High Functioning Anxiety? Some philosophical notes of the modern Aria

www.huffpost.com/entry/high-functioning-anxiety-signs_l_5cd42647e4b09f321bdcc6d0

I ponder why mental health as a topic has become so prominent in our experiential awareness, concern and vocabulary.

From a philosophical perspective, it seems sensible. For, the prominent 20th century philosophy was existentialism, and thus is based in the preponderant existential anxiety.

However, aside from the more obvious considerations where history makes sense in light of current issues, and the issues make sense from historical sense, could something else be happening?

Is it that we as human beings are becoming more aware of our situation?

Or could it be that we are but filling out the meaning that has been given us?

Or both?

Irony and history

The most substantial philosophical component of modern existence is irony. From a leading edge philosophical standpoint, Everything that we understand as knowledge falls into a weighted selective bias that we call subjectivity. Subjectivity, for a term, is that aspect of existence that rejects the truth of knowledge, of our situation, for the sake of having a real world, reality.

This then is known as phenomenological meaning, and it constitutes the epistemological position of any knowledge that is able to be posited and thus known. This was not a condition of all knowledge through history, rather, it is the particular condition by which and in which we are able to know anything presently.

Hence, the issues of our day of what constitutes the legitimacy for truth and the political polemics that do not seem to be resolvable through open critical discourse. All modern knowledge is ironic, when you begin to think about it openly, critically, and honestly.

High Functioning Anxiety

It would seem, then, that what we see and experience in ourselves to say that someone might ‘suffer’ from high anxiety and yet still be able to function well, could be just that we are expected to deal with life in this way. We function as we are supposed to, yet education brings about a self reflection that is epistemologically informed by rejection of what is true of ourselves as a de facto modern agent. We find this is Jean Paul Sartre. That is, faced with brute existence and the meaningless found therein, we revolt from it an assert our free will to create meaning.

It could very well be, though, that we are this way — anxious, as a society but as well an an individual — because we have been told how to see and understand ourselves and this manner thus fulfills its teleology, and we find thus a mental health pandemic and according ‘solutions’ to the ‘problem’.

Further, it may well be that Sartre, and his ilk, were wrong ethically, and from the Kierkegaardian standpoint in which those 20th century philosopher so uncritically saw themselves. They read our situation and perpetuated it, justified it, as opposed to taking a critical view of it. The problem with 20th century existential ism is that it posits that the universe is meaningless and that human beings are the ones that make meaning. This is the seminal statement of modern ideology and why we must say that to live in the modern world is to live as problem.

The essential and unavoidable problem can be stated as this: To say that existence has no meaning, and thus it is incumbent upon human beings to create for themselves purpose and meaning, is to say that purpose and meaning is nothing.

In other words, the formulation is incorrect.

Perhaps it is some sort of intuitive understanding that the method by which we are understanding ourselves in the universe is incorrect which constitutes the anxiety we know so well.

How could anyone have confidence in the meaning that they are making if amidst this meaning making the underlying knowledge of such activity is that it is pointless, useless, and means nothing? 

And yet, the modern problem can be extended to be formulated as such:

in so much as I might become aware of this paradox, my anxiety is only increased, and I am compelled to do more things to distract myself from this dreadful condition of knowing.

Truth versus Reality as a question of method Versus meaning

Rather than asking how to solve our anxiety and accorded social issues, The more effective question as to overcoming this self-justifying anxious philosophical reflection of society (ideology and spirituality) could thus be to ask how could this be the case. Why in the sense of logistics as opposed to why as is what is the historical cause.

In other words, The short of it is:

Are you able to understand your situation as a truth instead of a product ?

What do you say?

The Great Divide: Was The Handmaiden’s Tale Nonfiction?

apple.news/AvymzKonZSYuFKxUS0EHwHQ

Intelligence !! That, is the question.

I am not that dense to believe that any piece of news is Above pure propaganda. This link to article is by the guardian, and I do like to think this news source, though leftist, has its neutral facts in order and is reporting neutrally, with a liberal bent. 

That’s what I like to believe. But I know it’s false.

However, I do think they’re reporting on some thing that’s actually occurring, somewhere, and somehow similar to what they are reporting on.

And yes my opinions are biased also. But I think this goes to my point I’m going to make here about intelligence.

The Notion of Intelligence Has No Substantial Basis for Legitimacy

The notion of intelligence itself must be an inaccurate way to identify a human being.

I say this because my first reaction to this article is that human beings are not intelligent. Lol

What I mean by this is, their opinion makes no sense.lol

And what I mean by this is that they are stupid. lol

I could go on, but those last three sentences don’t really say anything at all except that I feel that I myself I am intelligent, my opinions make sense, and that I’m not stupid. Any definition that I would want to bring up around those terms are necessarily biased in my favor.

