Tag Archives: philosophy



Just before I had read the comment that mentioned consumption which prompted the Comments on the Stoned Ape (the previous post), I happened to be listening to some NPR on the radio. That word (consumer, consume, consumption) was used a bunch in the story I was listening to and I began to wonder about it. The news story was interviewing someone about the US economy and he kept saying “consumers” and “consume”. Of course I knew what he meant, but I could not help ponder if indeed I consume things in the manner he was speaking.

I doubted it, and I think through this doubt I could understand that he was just using a term to describe certain aspects and functioning of analyses of the flow of products and money, and a mechanism for that flow is ‘consumption’.

But as I listened, I also realized I did not listen to what he was saying and interpret it in that way at first; I indeed listened and understood that he was talking about me, a consumer, and a bunch of people like me, who are consumers, and the economy will behave like that and that because I and other people are indeed consumers.

The point I think I came upon is that despite what term he is using for his description of his equasions, I do not consume things in the manner he is suggesting that the ‘group of people that are consumers’ do. And I don’t think anyone does, or, maybe most people do. These could be mutually exclusive categories.

Nevertheless, for one; I do not consume TV shows. I do consume food and water and intoxicants, maybe even forms of air. But I do not consume solar panels or couches. I do not consume the beach, sun, ocean and breezes. We do not. Rather, only in the context of his report and analysis does anyone consume such things. But he speaks to us as if we do, and I think one of the problems, one of the features of our type of capitalism right now could be that we default to Be what people who are presumed to know, say about us. It is possible, then, to understand that capitalism could be not so much a ubiquitous great system of the exchange of goods, and maybe a little more but not entirely a way of speaking. More significantly, it could very well be a manner of appropriating what is said; the issue could be more the manner we come upon objects in the world.

I am not saying that his analysis is incorrect, but that people tend to identify their Being human, often enough, with what (terms) people, who do various jobs or have an amount of authority, use to place the human Being into their equasion. (To live in another persons dream is a nightmare!)

Further; this seems to be a situation that the majority of individual people cannot and will not consider nor think had any significance at all, or if they do, it only has enough significance to get them to discuss something philosophical over a beer, maybe. Thus, such notice, is not the suggestion that we need to educate everyone on how they are being determined by human agencies that they are not seeing or agreeing with. Such people simply don’t care; most people simply cannot view the influences that other agencies have on their Being. If one thinks about some opinions of Chinese citizens have about their government: Despite what flaws the government might have, the general opinion is that is works pretty well.

Thus I would say that for the most part it is not our job to educate people that they are being taken advantage of, simply because those people are generally happy and do not and cannot conceive the extent that they are being manipulated. This is modern humanity, and indeed, to the sour of many modern apologists, it is humanity at all times. No matter what education is implemented, such people will only still yet be lead by what is being said. Often, no matter what one is taught, no matter what deep insight to which one thinks they are educating people, that person will most often merely understand that they have to speak in a certain manner, and that such a manner is the ‘right’ way to speak about things.

Something else is in play, then; something more that what we call ‘liberal education’.

Comments upon The Stoned Ape.

Hesiod over at Hesiod’s Corner made a comment about my
The Stoned Ape post, to which I am posting the following reply:

I hadnt considered that consumerist view upon this picture; it does make sense to it, and perhaps in a manner you may or may not be aware of.

I am not sure who painted this picture…


, but I got it off of the Terrence Mckenna site. Though my opinions around Mckenna and his ideas roll vast to yea and nay, I nevertheless have a quite involved opinion.

Lets see If I can be somewhat succinct and to the point. Lol. I will assume that you are not familiar with Terrence Mckenna.

Philosophically, this topic is quite involved; that’s why I write books  But, I do tend to side on evolution, rather than “hand of God” type speculations, some of which can include the phenomenalist ideals of reality contained in discourse, where we “appear in the world”.

So, if we can realize what evolution must mean from a pure stand point, then there is a lot going on, again, quite philosophically.

This picture: What I see in it and understand of it is a kind of ‘reverse’ view from the “bad” consumer view.

The ape is sitting on a mushroom; in particular the Fly agaric mushroom. Mckenna’s ideas are quite distasteful for those who like to center themselves in the Big Logos, the Reason God with which many philosophers like to hold communion with, because Mckenna did drugs and in fact advocated that people do “heroic” amounts of psychedelics. Most people do not like to include intoxication and its affects in their ideas of what may be rational.

His basic principle is that apes ate plants such as Camellia sinensis, Coffea, marijuana, and many other intoxicating plants, many of which were poisonous and deadly, but some that were poisonous but not quite deadly. We can find numerous examples of animals eating intoxicating plants for no other purpose that to get high; early hominids most probably ate substances that got them high also, even if accidentally. At some point they came across plants that had psychotropic substances, such as N,N-Dimethyltryptamine, Muscimol, psilocybin and psilocin, and these substances’ interaction with chemistry particular to hominids is what brought about what we know as (human) consciousness. The discussions and arguments are somewhat involved and lengthy, but that’s the kernel of it.

This is the “stoned ape” idea. The idea is that we are still stoned, not special, just ‘stoned’.


This is appearing to make more and more sense with philosophy, as I will be discussing in my coming book (without any reference to the Stoned Ape idea, btw, lol).

