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

An Essay Concerning the Substance of Counseling

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

Abstract

Our modern world appears to lack a way to find truth. Philosophically, this problem is formulated in a manner of knowing which never gets beyond the subject of the universe; even objectivity in the universe is arguable. The effort called empirical science then gives us conclusions that regularly perpetuate an unstable world. Due to this real subjective empirical constraint, the usual approach to therapeutic Counseling offers methods focused on the individual obtaining skills and conceptions that function to mitigate the apparent and ubiquitous problem of modernity. Empirical science, whether it be physical, biological or phenomenal, has left us with only problem; it leaves us in a lurch, right in the middle of a contradiction of a subject able to know truth. This is the main problem of mental health. I propose that modern problems of mental health cannot be solved truly with reference to what I call the conventional method of experiment and argumentative reason. We require a true and knowable substance of the universe if we are to gain headway. To this end, I propose a unitive discipline of Counseling founded in what is true of the universe. Less about the negotiation between subjects and more about what is true of that negotiation. This essay uses the philosophy of Graham Harman, called Object Oriented Ontology, or “Triple-O”, as a means to begin to establish the truthful substance of Counseling as a discipline in its own right, which is to say as well, as a universal object.

Speculative Reflection

Always in a process of situating discourses to their occasions, I am Often recognizing discrepancies between what I think and what I come across.

Right there alone is enough to notice that there are two ways of understanding things. These two ways can be said to concern reflection.

Colloquially speaking, we are always talking about reflecting upon ones situation. And this is good; we want to encourage people to displace themselves. To step outside of themselves. Never minding the philosophies which would place us in an essentially relative universe founded only in subjective views and opinions,  an anthropology of philosophy talks about what we are able to do as foundational. Less the contents of our various fantasies and imaginations projected upon a true reality which forever recedes, Indeed consciousness, however we would come to terms with it, apparently is able to hold a conception whereby subjectivity is essential in the manner I just described.

Hence, what I’m saying is that we are able to believe, we are able to be convinced that subjectivity evidences a human containment, and that this containment moves to grant us an extended relativity. We are able to do this. But it is not that merely because the content which is generated from that ability seems so true that it is indeed true (however we would want to deny this truth by placing us selves in a relative situation eternally), no. It is more that the ability can be noticed, That the confines in which we place ourselves to find our subjective identity is indeed merely an ability — Once this contradiction of our immediate experience sets in to confront our apparent knowledge, it is then that we might have an ability to reflect upon the actual truth of our situation, and indeed become available to understand the truth of the universe it’s self. When we can begin to come to terms with how human beings, indeed, how I indeed a rise in consciousness, again regardless of how we define consciousness – for, a default to linguistic definition merely is a retreat from what is true of our ability – then we can begin to encounter actual true objects which exist in the universe as such. And this is regardless of the subject limitation.

The true reflection is thus an absence of subjectivity: it is the presence of what is other as other, of encountering difference as different. For, if we are able to conceive of a subjectivity which encompasses all that we may encounter, then this must be merely an ability rather than an essence, since an essence is at all times merely a conception of arbitrary causation. If this is merely an ability, then we likewise have an ability to understand what it is to get outside of that subjectivity, to leave it alone, to find it in nothingness. We do not have to be bound to a fixed strata of knowledge.

For, is this not with the great philosophies of the past 200 years have asserted? That, on one hand, subjectivity is founded upon nothingness, but due to this nothingness subjectivity is always founded in a knowledge-power Whereby subjectivity is the definition of being-repressed?

If we give up that power, then what do we have? We have nothingness on one hand, which is utter contradiction, utterly an abyss when faced that derives for us the epitome of existential anxiety; but then the other side is even more scary: We Find that what we call perception and subjectivity is indeed a constituent aspect of the universe itself, of indeed objects in themselves. Grass gives us itself. Trees give us information about itself in itself, the actual objectivity of the tree. Planets as well, consciousness as well, books, discourse, atoms, opinions, leaves, air, Krishna, molecules, bacteria, concepts,Gods, God Goddess, spirits, devils, Angels, psycho killers, priests and goblins, witches, magic and scientists.