Notice that my post one or two ago ask the question: where does legitimacy reside?

It largely comes out of “intellectual/ethical” divides such as the arguments around birth control.

I have to admit that whatever these people are, that they are so adamant about not getting abortions antiabortion and such, must not be the same type of human that I am. I mean this in the sense that regardless of what seems intellectually sound to me, that is, that everyone should have the right to their own opinions and be able to voice them, Obviously the people who are “pro life”, as if strangely enough, I am not for living and for allowing people to live how they want to live, Do not hold this opinion that I have that everyone should be allowed to uphold their own ideals ethically about life and how to live it. Obviously that maxim only goes so far for them. Ultimately, and I would say due to what this ethical maxim means to me, again, namely, that everyone should be able to uphold their own ideals and live life as they see fit, The people who are prolife do not agree with me about what this simple statement says. And this is to say that they agree with it so long as you agree with them about this one particular issue; it doesn’t really matter what it is.

It’s like the “great divide” of ideology. There is no source of legitimacy from which we could find an intellectual or ethical common ground. Even if we believe in the United States system of government, ultimately we have to admit that the charge on the White House and the Trump in whatever they might be called, again only believe in the common humanity so far as everyone has to believe in the basic ideals they believe.

I don’t think I need to run this in the ground. I think you get my point.

The Theory of the Logistical Basis for Ethics and the Two Routes

This is why I say that ethics is not something that Arises innately within us. Because of the great divide, it appears more true to say that ethics are trained into us. Surprise!

Really the great divide must be how we are oriented upon how ethics arises within oneself. 

If I feel that I am instilled with the ethics that extends over the human creature as a global manifestation, by, for any other term, God or deity or “natural morality”, then what we have in these kinds of debates is really a battle between religious zealots. For, even if I am the most liberal minded atheist, if I am also pro life then I am believing in some transcendent yet substantial and foundational “should” that encompasses the human being as a species.

 For example, there are plenty of people that believe that we should try to help every human being no matter what due to the fact that they are human. I’m not sure how that kind of morality is not based in a religious type of formulation. I’m not sure how that relies on something that is not transcendentally encompassing to the category. 

Ethics that’s always argues, in the end, for a logistical basis of its epistemological foundation Rather than a transcendental one.

We Have Never Been Modern

We get to this point and ultimately we have to begin to notice the sociologists discussion Bruno Latour we have never been modern.  specifically, he points to inherent contradictions in the modern way of conceptualizing things, but also the contradictory motion that must be in play to uphold any one of the positions.

For example, we can argue that no God exists, and yet as I have shown above, at the same time that I am making the argument that there is no God, I am nevertheless relying upon a transcendence that is forming my ability to have such knowledge. If I move then to define what transcendence is, proposing to rebut your argument that I am relying upon some sort of God for my proposal, then I have entered into the contradiction that I propose to be solving. It is these types of contradictory positions/motions that the author draws upon to make the suggestion that this is what modernity is, but in order to come to such a critique we must never have been modern. 

The Two Routes, again

So, I come back to the problem inherent to the issue of abortion in America. There is a reason why our form of government must pose “one nation under God”. Presently, in order to govern modern minded people, a governing body must reside in that space of irony. This is what our legal system is based on, standing on the fulcrum of modern contradiction.

However, the most pertinent to our case here and what this article represents. If indeed ethics is only a logistical solution and not an ideal solution, not a solution which arises inherent to the universe and or inherent to the human being itself, then we have a huge dilemma.

The logistical rationale for ethics thus argues that there is no human being that has inherent worth. That a human being’s worth is ultimately in relation to The prevailing ideology.

Hence, The basis of the logistical approach to ethics. The problem of ethics has Little to do with whether someone has inherent worth; it has to do with the fact that I can never totally eliminate my opponents or ethical enemies. As I posted elsewhere, because I can never get rid of people who, by my estimation, Are not intelligent, nonsensical, stupid, I thereby have to reflect back upon myself how I am going to live comfortably and happily with them.

 Disgusting, right?





What Does This Have to do with Mental Health?

Mental health either is the effort to bring the individual back into the ideological fold, whatever that is.

Or,

Mental health is the effort to help the individual find themselves despite ideological maxims.x

The modernity

www.huffpost.com/entry/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax_n_60bf7befe4b028b8ad4c9ebe

Modern human beings live through the ideal that they (we) have an ability to access neutrality of our thinking through insightful consideration of, again, neutral facts.

However, it can be a simple feat to see that no such neutrality is ever come upon.

The difference between the ideal and the actuality evidences the religious aspect of being human.

It is not psychological, simply Becuase the very idea of psychology posits accessible neutral facts against which we otherwise behave dysfunctionally.

It is none of our fabled ideals of intellectual prowess. They function for the religious instance to uphold the theological cosmology.

