Back in the heyday of the blogosphere, I posted here frequently and at length. As most discussion migrated onto Facebook, this blog became more of a …
I don’t know why that’s not embedding.
What language carries meaning, and how is it defined? Are tautologies meaningless, or meaningful? How does a tautologous system compare to an …
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.
And. Happy resurrection day!
David Chalmers in his book: Reality+: Virtual Worlds and the Problems of Philosophy, eventually gets around to addressing the 800-pound gorilla in …
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.
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.￼
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.
“When one speaks about a thing, she does so vicariously.”
—- Cedric Nathaniel.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
Supercomputer simulations of galaxies have shown that Einstein’s theory of General Relativity might not be the only way to explain …
—– Real objects withdraw from view and relation. Real objects arise in this manner encrusted with qualities that come into appearance as to embody or correlate with the terms which pose to identify them.
Yet, in truth, terms merely float like Pacific Islands, over the molten core of the real object.
Thus, in truth, we speak less of how terms are correlated with other terms or encrustments, less of what argument may appear as more true or more plausible than another, and more of what is actually occurring in that activity of knowing anything at all.
The irony is that blogging, by its very nature, is a motion of modern subjective materialism.
People who are interested in true substance are not often reading blogs.
In true Zizekian form, The blogosphere is a place where imaginary transcendence is verified to an absolute epistemological horizon.
The question is: might we speak of this transcendence directly, instead of perpetually suspending it in what we might want to call the “spirit affirming“ nothingness of semantic inspiration, aka religious Spirituality?
Then, we should note what offends.
For, this offense marks where discussion stops. Where discussion revolves and involves nothing of substance.
What we are asking for with object orientation is to continue the discussion into that uncomfortable area.
New album coming…2022
Stay in tuned.
There is only the Two. Open and Closed.
The covert sound philosophy includes all possibility of knowledge.
That which closed in knowledge (real modern-postmodernity ) is reckoned only through what is open (truth).
At the entrance to the temple of Apollo at Delphi, stood written the words gnōthi seauton, know thyself. But anyone who’s read Dante Alighieri …
The day that Christ is born is a darkness broken only by the light of a star.
The wise men are beckoned by that star, to make a journey…
Happy awareness of the birth of knowledge.
The paradox of modern ontological reckoning is always constitutive. The activity of modern academic theory is a reification that such constitution can be overcome or changed, despite its argumentative semantic content (see. Lyotard as well as Haroway and Barad). X
—-referring to the previous linked essay by Thomas-Pellicer, Ruth, De Lucia, Vito (2016)
This rhetoric describes (it has no agency to inscribe) the inherent offense which thereby we are able to understand modern cosmology as a religious order. In this sense, “ideology” is a theological tenet that shift’s responsibility to Other, away from the horizon of discourse onto an essential spirit, if you will, that is neatly avoided by the religious act itself.
Religion, in the sense, is defined by a categorical offense. A contradiction, but more so, any motional rejection which lay at the core of all identity for modern being.
New materialisms have identified this basic offense as body. …The problem with the academic methodological core is that Word PressBlocks are shite.
Now Stepping back into this post from the basic annoyance of the platform that I have to use in order to post a simple idea (WordPress Blocks)…
The way, process, anti-ontological route, by which the new materialists attempt to overcome the modern faults uses the method in the attempt to overcome it, and thereby denies by its very act the meaning that it proposes.
I’m reading this essay about “re-embodiments“. the basic force of the paper and the ideas there of I generally agree with. However, at the same time, the fact that they have to situate their meaning within traditional discourse is —
as though the argument might be able to dispel the modern categories, the modern polemics, the either/or political foundation through which we find social identity,
—merely shows that they have to rely upon the problem itself in order to give us any sort of idea of overcoming the problem. Basically, they have to tell us that the problem is inherent their solution. And this method, this giving and taking away that we notice of the post modern theorists in general from the 20th century, shows that we are really not getting anywhere but more problem.
The problem is this constituent of being, again, as I agree with the general force of the argument itself, ironically.
Where I differ is in so much as they attempt, often, to do away with certain terms by inventing new terms. Basically, they see that the old terms are embedded in a political discourse of history, so many of the new materialists feel, it seems, that they need to come up with new terms that somehow get beyond or disrupt the old terms. So, instead of using “body“, which, some authors say merely reify the mind-body distinction, they talk about “re-embodiment”.
I say that the use of the word “body” does not necessarily imply mind as a counterpart, and that to think that it does merely shows an orientation in the modern way of being, the modern way of understanding where by everything is political, and discursive at that.
I say that my cup of coffee is a body. The body that is the cup. The body that is the coffee. The body of work that may be any discussion about that cup of coffee. There is no difference in this sense between the body that is the computer monitor in space in front of me, and the body that I inhabit as myself in the universe, and the bodies of knowledge that likewise arise in the universe as such, as a body.
The body of knowledge about myself is of no different quality in itself than the body the computer monitor embraces, constitutes, and embodies in itself. The body of knowledge is no different as a thing that arises in the universe, the body of the universe, than the celestial bodies themselves, the planets as well as the body of forces between them, nor the bodies of knowledge that concern them and are involved with them.
"A Word of Substance"
Random musings about everything.
Understanding ourselves and the world we live in.
Book to Brain Knowledge Transfer
Dr. Amy Marschall, Licensed Psychologist
New and interesting things are happening in mental healthcare – find out about them here and help shape a new vision for mental health
Author/Writer @ Thought Catalog, LiberoMagazine, Invisible illness&TotallyADD peer supporter trainee I blog to bring awareness to mental health issues
The Choice is Yours!
Facing The Challenges of Mental Health
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
living with less gave me more to live for
Musings of a Millennial. Life, The World and Everything In Between.
A safe place to talk openly about mental health & illness
piles of dog-eared books, fountain pens, poetry, romance and despair, existential crisis, anarchy, rebellion
Want some motivation,this is the place
Bio-Blogger is an excellent source for collaborations and to explore your businesses & talents.
Just another glitch in the matrix
Cogito Ergo Sum
Climate science is sophistry...i.e., BS.
Cutting edge science you can dice with
happiness joy love kindness peace
by *paige six
the world turns on a word
Where Logic and Feeling Unite
A travel blog from Bolivia to Belgium via Berlin
becoming not being.......
where all emotions are cared for!
For those awakening divine humans
by Sam Allen
An urban homesteading family move to the country; still a story of trial and error...a lot of error!
Two adoptees - one vocal the other not so much...
Let's have an open conversation about life.
Change your thoughts change your life
Tips to make your daily life easier!
what the eyes have seen, ears have heard, being has experienced and what the Spirit has felt.
One minute info blogs escaping the faith trap
The musings of a Londoner, now living in Norfolk
Everyday musings ....Life as I see it.......my space, my reflections and thoughts !!
Tales, Thoughts + Tribulations of a Free Spirit in Suburbia