This post arises out of reflecting on two strands of argument as they play out over time in Laruelle’s texts 1) The evolution of the status of “…
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.
The moment of enlightenment is only initially an awareness of being. After that moment it is an awareness of how so few are aware. The real issue of enlightenment has to do with what comes after.
When we understand Christ in its proper scope, we see that ‘enlightenment’ is the attempt by the individual to uphold and maintain It as a prolonged state of being. The way it is maintained Is through the justification of the offense.
The Christ moment, and the ideal of enlightenment, is a moment of being conscious that when come upon represents a moment of decisive significance.
In this moment, the awesomeness and apprehensive feeling of dread might bring the individual to fall back into its history to thereby join and retain the consistency of what they know and knew to that state of fear and trembling. The coupling of the Christ moment with the fall back (revolt) into the fear of the awesomeness of the tremendous mystery that is come upon in that moment, yields righteousness, what some could call “ego inflation”. Enlightenment is the form of consciousness understanding itself and its view as something that everyone else is supposed to likewise know.
On The other hand, when the Christ moment, it’s awesomeness and the accompanying state of fear and trembling, is come upon in curiosity, then the motion is one of compassion instead of righteousness. For the self, it continues the motion of curiosity and acceptance, but this self is not the primary aim. The motion is into otherness. Difference.
For, instead of understanding how intellectually or ethically wrong and spiritually poor everyone is around, such that they need to be educated into the righteousness of proper knowledge, The Christ moment fades into just one moment in the potential of human consciousness. Enlightenment disappears as some thing that was never to be found. The meaning of awareness changes.
The awareness that remains is not enlightened awareness, neither is it Christ being; rather it is a true human compassion for those people Who have come upon and yet not followed through such a moment.
It is a true understanding of what it is to be human.
An object oriented journey through the Gospels.
I’m not sure when Tommy Curry wrote this paper, whether he was actually writing it as a direct response to my paper that I published at academia EDU (see my recent post), or whether it is purely coincidence that he happened to publish this paper or it was put out on the platform just a couple weeks after I published my paper that had some commentary with the author (Bloniasz).
In any case, this paper Is a brilliant comment in itself, but also A perfect response to my Comment. If anything, timing is ironic, and actually goes to both Currys and my points.
— ah: 2012. Is his paper. I might imagine then that either Curry or an algorithm placed this paper in my cue.
It seems sensible then that the two routes supplies a correspondence that Curry does not imagine in his orientation upon jurisprudence.
I will be addressing it directly and part three of my series of essays￼￼￼￼￼￼ on Academia.edu
I just had an awareness.
As a white man born and raised in United States, one who considers himself somewhat intelligent and enjoying of academic inquiry and existential journey, when I say philosophy to my friends and cohorts, we generally understand that we’re going to get into some sort of discussion that has to do with positions and argumentation and referencing various authors who have had profound thoughts and ideas. But the basic notion which informs philosophy is that we are going to try and prove each other wrong. We are going to admit where we think the other person might have made good points, and then we are going to say “but” you have failed to notice states, I believe that your point here is lacking in this way, so-and-so says this about the same thing, I believe this, etc.
And yet, if I am to speak about Philosophy. and I say “eastern” philosophy, or if I talk about Buddhism or Hinduism, generally speaking now we’re just talking about “great spiritual truths”. If I talk about the eight fold path, no one is discussing how the eight fold path might be lacking in its points of comprehension. When I speak of the eight fold path everybody just has a big sigh of awesomeness and expressions of profound awareness and everyone starts getting into their yoga pose.
Why is that?
If I’m speaking of Western philosophy and I speak of truths, why do I get knocked down and I get told that there is no way to know truth.￼
And then when I speak of eastern philosophy, if I try to critique any of it, then I’m approached as if “I don’t understand”?