We find that all of these things arise in themselves, truly existing, in the universe, the constituency of the universe, all this despite our subjective intentions.

This is what reflection is.

Yes, it is in ability of consciousness or subjectivity or individuality or persona or mind to consider its own situation, as well as to consider itself by virtue of that which it considers within its domain of concept, intelligence, and perception.

So it is not by contrast that we are not able to ever come upon anything else. But on the contrary, it is due to this limit that we are able to come across true things of the universe. Things in-themselves. And for themselves. Avoiding any and every encounter with subjectivity.

When this is realized, then we begin to have an ability to form valid and effective relationships. For we are no longer expecting and demanding things to conform with our own ideas of self, psychology, and intention.

xx

Socialism, Dictatorship, Democracy, Communism

apple.news/A03-AppaITYCx3anb2KF5JA

Maybe the political scientists can help us out in this area.

But in reading this story today, some thoughts came up.

In speaking with friends and coworkers and acquaintances, the word “socialism” seems to me just like a buzz word that has no real substance when it comes to what I see as actually occurring.

And with reference to the linked article, it seems that the idea of “dictator ship” has no necessary relation to any political system in the polemical scheme between socialism and democracy. It seems to me that either one of those polemical political situations could lead to a dictator ship. And by that it seems to me that a dictatorship is more of an opportunistic Disease then it is A form of government or governing in the same category as socialism or democracy.

It seems to me that these traditional categories which supposedly define and label systems of government really are more fluid than our traditional definitions would account for.

It seems more that people are drawing upon a traditional base of people, albeit hypothetical constituency of people, that associate themselves with words and definitions that have little basis in the actuality of our current situation.

I wonder if that is really the crisis of the present that we are within right now. Less “post truth”, and more that we are realizing what the human being actually does in history, in so far as we are not exempt from history regardless of any argument we want to make about synchronic Or diachronic situations.

It appears to be more that we have an opportunity to see what it is that human beings actually do. And this opportunity arises due to the saturation of an ability to record events, thoughts, situation’s, etc., due to our ability to have a record that becomes undeniable in its actual substance.

The argumentative positions only means some thing within a certain context, and I believe that we are seeing that this context does not fall into a ubiquitous multiplicity of use, but that the multiplicity of use is one context in which we are able to know things.

I think we are in transition paradigms. Not so much to where everything just falls apart into an atomization where we can’t know anything that is true or that everything is relative, rather, that such relativity indicates one particular orientation or one particular way to understand what is going on. This thing does not argue it away or say that it is invalid or that there’s something more true to be said about the situation, rather, it just says that such the situation needs to be accepted for what it is. And that there’s something to be said, something further to be known about the human being as well as the universe.

 

A Bridge which Defines: On Richard Rorty’s very pragmatic interpretation of Gadamer Hermeneutics in his Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (1979)

It is easier to describe what something should be not, then to formulate what something should be, as it is easier to deconstruct then to construct. …

On Richard Rorty’s very pragmatic interpretation of Gadamer Hermeneutics in his Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (1979)

————- If we can take this short synopsis of these two authors as minimally representative of what the two authors say in general, Then what we have there, with Rorty anyways, Is a proposal which allows for the subsequent developments in philosophy of the 90s up till present, as represented by Badiou, Zizek, Laruelle, and even the speculative realists.

The point he describes is a kind of “empty space” that is then elaborated upon by these authors I just mentioned. This empty space can be understood to define two ontological situations, together which constitute what Laruelle calls “unilateral duality”. This unilateral duality posits two conditions that do not reconcile back into another unitive condition, but then also defines the state of each of those conditions.

One condition is exclusion and the other condition is inclusion.

Badiou Likewise considers things in this way, though he doesn’t enjoin with Laruelle at terms.

The one condition, which We can call the conventional route, excludes anything which arises outside of its semantic mandate. Basically, it posits a one reality in which everything exists and of which human beings find out through applying ‘reason’. The one route says that there is nothing that falls outside of the potential for reason; this route is necessarily a systemic route, it posits systems within systems that even extend so far as to imply there’s a grand overreaching system which we may not ever be able to comprehend. The way the exclusive route functions is the reduction and exclusion based of contradiction; it includes only that which constitutes itself in potential. It includes everything that is possible in potential.

