Is Graham Harman as New Materialist??

from Antiquities Beyond Humanism ed E Bianchi, S. Brill, B. Holmes
— Read on www.academia.edu/39168908/Hyperobjects_OOO_and_the_eruptive_classics_field_notes_of_an_accidental_tourist

—–  I’m posting this essay because it might be informative to some in general.

I have not read it. I read pretty much the first three sentences, and then I stopped…

Is Graham Harman part of the New Materialist genre?

 It’s interesting, how the motions of theory move through existence:  It’s an odd sort of experience of people thinking that they’re thinking, but not really thinking. It’s like they read authors and then they move in the opposite direction in their portrayal of them. Not just a different direction, but they really begin to address some thing that has, sometimes to my view, not very much about the author that they’re referring to is really talking about..

 It’s quite strange.

 I don’t think that Dr. Harmon will read my blog here, but I’m fairly certain that he denies that he’s a materiallist. And so here’s this author, publishing, a paper, if you notice that this is a proof, or some sort of draft for some publication that’s coming out, and the first couple sentences they pretty much have incorrect. I mean, unless Dr. Harmon just doesn’t give a shit anymore about what people label him, and I think he wouldn’t give a shit because he’s got his life and then it’s fine I suppose. 😄

 I am pretty certain that Graham Harmon has denied that he’s a materialist. 

The author also puts object oriented ontology, Graham Harmon’s project, under Karen Barad and the new materialist people, when actually he was coming up at the same time. It’s just is justified to say that the new materialist are a type of object, oriented ontology, which is patently ridiculous.  That’s why I didn’t read the rest of his article, because he’s pretty much telling me that he’s living in a fantasy land of his own academically semantic making.

It just amazes me. Why people are so ready to move into subjective meaning over that objective truth.

And: don’t you think it’s strange, me, as a counselor, as a mental health counselor, that I would be saying that people should move more in the direction of objective truth, rather than semantic, and the situating of terms as an ontological basis?!

 I would think that in itself forget your mind, moving as to what is truly happening in contrast to the meaning that you’re really coming up with.

Have you begun to think?

I feel it goes all back to postmodernism. People love the meaning they make, so much that, often, they are unable to hear what someone else is saying.

Whatever people wanna call themselves, really the first title of the writing should be postmodernist and then parentheses (whatever they’re trying to name themselves).

Honestly, I think the real issue is that philosophers are never clear about really what they’re talking about, nor what they’re talking from in their proposals, but, due to that they are blind to their assumptions, as well that they are even blind to being blind to them. And that’s the basis for post modern academic theory. 

If you’re curious about why I say this, you can check out my blog posts from probably three or 4+ years ago on this very blog.

Have a great day.

Science is not in opposition to ignorance

Only by a certain orientation upon knowledge does oppositional categories have significant affect.

I was reading a paper, part of the paper anyways, where the author talks about John Locke saying his work not involved with science.

Just got me thinking. Georg Hegel, and many more philosophers for sure we’re trying to find some sort of “science“ of …what? Now that were in the moment that were in, I’m not sure we really are identifying what science actually is.

Indeed, even scientists would give us a definition that if we were to look into what it really means, or what it’s really identifying, we would find that it is like saying that that object over there is a chair. Any mediocre Philosopher knows that as soon as we attempt to investigate an object from the standpoint of the phenomenology of the subject, we find that there’s nothing really there that the word identifies. I’m short, that language or words of language are arbitrary.

Science as Truth

I am the first person to suggest that words are not arbitrary. Even while I hang on to the logic of the philosophy which understands words and sounds and symbols is not necessarily being linked to the object that they suppose.

I feel this is a more significant venture for philosophy: that words identify things that truly arise in the universe. That the knowledge of things in such a way is indeed a science, or indeed can be eventually found out and known truthfully in a system of science.

Now, of course, the only logical means to understand that last phrase that I gave is to understand that I am not in a project that has to do with the present moment, so far as modern science. But rather, indeed science is some thing that human beings are involved with teleologically, that is to say, universally. So it is that I say that my work has to do with disrupting correlated terms, which is to say, terms that arise in a polemic which seem like they’re true, but Are really only given into a particular kind of knowledge. I called this particular kind of knowledge modern.

