from the 2000s I think.

In reading this repost, though, My mind went to a different place than politics: mental health.

Consciousness as Retreat

In our global mental health crisis, where pretty much everything nowadays has to do with mental health, I can’t help but wonder if it’s because there is no “non-systematized freedom” anymore. Everyone with any issue immediately is turned to “someone who can help them”, as opposed to looking to themselves first. For, they cannot, they are unable because that is how thier consciousness is manifested.

Let me try to explain.

Only Problem

I’ve talked about this with friends of mine. I think my generation was the last generation that honestly felt like there was some corner of the universe that we could be a part of that was ultimately our own. Where we felt free. Indeed, Grunge music from the late 80’s early 90’s was about the frustration that there was no more essential freedom to be had. Indeed, we hear this in Jane’s Addiction song “Nothings Shocking”

https://youtu.be/JVTsubtQjms

…but all though the Grunge bands that came to be called by various other genre names.

And I think it was this feeling of freedom which allowed us not to have mental health problems. Which is to say, it allowed us to deal with our mental health problems by ourselves, through our own artistic expressions, through our own life living, and strange communities.

But now, in a very Foucaultian way, I wonder if “the space of disease” has overtaken the body completely. Such that consciousness itself upholds no essential space of freedom, The consciousness of clinical mental health has so completely taking over the being of human, that there is no actual freedom, there is only freedom which is systemically permitted.

Thus is to say that perhaps this is where depression and anxiety really stems from, and a bunch of other mental health problems such as eating disorders and drug addiction. People are naturally, their bodies are naturally reacting to the conceptual limitation which denies that the body even exists in itself. So it is that “dysfunction” manifests because people are having no “outlet” to be themselves, that is, without being automatically accused by their own sense of self.

This is exactly the point that Foucault makes in his book, the English title, “discipline and punish”. Namely, that consciousness it’s self has been made or has developed into a self monitoring system. That is the point that he is making in that book. That consciousness itself is or has developed in a self monitoring action or activity. This is what subjectivity is. This is what modern subjectivity is, that the ideal of crime, the ideal of trying to control peoples behavior and move them towards a “civilized” manner, is to get the people themselves to monitor themselves. To punish themselves. To have consciousness which automatically disciplines and punishes themselves. 

This makes sense from my standpoint as a counselor, because we are finding more and more that the solution to mental health is to get back into one’s body. As counselors, not so much as psychologists and psychiatrists and those who adhere to the clinical ideal, counselors as a discipline of our own, see the problem from a more philosophical standpoint. And this is to say that many of us see the problem of mental health in the light that I am describing: That the imposition or development of synthetical a priori knowledge, Manifested as the symptom of disease, shows itself as real Being in so much as the actual body is ultimately totally excluded.

Coincidentally, this is what we find in the philosophy of phenomenalism; namely that the body itself disappears. The Self “in itself” disappears, objects “in itself” does not exist, and that the ultimate ground of freedom is found in the Pure Reason.

We then might discover the reason why reality is ultimately filled with problem, as well as technological solutions that seem to give us some solace at least for a minute, or distract us from the problem-saturated reality which is consciousness itself, modern subjectivity .

Foucault’s over arching argument, although oriented differently for our moment, is that the The body itself has been displaced as the ground from which knowledge arises. This is the argument that he makes in “the birth of the clinic”. Basically, he describes how in the 18th century our current paradigm of medicine, but indeed reality as well, was overtaken by synthetical a priori knowledge. He traces how consciousness itself took place by evidence of discourse. And this is to say that consciousness itself transformed reality.

*

Side note:

University of California at Santa Cruz has a department called “History of Consciousness”. Angela Davis and Donna Harroway and Gary Lease are more noted scholars of that department. The premise is that consciousness is itself manifestations of discourse. That’s it.

I am inclined in that direction, though I definitely was not when I attended there.

