I want to make a Hyper-Book Reader’s Guide to a book by François Laruelle, A BIOGRAPHY OF ORDINARY MAN, which was translated into English only …
Although the title that Laruelle has chosen for his manual for a new paradigm of thought may surprise us “A BIOGRAPHY OF THE ORDINARY MAN” taken in …
The United States’ Second Independence Day!
￼ Ive heard opinions that while this moment should be officially recognized, we should’ve named it something different because it’ll confuse everyone having two independence days.
￼￼I think it’s fabulous. Yes,￼ fabulous in that we are recognizing a significant truth in the real history of this country, but also that there are Two recognitions that ultimately inform the truth of the actual situation.
This resonates so incredibly well with my philosophical notion of the Two Routes upon objects.
In thier individual truths, they cannot reduce to the other in fact. ￼￼￼￼They can only do so in real reductive argument.
Yet, aside from that method of arguing, one always excludes the other, while the other includes the exclusion. They both, as real non philosophical aspects, constitute the truth of the situation.
— from “All Thoughts Are Equal”. by john maoilearca
While Laruelle Is often understood to be taking a hard line about some thing that is absolutely and insistently true, If we can get on board with Zizek always asking “what if” the philosopher really doesn’t know what he’s talking about and that it is up to us, the subsequent, to pull out the true ramifications of any philosophy — If we can really get behind this, not as a post modern eternal subjectivity which just gets to make up its own meanings about anything and live in its own world of utter alienation, rather, As indeed that is what is actually occurring despite what people want to argue about might be the case —
Then a more realistic understanding of what Laurelle is talking about concerns more how the human being actually functions, how the mind functions to allow for real understanding of things manifested as knowledge.
when we understand what non-philosophy is really saying about philosophy, it is then not so much that philosophy is wrong or pointing to something that is not real. it is more indicating what is actually occurring in these tropes that we know under various terms, such as, consciousness, thinking, perception, knowledge. etc.
and, when we get over the basic offense of how non-philosophy seems so ridiculous, then we begin to truly understand what it is that we are going through as human beings in the world.
as Laruelle points out here and there, This move that I’m talking about has nothing to do with removing philosophy or negating it or suggesting in any way that philosophy is giving us things that are wrong. It is only that philosophy is giving us things in a certain light, and that this light, in this way that I’m talking about, is real. Not non-philosophically real, but in the actuality of the process that philosophy is involved with in itself, which is to say, as an object in its self of the universe￼.
This is thus not a negation of philosophy to say that we need to choose some other route or somehow come cognitively or non-cognitively, have some sort of intuition of how philosophy is giving us incorrect information somehow. No. Laruelle’s hard line is merely for effect, the necessity for noticing. ￼ rather, we begin to understand that philosophy is giving us a particular view upon reality. And that non-philosophy therefore has more to do with what is true then it does with reality. And again, this is not to say that somehow I get to dismiss myself from reality and dealing with real things. But it does say something about how now I approach reality, it does say something about how I appear, how I arrive in reality, as well as saying something about my relationship to other people, things, and the world. ￼￼￼
There is a kind of therapeutic intervention, or philosophical manner which describes how or why the therapeutic intervention should have its foundations.
It is called, for lack of a better term, the “noticing self”. What it asks of someone who has an issue is for them to sit and be mindful or aware of what is occurring. For example, one finds a comfortable way of sitting or standing or whatever, and then soon notices the sound of a jet flying over to the left and above. Crickets chirp Ahead and to the right; the small clicking of a dogs paws on the cement. The tug on one’s arm and the various muscle groups extending through that arm and into the back and in the body… etc… whatever it is, the person is asked to just point their attention to these things that are occurring in various ways.
Thoughts going through one’s mind might eventually come forward into awareness. The thoughts about the sound of the plane, thinking about the dog’s small clicking paws on the cement, etc.
The ideas that go through the person’s head about the things that are in awareness become things that are no different than those other things, so far as they enter the field of awareness.
People tend to associate themselves, their issues, their problems, their identity, their persona, their humanness, their being, their souls, etc. as indeed one with one’s thinking and thoughts about such matters. Hence the difficulty of mental illness, hence the difficulty of attempting to try and help someone that might have a mental issue — any problematic mental occurrence really, whether it has to do with thinking in particular or one’s actions that may or may not stem from thinking but it least concern the fact that one might be thinking about it.
So there is a particular type of therapeutic intervention called the “noticing self”. And what a “noticing self” is is an awareness of one’s thoughts. And the actual intervention is for a person to see or comprehend the possibility that there is something else that is noticing these things, something that is noticing the thoughts that is not exactly thinking.
I might postulate in reflection to Agent Swarm‘s post is that what is stable or unshakable is indeed this noticing self. The noticing self does not change under all these other conditions that are noticed. But indeed the noticing self only changes under these conditions when one understands the noticing self as a condition of these aspects that it notices. The noticing self does not change, but to speak precisely, if the noticing self changes then there is no noticing self. These are two mutually exclusive situations, not one situation that must reduce to one or the other.
Philosophically speaking, there is nothing that a therapist can do, or a philosopher, to get a person to realize or understand what this noticing self might be. In fact there is no amount of talking or guided visualization or analogy or descriptive philosophy or argumentation that can make a person recognize this noticing self. And because this is the case, one is only left to say that indeed there are two situations, at least, of being human.
It is not so much that such people are incapable of noticing or are simply not noticing something that is inherently common of being human. Rather, because, say, the therapist understands it self in the context of a noticing self, the unshakability of the therapist, with regards to this noticing self and as involves the relationship and interaction, allows that person with a mental issue the contingency available to them as truly having no self that can be noticed outside of the conditions which are those things that thought is attached to. The interaction can occur because there indeed is a differential in ontological bases.
