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?

Seeing Empty And Full, and some Jung

The Uses of Not Thirty spokes meet In the hub. Where the wheel isn’t Is where it’s useful. Hollowed out, clay makes a pot. Where the pot’s not is …

Empty And Full

— I love those little poems. They are so filled with meaning. One could even more say:

we structure our thoughts with words, but where are the words are not, there is what is useful.

Or perhaps something in a way even more profound:

psychology provides a structure of explanation about what is going on in mental health,

but where is psychology is not, there is what is useful.

*

Much of my thoughts about psychology, as a career science are generally not very supportive of it. Sadly, I feel that the effective purpose of psychology is to exult status, and not to actually help people. Psychology leaves a sour taste in ones mouth, whenever I think about psychological theories and testing and outcomes and conclusions. When we really look and see what is actually occurring, The psychological proposals that are supposed to help people be mentally healthy tend to appear to be talking about a select few people who want to organize themselves around being mentally healthy. Everyone else, which is the other 88% is left in a gray area where psychology is supposed to mean something to them, that they’re supposed to feel better, but really all that’s happening is they are taking meds and then hoping that The therapy in interventions based on statistical outcomes is making them better than they were two weeks ago or whatever. It’s like a kind of hypnotism or suggestion; psychology the name just has such a force that people having mental health issues, if they are being treated psychologically, then they are sort of “hopefully convinced” well enough that psychology is indeed going to help them, that perhaps they most likely just hope them selves by pretending that they’re doing better. If we ask them more questions, then they will believe we know something useful to help them, kind of approach. The opposite of the notion that was is “not” is actually what is most useful.

*

Psychology in the large general sense is helpful to many people., so I’ll stop that General complaint right there. For like most things, the name ‘psychology’ is used for such a vast assortment of practices and philosophies and determinations for meaning that it almost doesn’t mean anything at all, but that I tend to pick those pieces that are psychological which appear to be at least infused with I want for goodness, and I’ll leave it at that.

Out of compassion, I recognize that most people are stuck in the middle, and so to engage with a philosophical discussion about the merits of what psychology is supposed to deal with, doesn’t really help those people. It just makes them more worried.

**

Id Never really read Carl Jung, which is to say, I’ve never really known about his history very much except in a general sense, and I tend to have only heard about and base my opinions upon just general kind of “spiritual” notions that he tends to be involved with, The “fad” Jungian stuff, and my impression of him has always been slightly worried. I worry that people see what he is saying is so profound.

I’ll try to clarify.

Now that I’ve delved a little bit further into actually the person who he was, and the actual development of his psychological theories, I am confirmed in my concern.

Psychology is not really a science in the sense that we currently understand science, which is to say the “hard” sciences; it is, as a colleague of mine said, a “very soft” science. And in fact, his (a counselor and a registered nurse in the mental health field for over 25 years) opinion was that it is hugely biased and it’s approaches to finding things out, and the people who are psychologists are often extremely pompous and defensive about their practice and Philosophy.

Now, this is just in America. I get the feeling from a European friend-colleague that psychology is very deep over there and taken very seriously as a very profound and substantial body of knowledge. It is in America also, but I tend to think Americans tend to be rebels, and, I am as well just naturally resistant. But I try to keep an open mind.

*

Anyways. Jung.

He definitely develops an intensionally closed system of spirituality. It can’t really be denied once you understand from where the more “spiritual” ideas of Jung in psychology stem. He did not really break from Freud in a radical way, he broke from Freud in that they were generally developing two different systems about how the psyche operates and what it is. By this, I mean to say that they weren’t really considering what is really going on; what was radical about his break it’s ultimately just that they differed on their theoretical opinions. There was nothing really radical about the break except if you consider what was happening in the first part of the 20th century so far as the way that human beings and scientists were able to understand the human being and the universe. They were considering empirical evidence and coming up with theories to explain the empirical given.

I think that is the short tiny short version of what is been confirmed to me through investigating Jung. From this investigation I get the feeling that what people get from Jung usually is really not what he was trying to give. or, indeed what he was trying to give is contrary to what actually occurs. This is to say, in so much as he offers us a closed system, people use that closed system through which to offer a kind of “open psyche” involved with the universe.