This is interesting because if I’m going to propose that my work has something to do with science then I must realize that there is a current working epistemological paradigm that functions, indeed as it promotes a faith in, it’s mode of corrections, it’s patterned system of lacunae, and that if I am going to propose that my work is scientific, then I must indeed deal with the present misunderstanding that is common empirical science as a thing that arises truly in the universe as well.

In this way, then, we can begin to understand a progress of the human species, of the human being, that betrays the common ideological heritage. We can begin to see that a science arises through a different kind of understanding of what has been happening in the growth of the human creature through time, and indeed that’s come upon a different understanding of what time actually is. After all this: we can find a scientific truth of the universe that human beings can know and apply.

Post Truth?

This is also to say that we must contend with idiocy. We must contend with the idiocy of the conservative liberal “science” -oriented modern epistemological technology, and those correlations that constitute its basis, those who have a different opinion, that knowledge which arises as “conspiracy“, The conveyors of post truth, and otherwise ignorant people, warmongers of 19th century disposition, etc..

A little while ago the philosopher Alain Badiou suggested that the radical political move would be to not vote. Basically, to drop out of involving oneself with politics. That this indeed would be the radical political move. And of course, all those for Social Justice really had to take what he was saying and apply it ironically, metaphorically, as if he really wasn’t saying what he was saying.

For, for those oriented in the social justice of empirical modern reality, one must make choices into political action..

Disjointed and disconnected as it is from any true universe — when we begin to comprehend that I am not involved in the constituting of the other, then we can truly begin to understand what subjectivity is and how it indeed arises as a true thing in the universe.

We find that we just must do what we do, and in that doing we arise as a truly radical political entity. The choice into political agency is based in a decision that cannot be made.

The Moment of Decisive Significance

I’m not making a political statement here, really. .

Science as the Object of the Subject.

Maybe that’s what I’m saying. Science is always epistemological. Epistemology grants the significant understanding of the true universe.

🧐

The Philosophical Hack

We are so motivated and conditioned by the given modern phenomenology that we become fearful and skeptical when the word “truth” arises. So far as mental health, this kind of fear is “the final frontier“, and it is usually a fear that resides so deeply and so substantially that people just consider it normal. Indeed, it is so foundational, it constitutes the basis of modern identity, such that most people would be content in the contradictions that uphold their identity, to have some personal and private spirituality and religious belief, that most mental health issues are never encountered. That is the way of the modern capitalistic world; we cannot impose mental health upon all of humanity and its social systems, if simply because we have no way of affectively addressing it. Hence, I see ethics as having to do more with logistics, and less of what meaning and decisions we see ourselves needing to make.

🦥

The truth is in there.

👽

The Object of the Subject

“The Philosophical Hack uses Slavoj Zizek’s book ‘Event’ as a platform from which to hack into philosophy. A hack is someone who is adept in technology and standard methods but is not employed to make marketed products. Yet in another sense, a hack is a repeated application of a specific yet broad algorithmic protocol upon a closed problematic space. The role of the hack is at once to disrupt and to consolidate. The hack is a check on the security of closed functional systems, as well as the impetus for its growth. Defining this problematic space through a careful assault on weak points in the philosophical facade, Nathaniel offers us a way into a science of philosophy. Mr. Nathaniel is writing to a wide intelligent audience in such a way that the philosophical mind will not be ostracized but will indeed be challenged. It is indeed a philosophical hack.”
— Read on www.lulu.com/shop/cedric-nathaniel/the-object-of-the-subject/ebook/product-24228206.html

More by:

https://www.lulu.com/spotlight/Landzek/
x

Rp and comment on Ontological Mathematics & Theory of Everything 3b: The Meaning of Tautology

What language carries meaning, and how is it defined? Are tautologies meaningless, or meaningful? How does a tautologous system compare to an …

Ontological Mathematics & Theory of Everything 3b: The Meaning of Tautology

/—
What a nice education!

My work is primarily about the epistemological condition of the two routes, and how that applies to activity in the world.

Though I never really thought about it in the way that this guy is putting forth, and I’m not haven’t been very familiar with Godel. however, his discussion about tautology and axiomatic Systems really support what I’m talking about when I talk about orientation.

Enjoy!

And. Happy resurrection day!

Rp and Comment on if Can consciousness be simulated?

David Chalmers in his book: Reality+: Virtual Worlds and the Problems of Philosophy, eventually gets around to addressing the 800-pound gorilla in …

Can consciousness be simulated?

