The Consolidation of Ideology and Mental Health

There is a long line of thinking and writing that frames ideological negation as emancipatory, or as an advancement of cognitive ability towards a …

deep adaptation as post-nihilist praxis?

———- indeed! It is our next meal because what happens when we eat, what happens when we satiate our hunger? We digest it, we incorporate it, we become it.

—-and we excrete what is not useful.

And Some honesty arises….

Love it. Reposting it.


What does Nathaniel have to say ?

One should not help but make a notice to the coincidence and synchronicity that occurs between, say, work and experience and encounter with other through this blog and people all around.

…and Somehow I feel like we might differ on what is actually occurring even while that difference just highlights how the view is the same…I feel that there is an analysis that would tend toward thoughts synthesizing with brains functioning coming to conclusions of an entirely human mechanism. Yet, I come from the opposite direction to say that we are coming across the same motions of concepts in the polemic itself. The world is manifesting and for those who can see “it” report on it, just as it is the unfolding of our individual beings, just As it is the unfolding of the universe. But that’s just a very loose and rough description of two sides of the same coin; I’m not sure we need to make them exclusive and attempt to reduce to another “what is actually occurring”…

Nevertheless, as simplicity of what I see in reading philosophy just confirms it —- from my perspective, from my angle of view, it is not that ideology is going away but quite the contrary: It is that ideology is becoming functional. Like a fish swimming and water, the fish does not notice the water, it is just it’s natural environment; the water essentially disappears but it is actually just everywhere. This is really what I see happening in a real sense. Drowning, I resist. I choke on the water; I attempt to deny it .Yet, as many have reported, supposedly, for a couple seconds I’m actually breathing water and I am fully relaxed…

I totally get — it — the plunge into nothingness in nihilism. I’m not sure what I would have to say, except to reiterate the same terms that is used in the various discourses: I fully comprehend and resonate with where it came from, the process, and where we are at.

Personally, I don’t think that incredulity towards meta-discourses eliminates meta-discourses. I am quite skeptical that I am able to question a meta discourse now and then to have myself exist “suspended in nothingness“. For me the real suspension in nothingness is utter identity loss, and inability to make any headway in the world, and yet that also is a certain corresponding adaptive metadiscourse which remains in the background as a sort of “philosophy” (what Is indicated in the band “The Covert Sound Philosophy”). It is a perpetuation and insistence of doubting everything as an identity that makes me locate meta-discourses as something that I am not involved with. This denial then helps me attempt to assert my identity of getting nowhere in the world and being generally unhappy and defaulting to a certain resolve in such a state To point to ideology as if it’s something these “poor unintelligent wretches” are involved with while me and my Nietschean Uber Mench gets to sit back and proclaim How justified and superior I am to all these other stupid religious animals. In other words, I am depressed because everyone else is stupid. Really??

…coincidentally, and I do mean happening at the same time at all times, this is exactly the condition of my being despite how I would want to resist it and live a life arguing against it, as though I was forging some identity that everyone needs to recognize. Strange how I remain in my small world with little identity because I was so smart as to question every meta-discourse that I came across…

No, I do not believe that there was ever a time that me nor you nor anyone else was succesdfully avoiding existing within Meta Discourse. It was just silent, held back in irony, as a sort of sarcastic spite, like I’m better than you, but then all the while really just asserting my identity of being a pissy complainer to those pussy bitches who don’t question their existence in the proper manner…

No; I think it is once I recognize that what I was asserting in my nihilism was really everything that I was denying, but denying for the sake of my attempt to forge a new ideological identity, once I get to the end of that curve, what happens is that I become part of the ideology, the ideology the Meta Discourse actually takes hold of and begins to function properly As because that’s what’s been going on all along despite my intellectualization of the matter.

Thanks again!


The Beginning of Modernity.

Just recently I reposted a post by Philosopher Graham Harman Who wrote an article about, what I suppose should be, a something beyond modern and a small comment about how slow philosophy moves.

I point to today’s 

Big news from Google that they have achieved quantum computing and I see this as a mark of the end of just the beginning of modernity.

We may have always been modern and not realized it because humanity this far has been an effort to ignore when it actually is by what it is actually doing. 

And then my thoughts go to how we think about the ancient philosophers like Plato and Aristotle and etc. etc., and Berkeley and Feuerbach and Husserl … and I have made the argument elsewhere: how could we be even understanding what the hell, say, Aristotle is talking about if indeed we have gone somewhere in our situation of being human? If we have gone anywhere then we wouldn’t be constantly arguing or discussing about what Aristotle might mean in the context of our current situation or whatever. And this question sheds off into a number of other questions which I consider in various places throughout this blog, but in particular the discussion about technology and human beings relation to it. But I’m not gonna go into all that right here; you can wade through my blog posts if you like.

The point that I’m making though is I’m not sure philosophy has moved barely a Centimeter in The marathon of being human in the world. even while it wants to show itself in the light of progress and innovation. Often enough it is merely saying the same things over and over using different terms and phrases, as though the new configuration of terms is indeed an instance of newness. (In what ways is it?)

Kierkegaard asks, where are we going so quickly? And I say that this indicates the tendency of philosophy to want to completely ignore itself as a thing of the universe. I suggest that philosophy at this point might be attendance of resistance towards really understanding what being human is. And capitalism a part of that resistance; hence suggestions that philosophy and capitalism are involved in a religious moment: Modernity is the current religious designation of transcendence.

And I don’t mean this as a knock. I mean this in the sense that as much as philosophy will attend what it means to achieve quantum computing in the world, to think that this approach is recognizing what human beings are By only in countering the details of what we could call general political activity, Could be said to be an effort to live in darkness under the shroud of “another” Catholic religion — -which is not saying anything about what we should do to prevent it. But is really only saying this to the extent that we might want to acknowledge and except what human beings do, to thereby be able to understand what human beings are, as opposed to finding out to what human beings are only through the disassociation of itself from the world for the sake of “objective knowledge” (under which most philosophies of subjectivity harbor unwilling to recognize what they are doing in their discourses). Perhaps we could wonder why there’s so many denominations of Protestantism; it is not that somehow we can escape or overcome this kind of activity in motion, probably; this activity and motion designates a certain type of being in the world that refuses to except itself as merely a kind of activity that human beings do and not the only kind that humans beings enact. as I and many other authors have suggested, it’s the difference between reckoning being through conventional science or conventional physics and allowing for a conventional physics while also understanding the human being in the context of quantum physics, as an analogy. And then we could get into Badiou’s original idea that we have to give up the attempt to communicate the “quantum” manner of being because everyone, or most people, are only capable of recognizing their existence through the “conventional” physical world. 

But like I said, you can wade through all my posts if you’re interested in these kind of topics.