The other ontological condition is the one which includes. This ontological condition includes the exclusive condition. The exclusive condition posits the possibility that it includes everything, yet by its own activity is necessarily exclusive to anything that might arise which does not conform to its particular semantic mandate. 

By contrast, The inclusive route includes contradiction as well as that which is exclusive. It is what Laruelle calls “non-philosophy”, in order to allow the exclusive route to lay in what is most common, namely philosophy as a positive method. 

The speculative realists understand and attempt to incorporate or use this ontological feature of non-reduction, non-philosophy, or what The link to post here would define “In contrast”, such that what we have for a new philosophy, what we have on the ‘other side’ of that empty space posited above, is a new manner of philosophy which resides parallel to its counterpart: Unilaterally dual in nature.

But this empty space cannot merely reside in conceptual reason, as the link to post talks about. As he suggests, philosophy must involve something more than just reason, more than just a capacity to think through Aristotle or reductive logic based away from contradiction; it is thus a bridge. 

But we could equally and just as well go back 100 or so years before and say that it is a ladder that then after we climb, or cross, it must be thrown away, or actually it disappears. For once we climb the ladder, once we have gotten to the ‘other side’ of the bridge, there is no incrementally reductive manner of reasoning which will allow us to cross the gap, what Slavoj Zizek knows as “the parallax gap”, And what  Badiou understands as “the void”. There is no way to use language or discourse to communicate how to move accross the gap Because the very foundation of discourse has changed by virtue of what, by all reasonable standards, is not reasonable. This is similar to what Kierkegaard calls a quantitative leap, as opposed to a qualitative leap; it is absurd to the conventional exclusive route of reason.

In short, the conventional philosophy of incremental reductive reasoning is insufficient to realize the full ontological extent of being in the world, which is really being of the world. Just as Heidegger had a real conflict, (Is Nationalist Socialism the actual culmination of history? And do I have an obligation to believe what I reason is so?), an actual breach in the rationale of his Dasien, An interruption which occurred from what is actually real in itself, outside of reason’s ability to conceptualize toward reduction, The fall back into reason had real ontological repercussions which shows that Heidegger’s original proposal of his book “being and time” is faulty. (That is, his philosophy is compromised Because he made the wrong decision, as evidenced by history.)

But the fault is not internal to his philosophy; rather, it is faulty Becuase of how we might be oriented upon what his philosophy is talking about. The fault lay in that there is no inherent truth which is discernible by the Method of reductive philosophical reason into his “being and time”; but the truth of Dasien is reckoned when we see that it is not based in reduction, that is, the centering of thought within the content of history of reductive reason is contradictory in-itself. It is contradiction spelled out ‘long hand’.

As much as the exclusive methodological philosophical route would want to argue that there is an essential truth to be found be a close reading of reason to his book, or any philosophical books really, ultimately the truth of what he is saying can only be found by crossing the bridge, passing over the gap, moving through the void which leaves the reductive method behind to fail in its want and desire to posit any truth found by its method. This is evidenced by any attempt which would want to argue ‘what he is really saying’: We keep discussing and arguing over it anyways.

Yet this failure does not mean that it does not still function. This is the meaning of a unilateral duality: Two Routes which are ontologically necessarily, one which posits philosophical sufficiency, and one which accounts for the truth of the situation.

More Evidence which Rejects that there is an Actual Universal Individual Responsibility for Action

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5ecf512dc5b6791a3c29eef4?ncid=newsltushpmgnews

Whiteness relies upon the concept of an essential individual which makes free ethical choices.

Systemic racism posits that (1) those in power always find individual justification after the fact, and always thus claim individual responsibility with reference to systemic justification (redundancy); (2) true responsibility arises in the interruption of such ontological redundancy.

Presently, no universally justified individual exists outside of ideological control.

This is not a human constant; rather, it is the particular situation in which we find ourselves.

What is human is still left to be discovered. This is the true teleology of the philosopher.

Is there a teleological suspension of the systemic ?

[note: what we do and think in the regular-everyday calm in our day is referenced by what we resort to when we are in distress. The separation is ideological, and not ontological .]

x

Fear itself is is based in transcendence

Feelings are about the body. They are immanent.