—-
The Two Routes version of the problem:

Reality can only be encountered and negotiated. If reality arises beyond that scope, it merely verifies the truth of the initial statement of reality as what is happening.

consciousness arises as it does, having properties that appear in whatever manner that we deal with in what ever way we do, just as everything else also deals in the same way; that is, in the manner that it does.

However, this does not argue that it has no value, cannot be known as a means to get something else done, or is a moot point.

The Real question hudden within the question of consciousness has to do with what we can use it for.

Encasing the Real question is that true question, the question that spoils the party, and grabs people up to attend a different party. Most people at the party, though, will think that the party’s over and think that they have to go home. But in actuality there is another party that they’ve just missed. 

Because the whole discourse on consciousness is nothing different than having a discourse about television sets, atoms, computers, parties, or shirts, or even fashion or hearing aids. As we may want to know what a hearing aid is in its reality, what we are really asking is how we can use it to establish ourselves in the world as a known being; we are equating thus being with doing.

Im not going into all of the extended possibilities here, though.

This is also to say that such discussions about what consciousness is whether or not technology one day will be able to embody consciousness, is really interesting. Things that arise in reality are interesting; this is true.

This is why we can say that no one really cares about what it’s true because it’s not very interesting. And in general, if I’m in any sort of career that Hass to do with thinking about philosophical subjects, I’m probably not gonna be very interested in finding out the truth of what I’m doing and report on it. The simple reason is, once I begin to report upon what I’m doing, I’m probably not gonna end up making very much money from it or be able to pay my rent and have social credit. Because what I may be doing, is doing that is not only very interesting, but is very important.

In as much as I would have to talk about the interest that is involved in what I’m doing, I lose interest, credit, and this has to be very important and interesting because I wouldn’t be doing it unless it was.

Rout.

The key situation involved in the two routes has to do with a recognition of what is actually occurring. And this has to do with knowledge. It doesn’t really have to do with what I do when I go out with my friends at night. Or what I do to make a living. It has to do with the truth of the situation. Whether or not I get intoxicated from drinking beers and have fun with my friends is not as interesting about all the details about the truth that I went out last night and drank some beers and had fun.

So it is, the catch with reckoning epistemology to find out actually what is happening truthfully in our academic efforts, is that I’m not making an argument to say that there’s something wrong with the reality of the situation. I definitely Am not suggesting that we don’t deal with reality every day, or that we shouldn’t have to, or that we don’t have to because there’s another way to be.

Offense.

What really grates on peoples nerves is that if I say that there’s nothing wrong with the reality of the situation, it often tells people that I’m making an argument about what is true or false, and then they will tell me a bunch of things that’s really wrong with reality. Such as gangster dictators invading a country that they have no business in. 

😁. Of course they will. And inasmuch as their interests are very important they indicate that they are oriented in reality to find the truth of being.

Upon reckoning what is actually happening, though, our relationship with technology changes, And the question posed here, in the link, is changed at its root.

That’s all for now.

xxx

Team, Agency, Idealism and Philosophy

“When one speaks about a thing, she does so vicariously.”

—- Cedric Nathaniel.

Team Work

I think I’m just naturally rebellious. I’m not at heart a joiner.

I can, though, be a team player. In fact, I love where I work primarily because we have such a great team. However, I feel that a team is a group of people who all have a common goal, even while they may not have a common general philosophy behind what we do as a team toward that goal. We definitely do not share a similar ideology or belief about what it is we are involved with or what it means. Quite remarkably, we share a common purpose as a motion of what we are doing. We work well as a team because we share the common bond of what we do together.

I’d have to say that a team is the name for a motion of a group of people who feel a sense of camaraderie around a purpose. Even if that purpose is philosophically indistinct.

My Issue with Society, or the Ideal of the Social

I am, somehow, involved with society and social things, even as I would say I’m not a very social person. My therapeutic work as a counselor has something to do with society, as a sort of underpinning, only spoken in certain context specific to the client, primarily concerned with the person or people in front of me and not theories or ideologies.

Yet, my philosophical work is not social, neither is it about a person, the person, or people. I have to use these words and indeed I talk about them and they are involved with my work; however, I feel if I use these words or invest myself too much into the objects that these words are supposed to be indicating as a substrate (subjects), I cannot help but to feel naturally resistant.

