Unexpected synchronous object semantics

Be Your Own Rock




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

Presently I am going through a phase of the latter.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Basis Truth

I could go on.

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

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

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

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

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

…and further commentary.

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

Russell Sbriglia responds

Thanks Doctor Zamalek.

Here is my small comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Conventional Philosophical Method

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

The Question of Truth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reposting Transcript of Interview with Isidore on A BIOGRAPHY OF ORDINARY MAN

TB: Hello, I’m taking a break from my video reading of François Laruelle’s A BIOGRAPHY OF ORDINARY MAN to reply to questions from Isidore. Isidore: …

Transcript of Interview with Isidore on A BIOGRAPHY OF ORDINARY MAN

—- Blake is quite informed and is a Cornucopia of knowledge and experience about Continental philosophies and philosophers.

However, my comment goes more to the difference that is indicated through the Continental tradition, in contrast to the differences in authorial content. If there is an example of what The Two Routes sheds light upon, it is the difference between Blake’s and my own purchases upon the material.

I see Blake’s reading and approach as topical and thus really quite in the material vein, though I am not sure he would identify himself as a materialist. But he does call himself a pluralist, which I associate generally with a material view, or orientation, upon things.

The other route is indeed what is indicated but never revealed aspect of real material, that is, what is true of the material, or, it’s substance. I see Laruelle as implicitly involved with such substance, and at that, aside from the more religious materialistic versions derived by real interpretive readings of him.

Science, Physical Health and mental health: Climate change


One of the problems surrounding Mental health is the weighing of solutions upon the primacy of empirical science and physical health.

A good example of how this is an improper manner to approach solutions is the issue of climate change.

Take the example that this post exhibits. We have known for years and years that these sorts of issues are going to happen. And yet our ability to take action based only upon the empirical ideal is not effective to bring a solution change.

Thinking and proof are not sufficient to constitute the truth of the matter. Something else is going on. The reality is that climate is changing, but the reality of our knowing and thinking about it and doing anything about it does not accord with the truth of it, so far as what is considered a sensible response is not taken.

This is why we need consider that the truth about this situation is not being understood. The truth is what is happening is something else than the reality.


How we approach mental health is similar to what we are seeing of our environment. Mental health suffers when we base healthy interventions weighted too heavily on empiricism and without considering and applying solutions out of what else is happening in the situation.

(Note: Subjectivity and it’s accorded phenomenological analysis is empirical.)

Now, keep in mind, I’m not necessarily saying that the people who have not agreed with climate change or what it means are wrong. I’m not putting up that kind of polemic to say that, oh, a smart people over here know the truth, where as the ignorant people over there are false.

That’s not what I’m saying.

I’m saying that given as a category there is this creature called the human being, and that most human beings, as they are concerned with in the industrialized globe, defer to empirical science to assess what judgments they should make. I’m saying that this manner of understanding the truth of the situation it’s not effective when we think about mental health problems.

But more so, similarly to the global environment, this empirical approach to try and convince people of through evidence and guilt tripping and appealing to some “common human intelligence” is insufficient to bring about the change needed, or at least the change that is advocated for addressing climate change, just as it is appearing I’ll-suited to the task of addressing mental health.

I think this is strangely ironic when we consider that philosophy itself is considered a “sufficient” philosophy, Meaning that our ability to reason upon things is sufficient to excel the human being progressively through history. It is this type of philosophy to which I associate empiricism And phenomenology. If we look back, phenomenology is a type of empiricism, and indeed propagated or at least coincided with the prominence of the ideal (idea) behind “empirical science”.

Apparently and obviously it is not as Objective as it would like to pose and present upon.

So it is that our current understanding of climate change must be incorrect. Both of the people that talk about the empirical science and things that we should do to address climate change, but as well as the naysayers.


This is a radical form of understanding and this is why I say that I am addressing truth, not merely the negotiated reality of proof and attempt to convince through argument.

I am talking about objects in themselves, truth as truth. what is actually occurring.

Subject and Object

I was reading a post about blogging yesterday. It said that in order to get readers you have to talk about “Eureka“ moments.

PThe blogger then goes on to describe how a eureka moment is when you realize some thing that you already knew. So basically, if you want to get readers then you should talk about things that people already know but they don’t realize they know yet.

I don’t think that I’m able to do that. I think that’s why Philosophy. in general has such a low count, a low interest. Philosophy. talks about things that you would know if you actually thought about it, as opposed to something that you already know that you just didn’t realize.

Existentialism was Correct?

The mid20th century existentialist authors were reacting to a trend that they saw in society. Much of the fear, it seems, of these authors was based in that the individual is disappearing. Existentialism is not really what we have made of it in our 21st-century pop-culture.

Awesome, dude !

Existentialism is a concern for the individual, One that arises in a moment to see the real issue of human beings is the apparent effort to not think at all.