Emotions are about reactivity. They direct or tend.

Thoughts are about transcendence.

While fear can be understood as an emotion, it is also able to be understood as something which affects an otherwise functional (efficient) system. Fear is that which creates dysfunction through making its agency appear necessary to the functioning of the system itself, Or at least an integral part of it. It posits one’s arguing out of one’s limitations as a way to avoid what the limitation actually is in itself.

In this sense, Fear exploits a vulnerable teleological tendency or thread that runs through these three different aspects of Being. It then emphasizes or exacerbates the ideal of the unitive creature that Is the singular path among those things, that is, which presents those things as inherent and inseparable from Being.

It is not difficult then to see a correlation between identity, fear, scarcity and modern capitalism.

To overcome fear, one might see that fear itself is an agent which enacts operations, Or brings about and ordering to actions, as opposed to an innate (a part of, or inseparable from) feature of a functional (or dysfunctional) human being. Less as an evolutionary adaptation or trait, it is possible to use the same kind of ability to conceive in order to understand fear more as a kind of symbiotic or parasitic agent.

The dysfunction which might be said to arise around being-in-fear Is the orientation upon Being which sees the thread as granting the (only) source of valid coherence. As though the agent is necessarily a vital part of the human being it Self, which is to say The only agent that matters to identify an agent.

It is the emphasis on transcendence, the encompassment that thought wants (desire) to enact upon Being, which allows fear to color Being to a unique identity of truth, which is to say, fear inscribes subjective truth. Less to the ubiquity of opinion, and more that thinking does not notice how fear has co-opted its ability to discern what the truth is. The transcendence in which truth invests it’s self misses that there is even an emotion in play at all, and decides for itself And everything else in its imposed unity, what emotion shall be. The focusing and insistence upon thought as the designation of a true being Thereby nullifies emotion by making it subject to thought’s domain, as though thought can have an ability to know the essence of emotion outside of its own designation. Which is to say, as though thought— and only thought— is indeed being human. One might even go so far as to suggest that the concept of anxiety arises as thought continues to impose its dominion upon a body which essentially does not recognize its authority.

Fear is the thread which induces thought to link all human being processes together. Fear, in a manner of speaking, is the losing of desire. It is redundant in its operation in the sense of how we might use the analogy of a computer which has redundant operations; ie failures in one section will not cause or bring about the collapse of the whole system. Where the analogy fails for the human being though is that this idea of collapse is it self invested in the unitive being of fear. That indeed a collapse of the total system does not mean that the human being has died or ceased in its ability to be effective; on the contrary, what occurs ironically is that the human being becomes more effective because it exists no longer in an isolated fear-based world.

Viewing Corona: Phenomenology and Orientation.

HERE is a link to some current statistics that compare the flu and corona.

The thing I think that video in my previous post marks out is that what makes coronavirus so incredible is that we are looking at it “in just that way”, which is to say, that we are seeing something through a particular ability or manner.

I am a layman, so I could be entirely wrong in my interpretation of this, but…

What I hear the doctor saying is that what we consider the flu is just a few instances of pathogen in a vast array of contagions that cause people sickness, either cold or the flu or various other types of illnesses. Coronavirus is the name for a particular set of viruses that cause symptoms, that cause sicknesses. The reason why we often hear it called “novel coronavirus” is because it is a new mutation of a type of coronavirus. Coronaviruses are around all the time and people get sick from them all the time, it’s just that the scientific community is relatively familiar with these various types of coronaviruses, influenza, the common cold. But the one that we’re calling COVID-19 (corona virus disease discovered in 2019) is one that we’re not familiar with, a mutation that we aren’t very familiar with. We aren’t really sure what it’s going to do because it’s a new type of mutation.

But what the doctor in the video is saying, I think, is that given any cycle of various types of viruses and pathogens that cause sickness, such as respiratory sickness or digestional sickness, there are thousands of such pathogens that enter the human biome and then exit the human biome, routinely.