That is the critical posture despite belief.

I feel that being human, being part of society, dealing with people and the world, it’s just some thing that happens. It is a kind of given that has nothing to do with whether or not I’m using words about them or making theories, asserting my agency about how they might fit together, what they are, or what we’re supposed to do about them.

Does God Exist?

Reference my approach on the issue of God‘s existence.

Recently, I was come upon by a person and a discussion with them that comes every once in a while, but routinely.

The question that will come out is, “Do you believe in God?” Or similarly, “Do you believe that God exists?”

My answer was met with a blank stare and look of confusion from the other person.

My answer: “ The existence of God has nothing to do with any effort I make. God‘s existence has nothing to do with my belief. Belief, I feel, is overdetermined. I use the word ‘belief’ very intentionally, in the sense that “I believe I might play guitar today”, or, “I believe that this coffee is too cold”. I do not use the word ‘belief’ as indicating anything that has to do with the truth of some thing, some supposed or proposed object of the question. For example, I do not believe that the chair exists. But likewise, any discussion about the theory of existence does not require my belief. Rather, I would believe something within the discussion with reference to the discussion that already exists or is existing by virtue of the fact that we’re having the discussion.

So it is: I do not believe that God exists.

But if I say that to a person that’s asking me whether I believe that God exists or whether or not I believe in God —which I see is basically the same question despite philosophical dissections — what will happen is that the person will routinely misunderstand what I’m saying. I

So, in my effort to try to be clear to this person about what I’m saying, I simply tell them that I have no belief about god whatsoever, simply by virtue of the fact that God‘s existence has nothing to do with whether or not I believe in it (him,her). And I might add, in the same way as your existence has nothing to do with whether or not I believe that you exist.

Prior Categories

If we understand anything about what people have said philosophically over the years, it is a plain fact that I have to somehow deal with the categories that are already there. It has nothing to do with whether or not I believe they exist; it has more to do with whether or not I feel that those categories are accurately representing the situation in which I find myself.

Note: The categories have to do with the situation in which I find myself.

This is different than what I see is most philosophers discussing. Most philosophers, most essays books treaties arguments speak of categories as if they exist independent of other things. And so the discussion or the argument revolves around a very subjective, phenomenal existence: the phenomenal agent is able and is justified in distinguishing things in themselves apart from other things. This despite what argument they might be making or what category to which they apply themselves.

So it is that in dealing with this situation, I find difficulty at every turn calling myself a philosopher. My assertion mostly fails at every juncture. I understand intuitively what I mean, but as I go to engage philosophically with what society or the larger group of people who are supposedly involved with Philosophy understand as Philosophy, I find myself at an impasse. I find myself unable to move. I feel it in a very regular way, as I put it, probably because I’m not a joiner. Idealism is not really my thing.

The Epistemist

I have to find someway to identify what it is that I’m involved with. I find most of the given philosophical categories are so well assumed, that I am excluded, in the Kantian scheme, a priori and synthetically.

I am involved with knowledge. No matter what else is going on, everything has to pass through knowledge. It doesn’t matter so much whether that is a phenomenon; indeed I would have to say it is indeed a phenomenon, but then also we’ve already found out everything there is about the logic of phenomenal existence as a category. If you would say we haven’t then I would say you are either just beginning or missed something. Then perhaps we should have an discussion. I’m not sure…

Nonetheless, epistemology would be the usual way that I might identify myself. But I also find that if I start saying ‘epistemology’ there is a whole set of presumed and assumed history about what I’m talking about and what I’m doing.

I am going to try and use a new term:

The Epistemist

This has to do with everything that can possibly exist, be talked about, be known, and must arise in knowledge and discourse truly. 

As well, because I think when we start to talk about “philosophy of…” some thing interesting, we have necessarily fallen into a discourse and understanding that already exists, and thereby excludes what we’re really talking about as a subject of knowledge. So, what an Epistemist deals with is truth Philosophy.

It does not propose a philosophy of truth, because it is already dealing with everything that can be exist by virtue of the fact of addressing knowledge truly.

What Do We Have?

A philosophical method.

I have an issue with conventional philosophy: the method it assumes to make its statement that the problem of the criterion is generally figured to be the main problem of epistemology, is a real philosophical issue. So, because we can indicate the method as redundantly involved with the problem it poses, I must disagree to the basic premise that is going unsaid. Namely, that there is a knowable center of knowing from which knowledge can be said to be knowledge.