This is just a blog post so I’m not going to go into all the various aspects of proof, because it wouldn’t work anyways. Suffice it to say that his assumption was upon an essential difference between the human being and the universe, that this assumption goes by the name “empirical”, and that Jungian psychology is a description of how the psyche functions in so much as the psyche is located and is developed through the physical brain and perhaps general biological human system. If he is understood to have moved out of this closed domain, it is merely because the system that he created posits such transcendence.

His is a perfect spirituality of modernity.

Now, I’m not suggesting that he doesn’t have good things to say or that he did not come up on things that were actually occurring, neither am I saying that some of his extrapolations of explanation are not applicable to what is actually occurring.

However, I am saying that the systems of modernity are inherently partial to subjectivity. This is not because subjectivity accounts for everything that is possible, rather, it is because in the partiality of subjectivity lay the problems and motions that Jung describes. Empiricism is the systemic subjective proposal of objectivity. It stems from and is based in the primacy of the subject given of the universe.

My point is, I suppose, that individuation, the process that the subject is involved with, is in itself, in the end, something that is not modern. It appears Jung did not recognize this, and hence the confirmation of my concern.

The process of individuation is the object of the psychology of the subject.c

Object Orientation, Tool Being, and Kierkegaard

https://anchor.fm/s/50bf1544/podcast/rss

Trying to link this to the podcast. Just click the link, I guess? Its not embedding very well.
Podcast episode cover art

https://anchor.fm/lance86/embed/episodes/The-Object-of-Called-the-Subject-Object-Orientation–Tool-Being-and-Kierkegaard-eutue1

https://anchor.fm/lance86/episodes/The-Object-of-Called-the-Subject-Object-Orientation–Tool-Being-and-Kierkegaard-eutue1
The Object of the Subject

Onto-taxonomy and the Object of the Subject

www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/bitstream/123456789/71894/1/SM Vol 17 pp. 27-36 Young.pdf

And…still finding support for the proposal:

https://epublications.regis.edu/cftsr/vol3/iss2/3/

The irony that never is resolved in the onto-taxonomy proposal itself, is how the content of the argument against an onto-taxonomy is withheld from its own semantic meaning?

I think this is the basic question Harman never deals with. Apparently, humans have a special ability to “withdraw from view”, just as every object has that same ability, but this ability is also exempted or withheld in the intellectual papers which propose the ideal or proposal. How does meaning itself occur precisely and yet withdraw?

In other words, the meaning of the proposal of OOO, namely, that objects withdraw from view, among the extended proposal, is supposed to not withdraw, but rather is proposed in its presentation to be fully present for the purposes of making its point.

It is this situation to which I refer The Two Routes. It concerns the material of the substance of Object Orientation more than its substance itself.

For,

If indeed Triple-O is sound, that is true, then it answers to the two routes.

If it is merely another philosophical proposal, of idealistic argumentative dimentions, then it fails for what it means.

oh?

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

*

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

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

(4) (PDF) Scale Variance and the Concept of Matter | Derek Woods – Academia.edu
— Read on www.academia.edu/26967193/Scale_Variance_and_the_Concept_of_Matter

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

https://epublications.regis.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1035&context=cftsr

“there is nothing to fear but fear itself”

The real problem of humanity is the following: We have paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions and godlike technology. And it is terrifically dangerous, and it is now approaching a crisis overall

-Edward O. Wilson

More proper and truthful version of this statement is:

The real problem is that we are stuck in a manner of viewing ourselves as though we are not what we are, that is, as though our emotional states are not what they actually are, ie paleolithic, that are institutions are something other than what they are, ie medieval, and our technology more than it is, ie godlike.

As an Object Oriented Ontology might propose: we are perpetually misunderstanding and misperceiving that actual situation of our objective universal being.

Form/Matter/Chora: Object Oriented Ontology and Feminist New Materialism | Rebekah Sheldon – Academia.edu

(88) (PDF) Form/Matter/Chora: Object Oriented Ontology and Feminist New Materialism | Rebekah Sheldon – Academia.edu
— Read on www.academia.edu/11294107/Form_Matter_Chora_Object_Oriented_Ontology_and_Feminist_New_Materialism

—– Cule.

Great survey of the issues at hand, and more.