The scientists monitor this cycle of growth and recession of hundreds if not thousands of pathogens all the time. During these cycle they kind of make an educated guess about which pathogens we are going to have to concern ourselves with. For whatever reason, this particular cycle had a “novel” pathogen that was taking place more than what they were counting on, what we were paying attention to, what we were expecting; the novel coronavirus fell outside of that kind of usual monitoring. So they decided to start monitoring it.

And what they found was pretty much the same as the flu. Yes it is more contagious than the flu, and is more intense, but the way that we stop spreading the virus has less to do with how contagious this is (what is inherent in itself) then it does with preventing that we get it (what we do about it). How contagious a particular pathogen is doesn’t say anything about whether or not I’m going to get it. The determinant of whether or not I’m going to get it has to do with the situation that I am being.

Nonetheless, statistically, I think he is pointing out, almost the same percentage amount of people that die from any other similar sickness are dying from the coronavirus and just as well, people that are getting it is not too much larger than any other type of pathogen of this kind. The difference is that we’ve just somehow decided to pay more attention to this particular novel pathogen in any given cycle.

I’m not sure exactly how true that may be because if people all around my neighborhood are suddenly getting sick to where they can’t go to work and function that in itself shows that there’s something slightly different going on with this one.

But from a statistician point of view…

…the doctor is really saying he’s not really sure how it happened that everyone got so excited and worried about this particular pathogen because if you look at any other pathogens throughout the world they’re all pretty much doing the same thing; that is, a small percentage of people are dying from it, a somewhat larger percentage of people are getting sick from it, and a vast array of people are carrying it around, or are positive for it, but are not really getting sick from it.

And we probably need not mention Miellassoux’s remark about the reason why the world should hold together for any amount of time, for we should expect that we would be walking down the street one day and all of a sudden everything changes beyond comprehension or completely falls apart. Well, that’s kind of what happened with the coronavirus, and indeed that could happen at any moment due to the nature of nature. 

Anyways…

So, as I said in a previous post, the question really becomes about the climate. And it really begs the question of, less perception or how people’s opinions or beliefs might affect how they act, and more about how ontology, how a person’s being is in-formed by a fundamental way of viewing the world which then allows them to see what Is real.

Innoway it is more philosophical, which is to say, how being is, as opposed to religious, theological, or epistemological, which is to say, what we believe, how we feel about those beliefs, and how we might analyze objects of knowledge that are feeling-belief.

The reason why it is nonsensical to argue something like “everyone is being hysterical”, or “The corona pandemic is not real”, it’s because the reference of those sentences is too imprecise to really address what is occurring so far as real reactions real perceptions real occurrences in the world.

Indeed, the word “real” and “reality” necessarily designates something that must be dealt with, an imperative, something that not cannot be dismissed by a wave of the hand, Or a whim of witty intellectualist thinking. It is a manifestation of concrete material.

Indeed if I fall onto the sidewalk without putting my hands forward I will probably hurt my face and bleed. And even while there is no argument that can be put forth to ever prevent that same fate every time it occurs, there are ways of thinking, ways of speaking, ways of acting that could alter the situation so that the event happens at different times, more or less, or not at all. So by analogy, even while the coronavirus pandemic may be blown way out of proportion, it is indeed blown to the proportion that it is, and indeed blew the way that it did blow. We surely must take precautions. Just because something might be blown out of proportion, as a way of speaking or understanding the situation, does not necessarily mean that one should not take account for it and act accordingly, yet also that one should be able to make an argument for why it is not the way it indeed is. Not how it appears, as though it is an illusion. And this is exactly because it is real. The question becomes more about the tools we are using to address reality. Less about perceptions and belief.

To address the situation as if it’s some sort of an illusion is kind of like trying to use a scalpel to hammer in a 4 inch nail. Not only is the tool (the tool we call ‘illusion’) inappropriate to the task, but also, it could work given a certain condition of application and time. These two possibilities do not really correctly reduce to one or the other because to approach the scalpel with the need of hammering in a 4 inch nail into a 2 x 4, by all reasonable and sensible standards of knowledge, amounts to nonsense, in this analogy that I’m putting forth here. But in fact, the tool called ‘rationality’ is also imprecise to move to describe why a common occurrence could cause such an “irrational” response (along the same argument of ‘illusion’), because then we are attempting to exclude the real situation of how most people are able to see the world and their role in it, which is to say, what human beings’ purpose is in the world as a teleological signifier for what they (the individual) is and supposed to be doing. What most people ‘think’ is more like a instinct (inthinked? Perhaps a phenomenological theological tenet?)