Abstract: In this paper, I argue that people should think a certain way about things, and believe in the semantic content that such thinking portrays. I give examples that everyone should already understand, and hopefully provide a route to make sure they are not making a mistake about what they are understanding. I then further claim that everyone should understand that they are deciding upon whether or not they want to understand my thesis, and that by making such a decision, they are probably making an argument against what they already know by virtue of their understanding the argument I am putting forth.
by John Clark Philosophy is in decline. You hear it all the time. The evidence is regularly trotted out: fewer graduates; no jobs; no prospects; a …
——- Physician, heal thyself!
I love this post. Not only is it a Nice reflection upon the situation, but I also think it indicates a problem in philosophy: it has no body !
I think one of the things that we found out in late 20th century Philosophy. and coming into the 21st-century, is, that human beings have an ability to cast its self it’s ideas, upon the world and make the World answer to its ideas.
This is particularly a 20th century phenomenon. To the extent that many of us are not able to read philosophy that arises outside of the 20th century within its own temporal manifestation. We simply are unabke to conceptualize what they were talking about in the proper sense of what they were talking about becuase of the manner that philosophy is prefugured now in the ideological context of nothingness; we hear everything, read all text, in the context of an atemporal yet universal code of words, of idealized thoughts of definition.
The issue with 20th century philosophy ever since Wittgenstein , but I might even say ever since Kierkegaard pointed it out rather specifically, without actually naming it I would say (lol. Kierkegaard talked about it specifically but never named it in a way that the 20th century could understand)– it is that we are able to become enamored with ourselves and us see the world in our own image. (Lacan’s mirror stage). And this is so much the case that we are unable to even consider philosophy that didn’t arise in our 20th century understanding of it: that is the definition of the end of philosophy that we had been dealing with for the past 20 years at least. namely, that philosophy argues its own self reflection as the valid point across all philosophical dimensions, time being that main component, that main dimensional feature of being.
And without going into the further discussion of this discrepancy that makes Philosopher is so adamant and adherent to their own view, as though ones own view is able to argue with someone else’s view, that is, is even able to encounter it– this is the definition of modern subjectivity that brings about the end of philosophy, anyway we want to put it, this is the fundamental and basic issue that we are dealing with. And, We might say, is the reason why “realism” has become so popular lately: as though suddenly we can change our interests and be able to change how we see things. We’ve been so caught up in ideas and thoughts, now we are trying to find what is actually “real”. ￼
But my point is less intellectual. philosophy argues itself into its own ontological corner through its reliance upon epistemological identity, which is to say, where we see and understand terms as identifying some thing that exists between people who think, but also between the thought in the world, thereby are we are caught ultimately in an idealism. For any other name.
This is what Michel Foucualt and perhaps others, were dealing with in their works; this particular issue that keeps coming up over and over again. Recall Kierkegaard’s work “repetition”.
The body was “cut away” by the surging force of the intellect, until the ‘gaze’ that the intellect identified with the object became the whole of interest: This is clinical medicine. The body was replaced with a holistic version of the intellectual gaze of sense. Disease became positive and the body negative until we now no longer even an ability to ground knowledge except in the gaze-idea, the knowledge-power of the subject of reality.
And philosophy has supported the whole notion the whole way. The basic issue is that Philosophy has removed itself from the body by which it originally gained credence.
Yet, in contrast to the modern ideological development and to point the view to where it does not want to look: I will go so far as to say that there is nothing that exists in the universe that does not have a body. And this is to say that everything and anything that has any sort of truth that we work with is a body. Hence we find many authors talking about this very thing, even though they might not put it in terms of “a body”. Many authors talk about how Philosophy. has just become subjective abstraction, various idealisms caught in their own subjective worlds asserting themselves over other peoples essential Transcendent represented in words.
The problem is that we are talking about nothing; we are talking about talking. That philosophy has become an eternal argument about vacuous idealism.
thanks post guy!
“Cant you see that I am one with the cosmos!?..poquito ergo es…i think, therefore you is.”
Everyone agrees that philosophy, at root, is “the love of wisdom”. Yet, since the beginning of the 20th century, I feel, this meaning has been mostly lost. Philosophy has become an extended argument about definition; the purported wisdom of the ‘love of wisdom’ is understood in a context where the effort to find this lost love is supposed to be found in the effort of more precisely defining words.