Even as it is quite deep within the postmodern religious scholasticism, it’s more general points are grounding. Where she falls off and over is in following the intuitive-intellectual coordination into idealized synthetic Being. The object she attempts to address really does withdraw from view despite her argument. Quite transcendental to my viewing.

What I mean by this is that just because we can conceptualize ideas and they can make sense, does not mean they are true. They can be put to use, but then we are left with our responsibility.

In a way I am concerned with intellectual discourses which are self referent and justified by that referent in all instances — except when they are not being activly employed.

😑

?

A little
Too metaphysical and, really, fantastical. And verges into an extended academic fantasy land – even while the initial grounding is solid.x

The choir sings!!

… but I like the use of Khora. 

The Dealing of Philosophy

by John Clark Philosophy is in decline. You hear it all the time. The evidence is regularly trotted out: fewer graduates; no jobs; no prospects; a …

The Healing of Philosophy

——- Physician, heal thyself!
I love this post. Not only is it a Nice reflection upon the situation, but I also think it indicates a problem in philosophy: it has no body !

I think one of the things that we found out in late 20th century Philosophy. and coming into the 21st-century, is, that human beings have an ability to cast its self it’s ideas, upon the world and make the World answer to its ideas.

This is particularly a 20th century phenomenon. To the extent that many of us are not able to read philosophy that arises outside of the 20th century within its own temporal manifestation. We simply are unabke to conceptualize what they were talking about in the proper sense of what they were talking about becuase of the manner that philosophy is prefugured now in the ideological context of nothingness; we hear everything, read all text, in the context of an atemporal yet universal code of words, of idealized thoughts of definition.

The issue with 20th century philosophy ever since Wittgenstein , but I might even say ever since Kierkegaard pointed it out rather specifically, without actually naming it I would say (lol. Kierkegaard talked about it specifically but never named it in a way that the 20th century could understand)– it is that we are able to become enamored with ourselves and us see the world in our own image. (Lacan’s mirror stage). And this is so much the case that we are unable to even consider philosophy that didn’t arise in our 20th century understanding of it: that is the definition of the end of philosophy that we had been dealing with for the past 20 years at least. namely, that philosophy argues its own self reflection as the valid point across all philosophical dimensions, time being that main component, that main dimensional feature of being.

And without going into the further discussion of this discrepancy that makes Philosopher is so adamant and adherent to their own view, as though ones own view is able to argue with someone else’s view, that is, is even able to encounter it– this is the definition of modern subjectivity that brings about the end of philosophy, anyway we want to put it, this is the fundamental and basic issue that we are dealing with. And, We might say, is the reason why “realism” has become so popular lately: as though suddenly we can change our interests and be able to change how we see things. We’ve been so caught up in ideas and thoughts, now we are trying to find what is actually “real”. 

But my point is less intellectual. philosophy argues itself into its own ontological corner through its reliance upon epistemological identity, which is to say, where we see and understand terms as identifying some thing that exists between people who think, but also between the thought in the world, thereby are we are caught ultimately in an idealism. For any other name.

This is what Michel Foucualt and perhaps others, were dealing with in their works; this particular issue that keeps coming up over and over again. Recall Kierkegaard’s work “repetition”.

The body was “cut away” by the surging force of the intellect, until the ‘gaze’ that the intellect identified with the object became the whole of interest: This is clinical medicine. The body was replaced with a holistic version of the intellectual gaze of sense. Disease became positive and the body negative until we now no longer even an ability to ground knowledge except in the gaze-idea, the knowledge-power of the subject of reality.

And philosophy has supported the whole notion the whole way. The basic issue is that Philosophy has removed itself from the body by which it originally gained credence.

Yet, in contrast to the modern ideological development and to point the view to where it does not want to look: I will go so far as to say that there is nothing that exists in the universe that does not have a body. And this is to say that everything and anything that has any sort of truth that we work with is a body. Hence we find many authors talking about this very thing, even though they might not put it in terms of “a body”. Many authors talk about how Philosophy. has just become subjective abstraction, various idealisms caught in their own subjective worlds asserting themselves over other peoples essential Transcendent represented in words.

The problem is that we are talking about nothing; we are talking about talking. That philosophy has become an eternal argument about vacuous idealism.

thanks post guy!

x

xxxxxx