The scalpel is an imprecise manner of approaching the nail. However it might “know of it” never does the nail “do” what it is by applying the scalpel. Of course, we can create any sort of meaning we want of hammer and nails and scalpels–the post-modern phenomenalist loves to come up with all sorts of interesting perceptions upon things and situations and see those as foundational to everything. But the assumption there, in a way, is that scalpels must always be able to hammer in large nails. The phenomenalist refuses to see the nail as the nail simply because he sees what he is able to view. Sure, I could use a scalpel to comb my hair with, but it is an imprecise way to comb my hair. Lol. It is not ethically wrong, it is simply a limitation that defines the objectivity of the phenomenon, in the same way a nail defines itself, and a scalpel. It is about an ability to respond.

Presently, as I have argued elsewhere, the Traditional categories and methods that we use for philosophy are no longer sufficient to grasp , contain or communicate the situation that we are coming upon so far as knowledge might relate to what the world is, or the Being of the World.

So Again, we can begin speak about the climate of world and knowledge. 

x

Here Is another flu/corona comparison article.

What is mental health?

Any ideas?

Here is what Wikipedia has to say:

Mental health

Mental health is the level of psychologicalwell-being or an absence of mental illness. It is the state of someone who is “functioning at a satisfactory level of emotional and behavioral adjustment”.[1] From the perspectives of positive psychology or of holism, mental health may include an individual’s ability to enjoy life, and to create a balance between life activities and efforts to achieve psychological resilience.[2] According to the World Health Organization (WHO), mental health includes “subjective well-being, perceived self-efficacy, autonomy, competence, inter-generational dependence, and self-actualization of one’s intellectual and emotional potential, among others.”[3] The WHO further states that the well-being of an individual is encompassed in the realization of their abilities, coping with normal stresses of life, productive work and contribution to their community.[4] Cultural differences, subjective assessments, and competing professional theories all affect how one defines “mental health”.[3][5]

I don’t know what you think,but as a philosopher this definition(s) of mental health appears to me achingly weak.

I think As philosophers we can do better than this and come up with something that is much more substantial.

Here’s another definition that is sufficient, and yet still philosophically kind of lacking.

These appear to me incredibly onesided.

For example:

Does my mental health rely upon the state of my brain?

Can I have a brain defect and still have mental health?

Can I be selfish, small minded, have no friends yet support myself while hating the world and have mental health?

Can I be happy, physically healthy, have only foods that come from health stores, love everyone, and not have mental health?

Is mental health something that only a some people have, while it’s ok if you don’t? For example, like only a few people have eels in thier fish aquarium?

Can I completely reject the medical model and still be mentally healthy?

Can I reject spirituality and be mentally healthy?

And I think this is pivotal:

Is there a difference between mental illness and mental disease?

That is, if we concede disease as a medical model category:

1. Involves an organ

2. Involves a defect of that organ

3. Involves symptoms

Psyche-logic

—excerpt from Healing Fiction by James Hillman. c.1983

The question implicit of the object of the subject is not, like the usual phenomenologically subject-based philosophy, meaning; rather, the question is to what use is philosophy put? For what purpose is the Being of philosophy? Cedric Nathaniel puts this juxtaposition of view in terms of how philosophy understands itself automatically with the Being that is necessarily established through the human Being such that this conventional philosophical effort always must be asking and answering the being of itself in as much as it’s manifestation is assumed implicit to every and any other kind of Being, that is, as though the human being is the sole arbiter of the universe.

Once such reductive pattern and method is accepted for what it is, it likewise can no longer be doubted that what it is is what it is doing. It is this move that removes us from the phenomenological correlation by accepting that such correlation can ever be avoided in philosophical reckoning that is involved with time, tradition and history, but as well, then, such a notice does not suggest that something is wrong with those constants.

No longer involved directly with making arguments of ontology, the effort concerns thus the teleology of Being.

—ibid. p.97