It is that we are humans and human beings function through religious theological categories. This is not correctable, it is simply true.

The post above, however startling and terrible ethically, shows that despite how incredibly unbalanced our system is, it will not be ‘corrected’. This is likely due to the pervading ideal that human beings are naturally ‘neutral’ ethically, here meaning that even though we might do ‘bad’ things, mostly if we (they) could, we would correct it under a given ideal of fairness.

This is never the case in the whole. It can only be the case in the part. The part is “content”, that part of living as human thinking by theological dogma that uses the dogma to situate ethical categories away from the religious determinism into individual agency.

The difference obtained through this kind of reference is, for any other terms, called “heaven”, or “blessed” if the agental scene unfolds in apparent benefit or according to the theological names, or “Damned” or “sin” if the scheme appears inconsistent.

In both cases the scene always changes to adapt to the religious cosmology, ignoring the injustice and setting it into a new cosmological context as though the sin has been justified or punished. This is modern absolution.

Cognition and Cosmology

The main and largely unrecognized model for the human mental being is the Cognitive Model.

In short, it says there is a Situation, we have thoughts about it, These thoughts are automatically associated with particular emotional responses, and we act or behave. This behavior is an interaction with the world, and this interaction is the situation.

Now, the typical approach to mental health from the cognitive model is to eliminate that there is an actual interaction, and qualify it to say that there are things happening in the world, and then we have these perceptions upon them and those perceptions bring about this cycle.

While this model seems very intuitive and indeed it makes for a really good closed system by which science can then default to other situations that fall outside of the cognitive model, say for example, body chemistry, to this justify why we need an over abundance of medication to solve this fundamentally bio chemical problem, The model itself is only upheld through redundant conceptual reinforcement which ignore the actual situations which would otherwise disrupt its cogency.

The actual situation is indeed the human being in the world. The cognitive model therefore is very good for a first step kind of involvement in what is actually happening in a mental situation, or a psychic situation to use a couple words, but it fails in as much as it tends to perpetuate mental issues for the sake of justifying the model.

The cognitive model becomes more and more myopic, discerning to its own categories, and enforcing of scientific dogma the longer it stays around, the less people are actually getting helped, and the more money that is made through psycho pharmacology.

I’m not saying that it is not helpful, nor am I saying that with certain people and with certain type of situation it can be a total system of help and effective. But I am always thinking of the exceptions, and in this case it is the predominance of people with mental health issues that the cognitive model only gets a short way towards helping.

Then, often instead therapists and psychologist Fail to notice that there might be an issue with their basic concept of what’s occurring, and they continue the same method of approach to the problem. The problem continues to be conceptualized within the cognitive model, and they merely decide to intervene differently, use different concepts but upon the same idea that there is this cognitive flow functioning and that ideally it is responsible or at root for all mental health issues.

*

I feel there is a better way. This better way is to see that the cognitive model is like a doorway into what is actually occurring. It is a way to begin to conceptualize what is going on, but then also a way to problematize that concept for the client.

That is to say through the creating Problems with fundamental concepts, concepts that are assumed, thereby does the problem of mental health, the mental health issue, become opened up to the possibility that it is not really a problem. This is to say, that the problem itself is aggravated in that cosmologically intuited problem that cognition is something that happens within the human being which is essentially separated from the actual functioning world.

The problem here is then within the construct itself. We thus move into process over placating.

Two dynamics are that’s it play in the perpetuation and maintenance of a problematic heuristic towards mental health, and the cognitive model is that route in this.

On one hand, the cosmological separation of the individual from the rest of the world opens up a gap in conceptual space. This gap that can be only filled in one of two ways,

and that these two ways work to reinforce cosmology behind the scenes.

Number one. The gap is filled with this empirical enigmatic phenomenon called biology, but specifically brain and neurons and Nuro chemistry. The cognitive model can always defer the fundamental problem to be that of Nuro chemistry and Bio physiology. And, as these empirical approach never really solve the problem, but then serve to found and perpetuate a resource for doctors and other moneymakers as career and institution, The client themselves, why approached with a genuine compassion is never the less left out to dry. Strung along a route led by a carrot which is always transcendent to their experience. Placed in the hands of the benefit of the doctors and the therapists and the scientist.

Hence two; the other way to fill this gap is ideological. The reason why the default is to Nuro chemistry and biology is so that the ideology is either understood as a fantasy, or Theory, or as just resultant to the Nuro chemistry, which is nothing more than to say that we our individual human beings with Nuro chemical problems that is having an issue of concept and precept upon the world that is separate from us.

The ideology fills the function of a religious cosmology. For, the function of religion is not analysis, it is not that “God is dead”. The very notion that God is dead fulfills the religious function of the modern individual in society and the world. Just as its counterpart, religious theology in the institutional sense, for fills the gap involved in the strictly academic theoretical application of sense.

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