Two Routes is not about a reductive ontology but is indeed about an effective and functioning teleology. One that recognizes difference as indeed different.
When we remove the ideal of Providence and communion from the experience of the Being Of Human, we are left with the realization that, often enough, an idea of a particular author was not unique to him or her. What arises is the awareness that what they had come upon was already there for anyone to see, suspended, if you will, in the conditions that are present at every moment.
One might then understand that the only force which is (1) preventing everyone from seeing it, (2) allowing or creating a condition of seeing that an idea should be credited to a particular author as though that author’s being and therefore thought processes are unique, (3) presenting ideas which are “built” off of previous (temporally past) ideas, is that force which arises in the idea of such real-true organization of things. It is the conditioned idea which develops an individual to view Itself within certain lines of causality that are drawn by ideologically implicit limits, or “prohibitions” which derives the modern subject as such, and not ideas as the mind might be naturally or intrinsically inclined to have or be able to work with.
This presentation can be verified by the very notion which understands any idea as not conditioned by the conventional organization of prohibitions, “commandments” and “sacraments”; to wit, the default against which a natural and fully available idea might exist means nothing or otherwise occupies a space within the conditioned ideology as a blank spot, a nothingness, whereAs in actuality the non-conventional thought has the larger explanatory, as well as effective power.
The discrepancy thus defines what modern subjectivity is as a cosmological player-piece, against what the human being actualy is as a universal object. Forever protecting its ideal freedom, it misses that which is of its self which is causing the inherent problems of the world being. It is making a mistake in conceptualizing freedom along and either or fulcrum, as though to give up ones freedom somehow a person then becomes powerless as well.
We thus might then be able to understand that capitalism is less a political or ideological space than it is the name of a certain type of mythos which is operative presently in the formation of reality.
The example of this is found when one notices any disjuncture in understanding of known things. For example: the hitting of my thumbs upon a flat plastic/glass rectangular face has no connection to the the key strokes used to write an application by which people discuss ideas. Another example is spreading peanut butter on bread. Or jelly. Or a Lyft and an Uber.
All that is needed is an awareness of a possibility of disconnection where continuity is assumed as given and solute; there we have the manner by which the human being may fit in the universe with every other being that exists, as opposed to every being having to be subject to the Being that is human which thinks.
What is most difficult to imagine is how indeed human beings continue and indeed thrive outside of or despite the network of connections that arise within the capitalistic mythos (for another term: religious cosmology) of reality.
We might even contemplate how a universe Omni-connected through the thinking human being and only due to its presence has effected the human world in a less-than-positive manner. Think war,addiction, mass-shootings and climate change. The question is not ability, it is responsibility.
We need to be responsible in how we view ourselves and the world to not adhere to limits just because what lie beyond them is offensive to our sense of freedom.
Live-blogging Laruelle’s TETRALOGOS (1): a democratic proposal
— Read on terenceblake.wordpress.com/2019/07/31/live-blogging-laruelles-tetralogos-1-a-democratic-proposal/
The Modern mode is defined by transcendence. Despite the various eras of the scholarly historian, modernity is an annoyingly persistent overlying of transcendence upon existence by reason; always there is a positing of what cannot be proven onto what is apparent and what is religious in this regard is the assumption of what should be apparent by all parties. The atheist is annoyed with the theists, and vice versa. The farmer annoyed with the trader of finance, and vice versa. The regular person is annoyed with technology; the Silicon Valley tech-star cannot understand how technology is pointless. Key-shortcuts on computers are annoying and frustrating to some while wonderfully efficient to others. History was incorrect in this way, and history verifies the various points we wish to make in that way. Everywhere and at all times modernity brings in the transcendent aspect to be concerned with itself; the Wall Street wizard who relies upon her wits to make powerful business deals; the business owner who does yoga to allow him to center on what he has to do today to make and sell the best pastries; the dog walker who has to negotiate eight dogs down a busy city street and pick up after them. Transcendence brings the appearance of reality into focus by presenting us the conditions for existence, from the daily insistences and nuances of social interaction, to the great and deep physical discoveries of science, to the spiritual-magical fronts of consciousness and other planes of existence. Transcendence allows for it all to “be-there”, whether it be ‘only’ thoughts or the ‘actual’ world.
it is possible to understand philosophy as having two dimensions. Non-philosophy thus is the philosophical ability to comprehend the use of the real object called philosophy.
The issue that philosophy raises against this Confinement of its resources and agency, is that philosophy seeS itself –or permits a view that is itself –as without dimension; it understands or otherwise presents reason as having a link to an infinite source, what we generally call transcendence, or what the postmodern called immanence — because what the postmoderns are really saying about immanence is that the human being is able to get a hold of transcendence entirely .
The only argument that philosophy can make against what we are beginning to understand is it’s own limitation is to merely reify it’s access to infinite reasonable adaptation.
And this is why we have to speak of the two routes: conventional philosophical thinking is not really grasping that it is at once an infinite resource, while at the same time able to be described to its limitation. Conventional philosophy will use the rebuttal of no predictive capacity to say that philosophy is not being defined to its limitations. And then the only response to that is that conventional philosophy is not comprehending the issue at hand. Conventional philosophy sometimes then will take that as an affront to its agency, to its eminence, to its privilege and centrality. And thus would be Because it is not grasping that to describe itself to its limitation is not an insult nor an invalidation; rather it is an invitation to its constructive use. All the while opening up an avenue for thought that it is unable to conceive or otherwise encompass.
As well, it generally cannot conceive of an act that is not involved in an assertion of power as it understands power as the ubiquitous universal underlying force. Again, this is the reason why we have to speak of two routes upon objects that do not reconcile into a further unity.