However, my extended discussion is not this post. I really mean to show how this conventional philosophical method extends and plays out all across every aspect of knowledge that figures itself to be philosophical.

And here is an example:

The Problem of the Criterion: A Christian’s Thoughts – The Council — Read on spirited-tech.com/2021/06/02/the-problem-of-the-criterion-a-christians-thoughts/

The issue that I’m pointing out is that there really is no distinction between what could be a philosophy of Christianity any proposed Philosophy and argumentation about it.

This is the problem is the criterion: There is no criterion. Which is to say, the criterion is the proposal itself, what I call “redundant”.

And in comparison, we might even suggest that Christianity is being more honest in where it gets its idea for its proposal, because at least these Christian apologists say that there is an intuitive understanding of God that is informing our ability to make statements and arguments. In a strange way, I think this is more honest than what more academic philosophers would say about ideology or politics or any other topic. Even the Michel Foucault users – and I like Foucault – are unable to admit such a simple idealism at route to their discussion.

So it is that I say when we talk about what is actually occurring, what knowledge actually is, what epistemologically must be the case, I feel that these philosophical ideals really fall drastically short.

And if you’re interested you can look past into my blog, and maybe even read some of my published material.

Object Relations

"A Word of Substance"

Random thoughts

Random musings about everything.

Wise & Shine

Understanding ourselves and the world we live in.

Taxshila Teachers

Learning is knowledge transfer to brain known as learnography

Resiliency Mental Health

Dr. Amy Marschall, Licensed Psychologist

A New Vision for Mental Health

New and interesting things are happening in mental healthcare – find out about them here and help shape a new vision for mental health

Mental Health 101

Author/Writer @ Thought Catalog, LiberoMagazine, Invisible illness&TotallyADD peer supporter trainee I blog to bring awareness to mental health issues

Secrets of Mental Health

The Choice is Yours!

RTS -Mental health

Facing The Challenges of Mental Health

Spo-Reflections

To live is to battle with trolls in the vaults of heart and brain. To write; this is to sit in judgment over one's Self. Henrik Ibsen

Mind. Beauty. Simplicity

living with less gave me more to live for

Olivia Lucie Blake

Musings of a Millennial. Life, The World and Everything In Between.

Damon Ashworth Psychology

Clinical Psychologist

Mental Health @ Home

A safe place to talk openly about mental health & illness

Lifesfinewhine

The Life & Ramblings Of A Zillennial

The Absurd

piles of dog-eared books, fountain pens, poetry, romance and despair, existential crisis, anarchy, rebellion

THE HIDDEN SOUL

Want some motivation,this is the place

Bio-Blogger

Bio-Blogger is an excellent source for collaborations and to explore your businesses & talents.

Wibble

Just another glitch in the matrix

Filosofa's Word

Cogito Ergo Sum

Climate of Sophistry

Climate science is sophistry...i.e., BS.

Tallbloke's Talkshop

Cutting edge science you can dice with

a joyful life

happiness joy love kindness peace

The Twisting Tail

the world turns on a word

Mytika Speak

Where Logic and Feeling Unite

Notes from Camelid Country

A travel blog from Bolivia to Belgium via Berlin

Heroes Not Zombies

becoming not being.......

Emotional Shadows

where all emotions are cared for!

Soulsoothinsounds's Blog

For those awakening divine humans

Peacock Poetry

by Sam Allen

Union Homestead

An urban homesteading family move to the country; still a story of trial and error...a lot of error!

The adopted ones blog

Two adoptees - one vocal the other not so much...

Conversations on finding and loving who I am

Let's have an open conversation about life.

ThoughtsnLifeBlog

Change your thoughts change your life

Tips from Sharvi

Tips to make your daily life easier!

mulyale mutisya

what the eyes have seen, ears have heard, being has experienced and what the Spirit has felt.

TheCommonAtheist

One minute info blogs escaping the faith trap

beetleypete

The musings of a Londoner, now living in Norfolk

radhikasreflection

Everyday musings ....Life as I see it.......my space, my reflections and thoughts !!

THE SPECTACLED BEAN

Tales, Thoughts + Tribulations of a Free Spirit in Suburbia