The late 20th century authors such as Alain Badiou and Francois Laruelle really put a head to it. If the earlier authors say from the 70s and 80s, the post structuralists and the postmodernists for example, we’re describing this loss as a mechanical afffect, then the post post modern authors running into the early 21st-century were really talking about getting back to the individual.

Now, I know are you well read Philosopher is out there will react and say “no they weren’t, I don’t know what you’re talking about“. However, what we see clearly in these late post post modern authors, these post post structuralist authors, is that we had to learn a new way to talk about things because the individual has all but disappeared.

We see this in the topics that came up 1020 years ago, about the “end of history“, the “end of philosophy“, what non-philosophers would call “in the last instance”. What we see is that it seems natural for the social politic to use syrup (lol. Usurp) in common deer (commandeer) true notion’s, true expressions is that it seems natural for the social politic to usurp and commandeer the true notion, Expressions which speak about the truth of the situation. The social politic which generally does not want to reflect and think, has even commandeered these notions, thinking and reflection, such that now it means next to nothing. All that means is routed back to an individual choice which, as we see, is more and more determined by the power of society, of “group think”. I need not go into the multiplicity of examples that we see everywhere.

To my point, though, of the title of this post is that this is so much the case that subjectivity and objectivity mean nothing of a shadow of the reasons why they arose as a topic of discourse and critique in the first place. Hence, recently authors made fashionable to talk about the object, even now we see that talking about the object has lost its bearings as well, and has been subsumed in a social discourse which pretty much, rather than bringing about any significant change, is working more and more to retain the status quo.

It is this issue that will concern Philosophers of substance going forward. For, What we are trying to understand is the truth. As soon as we begin to understand what is happening in with reality, Society “revolts”, rejects what the commentary and critique is really telling them, and the people fall back into a distorted version of what existentialism was really talking about.

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


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.


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

Anxiety and the Common Cold

Relating mental health physical health; anxiety is not the same as having a cold.

… but our current psychological/scientific mental health paradigm would make us believe that it is similar.

Fear and anxiety are often used somewhat interchangeably. Yet in psychological literature, They are not the same. The influential existentialist psychologist Rollo May asks the question whether or not For a client right in front of us, that is as opposed to philosophical speculation, could we be able to discern in the client between their fear, and the anxiety that shows from it.

Fear is fear of something. Where as anxiety has no object.

In my other posts I talk about how popular discourse, popular culture, commandeers or usurps power from originary discourses, from basic meaning. I even put this phenomenon in terms of modernity. It is to identify the modern method to say that what is true becomes real. (Read Alain Badiou for an excellent rendering have this motion.)

Such is the case with anxiety. We always hear and we talk about how I’m “anxious because..”. But that is not really a proper anxiety. I am anxious, really, Becuase I am feeling not becuase.

That is the irony. We want to address and solve our anxiety by finding a fundamental cause of it. The very human and logical method which would say that we need to find a cause of any effect, and then we can address the effect. Very medical model. And indeed, ultimately, often enough really the only thing we can do to solve anxiety is take a Xanax or a Valium or smoke some weed, among other chemical solutions. But that is an entirely different discussion. It doesn’t so much as solve the anxiety as allow us a certain myopia. Well like I said, different discussion.

Similarly, There is a kind of therapeutic intervention or approach, called positive psychology, which views anxiety, and indeed all mental health issues, as having an object that we can address. If you can address and alter the object of the thing that’s getting in the way of mental health, then your mental health can become better.

I submit that this approach to mental health stems from a want for mental health to be the same as physical health, where I have a pain in my gut, I can point to my inflamed liver, for example.

And this is OK. All I’m really saying is we need to get more discerning about what we are talking about when we talk about mental health. People who address mental health should be more particular and identifying as to what they are really addressing so far when they talk about or assume that there is this general human being who is having mental health issues and here they are going to propose a remedy for it. I feel it creates great confusion, and actually works to perpetuate problem more than it really works towards significant help. It might help some people, but it would probably help exponentially more people if people who are proposing to help around mental issues were more specific about who they’re actually addressing. That is, as opposed to merely saying that I am proposing a solution to “anxiety”.

I hope that resonates for you readers.

The more astute reckoning of anxiety understands that anxiety has no object. We generally put this in the sense of why is someone that would have anxiety when they’re just walking down the sidewalk. Sure, we could ask the person and the person could come up with a number of fears.And, we could say that this person is

Having anxiety because of their over concern with all sorts of various fears, then I’m going to be hit by a car, that a dog is going to run out and bite me, that I might step my toe, etc. And, we could say that this person is having anxiety because of their over concern with all sorts of various fears, then I’m going to be hit by a car, that a dog is going to run out and bite me, that I might stub my toe, etc.

But then what we have as a person listing a series of fears. It doesn’t matter whether they are unfounded or founded, because indeed everyone lives their life under the umbrella of having to be concerned about the various contingencies that could arise out of nowhere.

The person suffering from this kind of anxiety cannot be said to be suffering because of their fears, because of their irrational fears, so to speak.