What happened after Foucault was what we call “Postmodernism”. I repeatedly suggest is that postmodernism As a philosophical kind of movement in academia, misunderstood-misunderstands what Foucault was really saying, what he was really indicating. This is not to say that Derrida Lyotard Deleuze Guattari And maybe a couple others misunderstood, but most everyone else, somehow, was misunderstanding what they were really saying.

Such “authors of the truth”, as I would call them, were describing how consciousness unfolds in history, automatically. But then, oddly enough, what seemed to happen is people kind of intuitively understood the historical motion, and took it upon themselves to manipulate discourse. So they then proclaimed that every human individual gets to create their own reality by manipulating discourse. And everything started to go to shit. Because that is not really what post structuralism, as again I miss applied name for what was actually going on, and postmodernism was actually describing. Both of these movements we’re trying to correct the missed understanding that kept rising every time someone would attempt to describe what is actually occurring.

This phenomenon, where even though people were conveying the truth of reality, somehow that truth was commandeered and co-opted for an agenda which didn’t have anything to do really with what these philosophers were saying– It is this oddity that then we find the philosophers which came after post modernist, what I call the “post post modernist”, Badiou,Laruelle, Zizek, These authors noticed this problem and then these authors philosophies are based on the perpetuated discrepancy between the truth of what the philosophers before were saying, and then the general academic application of those truths which were a mistaken application of the Philosophy.

We find with these post post modern philosophers that they just figured this is what is going to happen, that this problem cannot be corrected. That no matter how much we try to describe the truth of reality, most people, academia in general, will misunderstand and use the misunderstood meaning For the sake of the synthetical a priori knowledge. or modern agency.

The post post modern authors just take it as a given that the truth will be used for an agenda that misunderstood the truth of the philosophy they read. This is Badiou’s supporting argument, that the truth is left behind; as well Zizek’s described situation aka Lacan psychoanalysis, as well Laruelle’s reaction was the reason why ‘sufficient philosophy’ is, basically, insufficient.

And yet we find this same situation described in various ways through all of the authors of the 20th century. We find it written and rewritten over and over using different phrases, different coordinations of terms, different terms all together, all of these philosophical discourses attempting to get at this problem of The real situation. This notice of this basic problem of modernity begins with Kierkegaard.

Modern Consciousness and Disease

And so here we are now, a presidential election event that manifests the essence of both sides of this problem, and Biden and trump. Ironically…

…we find it pervading our world in a very real way. We find people everywhere with mental health issues that are more aggravated than they ever had been in the past.

And it brings me back to the necessity for grounding knowledge and what is actually occurring, deriving from the body itself in coordination with, as opposed to only by, of the synthetical construction of given Ness, which we call disease, the symptoms of which being imposed upon Being as consciousness — this is the modern problem, the significant philosophical issue. It is this issue, then, that the Realists attempt to confront, albeit not very well, because they have missed the basic pervading issue of modern thought as it is manifested as Conscious Being.

Clinical medicine has so overtaken reality that now peoples whole bodies are unable to be accessed. Disease itself has taken over the body such that the body is identical with the diagnoses of disease...

Rephrase.

So when we listen to the Suicidal Tendencies song called “institution”, it should Really give us pause. Less as some nostalgic funny group of people playing hard rock, but actually more how it was back then when people who were just trying to live their lives, kids, us, who refused to be “depressed”, or to have “anxiety”, as a disease.

Instead we used these things, we took responsibility for these things of course, as just the way we were, and we used them to go forward in life. Free. However fucked Up we were, we weren’t blaming anyone else. We were just asking them to let us be.

But they would not. That’s what that song is about.

…But not that everything was all good back then; i’m just using that as an analogy…

And now everyone is so anxious and depressed there’s almost nothing you can do with that, nothing you can do for them except to give them medicine, something that is not their body. And yet still they go on in their lives ultimately sick, of themselves, of the world, with really no solution except to take medicine and hope for the best.