Philosophers appear to be involved with stating their own definition of wisdom, and appealing to the common human sense of passion to imply the sense of love in their work, but I feel that this intention is but a weak reflection of what prior to the, say, mid-20th century, was an effort of integrity.
It has taken me some time, but I believe that this blog has been the effort to reveal the fallacy of the method of finding wisdom, let alone love.
However, due to the kind of modern philosophy which dominates the philosophy-sphere, I have abandoned the use of philosophy as a positive meaning of its truth, that is, the love of wisdom, which is merely a method of arguing over definition, to say that conventional philosophy is indeed valid in as much as this is the kind of philosophy that the modern method is able to procure, but that it is indeed merely one kind of philosophy, that is, a conventional method of philosophy.
Philosophy has split into two efforts.
So it is I leave the argument to what has been said thus far, and leave those conventional practitioners to their modern philosophical tasks; they are indeed vital, no irony intended.
Nonetheless, in the attempt to center love in wisdom I move to suggest the following, which is beginning to appear in my papers.
For a while now, philosophy has been concerned with the spirit. Indeed, so many papers have been written, known and unknown, popular and not, about the relationship with Western modern philosophy and spirit, it has almost become a trampled point. In short, it is not difficult to notice that the synthetical a priori, but indeed every philosophy which is an “-ism” and “-ology”, and every “philosophy of…” is based in the synthetical a priori despite what argument it would wish to make or definition which an argument would wish to tie to. There is nothing which arises outside of discourse, and discourse, in the modern orientation upon things, is merely another secret code word for thinking, a proxy, a sit-in, a dupe, a poseur, or as Kierkegaard might say, sleight of hand.
So I capitulate and admit that, yes, conventional philosophy, modern philosophy, or just philosophy, is only about spirit, its assertions and proclamations. It implies it, it uses it, it is invested in the spirit which is the reasoned intellect, the thinking mind, or otherwise, intentional phenomenal identity. It is all head, and no body; the head, in this conventional modern mode, uses and abuses the body yet stays in the head and enforces the head’s dictates through the spirit of modern philosophy.
I propose that philosophical anthropology concerns the soul. The body. This is to say, the soul of the body is excluded by definition, or, what I say, is the methodological orientation upon definition. So much as the spirit of the head is deemed the highest in the hierarchical structure for the determination of everything that can be thought, the soul is that which is excluded by virtue of what the head cannot see, cannot hear nor feel, conceptualize nor recognize when it is occurring, acting or even Being present. It is negated in the thought full pretext of the synthetical a priori. The philosophical spirit of the head never encounters the soul of the body because the modern spirit is consumed with itself: the Creation of the world in its own image.
Hence, I propose that the head misses the body, and the soul misses the spirit. and that they love each other. That True philosophy arises as the love of wisdom when the spirit and the soul are united. This is because they are –they exist– in love, but are held apart in the tragic life of the dejected and stubborn sprit.
This is my work. To bring together in love that which has been torn asunder by the insecure assertion of dominance of the lonely spirit.
Although Paulo Freire wrote about this some 50 years ago, It is beginning to be recognized lately.
The oppressor cannot itself find its way to liberation because it already sees itself, sees freedom, and everything else, through the context of oppression.
It is thus the task of the oppressed – the pedagogy of the oppressed — to shine the light toward liberation. The oppressed have the responsibility to liberate themselves, and in doing so, forge a path for the oppressor to be liberated. However, the oppressed must be careful that they do not continue the game of oppression, in which both the oppressor and the oppressed are caught, by being lured into becoming the oppressor.
It is the soul that has been oppressed. So it is the job of the soul to light the way for the spirit back to the love that is wisdom.
This is my work. .
————— Ps: how ironic is it that agter i wrote this piece about love that i just sent an email to WP and told them to fuck off! Lol.
I hope they dont bring the hammer down. On me. Lol
Spirituality is taken.