So it is that anxiety is not like the common cold. We definitely can point to various objects that manifest the cold itself and its symptoms. We can address the symptoms and help the main object of the cold itself to go away. We can even directly address the object of the cold through various types of supplements.

And yet in mental health, when we approach anxiety in this way, more often the anxiety persists, mutates, comes up with other reasons, other fears Two at once explain their anxiety while also ironically arguing for it. It is as though we have an institution that does not wish for anxiety to go away, for a perpetually in forms it’s constituency that anxiety has an object that we can solve or address through the modern methods.

And just perhaps all to coincidently, it is modern methods that make people a lot of money.

Comment on “We’re all just different!” How Intersectionality is Being Colonized by White People

Working in student affairs on a university campus, I feel like I hear the words “intersectionality” or “intersectional” said out loud at least 20 …

“We’re all just different!” How Intersectionality is Being Colonized by White People

—- Aaaand my comment:

The nature of society as an imagined symbolic fantasy is to commandeer and distort for the sake of maintaing the known (real) universe.

Intersectionality, regardless of who puts forth the ‘original’ definition, is the indivisible remaider” where the imagined world coalesces around symbols.

All objects constitute points of origin and markings of relation to other objects. Intersectionality, as a reductionary descriptor for social relations, is a “weighted” object of social concern: It grants the symbol, as a point of deconstruction, or the fantasy, as a ‘vanishing point’ or ‘master signifier’ of the oppressing reality.

The True issue presented by this post is: Will we be permitted to see how our reckoning of change, itself is changed by the force of this argument that is imvolved in real social change?

Colonialization or Meme of Popular Cohesion

Colonization? Whiteness? These have become the vanishing mediators for the present existential motion. It is not necessarily that “white people” are commandeering what is otherwise authentic and particular to people of color; it is more that these terms have become the object around which reality presently or under certain circumstances manifests.

Recently there has been developing around race relations, critical race theory etc., the idea that there can be an ideology, for Black people, for example, that can be distinctly and totally separated from that of the white colonizer. Tommy Curry is one of these who tend to be idealistic about social relation and law.

While I definitely concur with the philosophical notion as it resonnates a similar notion that I have developed around the two routes, when applied in the social sphere, my question would be how are we even communicating this other ideological foundation if there isn’t an underlying ideological foundation through which the two cultures would be interacting?

I feel that Many critical and racial theorist and Philosopher’s are beginning to see through this kind of idealism. Yes, it’s a good discourse to get people to think about what’s actually occurring, but if you stand by that idealistic utopian version of the potential involved with being human, I hate to say it, what has happened is that you are trying to colonize social reality by saying that you know something more which arises outside of our ability to communicate. In this sense, Black people and people of color are just as much colonizers as white people. Indeed, the issue of “whiteness” is not so much about the color of one’s skin, but how individual human beings show up within a framework, themselves intersected by symbols and semantic fantasies in this sense, and Black people and people of color are just as much colonizers as white people. Indeed, As some critical race efforts will agree with, whiteness is some thing that we are all involved with in order to have any identity at all. 

Reality and the two routes

This really is the issue of the two routes that I talk about . With everything positioned in reality, there is some thing that withdraws from relation. but also, that content that withdraws arises in a condition through which communication does take place, perhaps in a different epistemological environment. This is to say, I might be drawing a polemic between ideology and epistemology. 

For, when we began to talk about what knowledge actually is, and if we agree that we are all human beings communicating with each other in some cents, then this idea that there is whiteness and blackness that are ultimately unreconcilable as a social feature, it’s really depending upon the same idealistic notion of a priori reason That realists, speculative or not, are pulling apart. If we want to call this “white Philosophy.” then that’s fine. However, I would offer the challenge of how one would communicate to anyone at all an alternative version of knowledge involved with the human being without at some point resorting to, again, some underlying “big reason”. And that’s my And other philosophers point; Namely, some thing with draws. Some thing tends to always be underneath, which Graham Harmon calls “undermining”, or something that is out of reach above us, what he calls “over mining”.  it seems that whiteness, blackness, and colonialization is an inherent part of being human in the modern world; and indeed, here we are dealing with it. It is not wrong, it is just the particular coordination of knowledge through which Real objects come into being an allow for idealized intersectionality. 

However, where I think my discussion of the two routes is significant, is the admitting that this is the case despite what we might want to argue. As I say, it is a true situation that doesn’t depend on what we argue about it. 


the Modern Real Method

I keep coming back to what I see as a basic and fundamental issue in philosophy.

Why must we reference others to support the veracity of a proposal ?

I mean this in a de facto sense, not de jure. For, of course most modern philosophers we know of make implicit to thier argument the necessity for reference to other authors.

My question is: Why?

Why is Plato and Aristotle and whoever is ‘basic’ not required to reference for thier proposals to have veracity ? And yet no one currently is allowed to propose truths in the same way?

Why is no appeal to truth permitted to thought?

Any ideas?