…and I will try to help you come back to your True Self, founded in your Real body…

It makes me wonder…

Community of the Absurd

”i’m not crazy… you’re the one that’s crazy.”

 another part of the solution advocated for mental health is connection and community. 

And so the real issue for our times so far as mental health but indeed reality itself, is how to we find connection with the body, thinking and intelligently being, without falling into the trap of systemitized synthetical a priori knowledge?

But more so, how do we get someone who is so indoctrinated into clinical medicine, as the basis by which reality is understood and perceived, to find the body within that saturation of synthetical disease?

xxx

In the philosophical sense, the political sense, as well as the real sense?

o

The “End of History” and the Renegotiation of the Subject.

With the deafening thunder of Napoleon’s canons filling the air at Jena, the romantic story goes that a middle-aged university professor and …

Kojève, Herder, and the “End of History”

—– I have not reas Kojeve or Herder, so the following goes off of only
Heaiods essay.

What we are seeing, what we are involve with, is the realization of what the human being is. The end of history as either a “happy” or “united” end is less the significant point than it marks or identifies a oarticular Kind of human being, one that sees itself in the context of either a “whole” of creatures that we call human, or one that understands that “human” defines a particular subset of this whole as to what is included and excluded in this “people” group.

Yes. The end of history may be about consumerism, but only in so much as there is an ideal effort which sees the whole through the exclusion. That is, “the whole” is allowed to be consumers, but it is only really about those who are indeed able to participate as this implied consumer. It is really only the people who do indeed prosper who are included in this ‘whole’. The rest are, by linguistic default, ‘not people’, they are something else that is excluded by the category itself, similar to trash that we deny by our consumerism. Think of recycling.

This secret ideological “ol’ in out, in out, know what I mean, know wheat I mean” motion of language is generally invisible to those people who are invested in the ‘truth’ of the linguistic category (think capitalism). The use of the idioms contained in every expression work to hide the ‘actual’ discursive functioning and reference which supports and justifies the user (subjectivity). Yet, it is not “those people” as much as it is indeed, ironically, all people who are included.

Hence, what we are really seeing now, what we are involve with, is the transition between ethical paradigms in how we deal with the whole through the part, and not so much how we include everyone or what that means. It is the investment of language “of the whole” which understands a modern perpetual ‘end’ in the various ways that we have seen argued over the past 200 years. We are seeing a renegotiation of the subject.

For, the more thoroughly we are invested in the topical use of language, the more we speak to ideology and its power to orient and fixate the subject in the world. Therefore, it is not so much “the content” of discourse that is significant to philosophy, as much as the significance lay and how we are oriented upon discourse and what it does. And this is to say that where the subject is not centered by ideology, but only uses ideology for its own subjective teleology, there we find the subject in a relationship of integrity with itself, for then it takes responsibility for the ideology which comes about through its own purpose. 

It is only there that we stumble upon the irony which traverse is the modern use of language to thereby be able to enact ones world consistently with ones form, for now we see that the very term that we understand as agency, the very power and force through which ideology subjects human beings, is just another enforcer of ideological placement by which the individual faces the paradox of choice.

For ultimately there is no choice to be made at every point, but only one choice which begins at every moment we use language.  Yet less how will we use language, and more what is informing that use.

x

The Crisis of Modernity

A very good essay-reading. It’s only like a half hour so it’s very accessible and easy to listen to. And does an excellent job as explaining the situation.

Then, you might wish to segue into an essay published in the Journal of counseling and family therapy:

An Essay Concerning the Possibility of a Unitive Theory of Counseling

@

https://epublications.regis.edu/cftsr/vol3/iss1/4/

One might notice the parallels yet allow for a distinction in what the purpose of the philosophical discussion is in the video compared to the purpose involved in the proposal for a unitive theory of counseling.

Are they both drawing from the same resource, yet manifesting each to their particular domain?

While it may appear as though the video is saying some thing, or coming to a different conclusion than what the essay is saying, what in actuality they are they really presenting in application?

What is occurring in the juxtaposition?