In response to the consumerist idea, though; if we include ourselves as not exceptional in the universe, then it is possible that all objects occur equally, effecting and or sensing one another through various relations that are come upon in the due course of the objects being objecs in themselves. If we keep in mind that human beings are not exceptional, as also every other object also is (not exceptional), then we should be able to understand that the very idea of ‘consumption’, the object that we call ‘consumption’, this “thing” that appears in the universe as the object ‘consumption’, is likewise doing the same thing human beings think we are doing, but unto itself. Likewise, all objects that we see ourselves (as centrist beings) consuming, might be consuming us. It is possible, then, that our own consumption is not a problem that has repercussions that will lead us to destruction or some compromised state of being human; it may be that we are involved with the universe in the same manner that it is involved with us, so that we could actually be “being drawn” into the universe through these ‘consumer’ relations with other universal (consuming) objects.

So it may be that we a stoned consumerist ape, but it may not necessarily mean that something is wrong.

The Stoned Ape.

The Rational Animal.

“The philosophical process could be described as a human being noticing and then transcending her animal condition of the moment. It is thus the process of coming to the full rationality of the human animal for the time, and describing it. The description is thus the symbolic culmination of irony, at once only knowing of the pure knowledge of her animal rationale but then also describing it to a full systematic which is then viewed to be speaking about something that is the furthest point that rationality has stepped from her animality. ”

The Philosophical Hack.

Problematizing Whiteness; Correlation and the Two Routes.

In my very early and preliminary reflections on whiteness and being white it seems obvious to me that two issues are present in the philosophical reckoning.

1) The theoretical postmodern maxim of discursive reality.


2) The fact that no human Being is actually white. At best, even an albino is not truly white.

If there is a reduction or a larger meaning between these two aspects then it must fall into one of those categories. While it is not properly truthful to say that they are mutually exclusive, it is, so far, sensible to see that any argument that would be made would have to get its footing in one of these choices, ie either the argument is making a point about discursive reality and the manifestation of power, or, it is not making an argument.

Not making an argument? How can that be? You say.

There is no tension. Rather, the tension is come upon when both statements are understood within a methodological axiom where they occur in equal stature, both in the same existential space to be or as a question, both equally allowable and accessible to questioning. For example, each term of both phrases can be looked into to find its specific meaning, and at each step of inquiry, the results themselves are allowed to be questioned. This is usually what is meant by philosophy; this standard method has brought about a historical-traditional liturgy of reductionary theory and philosophical systems put forth by various free thinking and inspired people.

Yet when there is no tension, then the statements are seen to be describing what is obvious: 1) the post modern condition has to do with the organization of discursive structures and the corresponding belief that these structures reflect essences and or basic and operative realities ; 2) no living human being has ever been truly the colour white.

The sensible question should be what is the purpose of asking into these statements. For (1), the method is implicit: In bringing out Postmodern there is a invitation into discussing and debating what the statement means and whether it is true. (2) is not implicit; questioning into this statement would be more like a philosophical exercise , yet one that would seem to point out how the philosophical method can sometimes be taken too far, or be used for merely pondering and wondering; like the speculation that our universe could be but a speck of dust under the fingernail of a inconceivably large giant creature.

But again, the distinction of these into categories like I easily explained above, has shown us how argument falls into one of the categories themselves: Either it is relative or it is true; the discussion that takes place in the category that contains all humans, within the common category of human mental ability, has therefore already fallen into the meaning of the first statement, which, due to this seemingly automatic motion, can be come to be seen as a kind of religious dogma. It can be understood as areligious dogma because the plain fact of the two statements have already been tested. We have already found out that they are true beyond what argumentative proposals might confront them: The arguments necessarily fall back into the meaning of those statements unless we adhere to a special condition of the first statement, a condition that we automatically understand as obvious, a meaning that usurps as it calls all meaning to itself to thereby negate any other possibility situation. Hence we have located and identified a true aspect about the human being, and have begun along a different road in the effort to discover what the human being is. The question that informs this finding is “why are we still arguing whether or not the results are true when the same result has arisen through multiple testings of the same experiment?” This is how Philosophy retains its religious privilege of failing to become a science: Such a privilege is imposed as it is asserted. Religion allows for the human being to be infinitely creative in avoiding its determination and thus control — especially once it has established its power to control.


What I mean by this is the same or very similar to what we mean when we point to the near impossibility of getting outside or beyond capitalist ideology. Discourse is understood as communication of identity, which always involves a processual excess (transcendence) which when communicated “properly”is called progress (communion), and capitalism is the exploitation of this excess, again progress in evidence (“God’s Plan”). Because at this point, this moment in which this post for example is being read, anyone that has any higher sort of education at all will very soon come upon the reality that the argument about there being no skin colour that is naturally actually white in colour is an assertion of a discursive reality; shortly there after with a little bit of reflective thought people will inevitably stumble upon the fact that there is a sort of power that is being implemented in the use of the word “white” to describe human groups, social and cultural and economic positions and systems, in various sectors and for various reasons.

And yet there is indeed a certain factual basis that tells us in an obvious fashion that there is no human being that is white in colour. The next statement that would depart from relative discursive realities is the one that would say that the fact of there being no actual white person is true beyond what the discourse might reroute into a discursive reality, that is, to be argued and negotiated.

The involvement with the philosophical arguments around this issue thus becomes the issue, the issue that falls outside of a certain self-evident scheme of ideas.

But not everything is of ideas, you say.

The point then, the usual point, is that there is no argument to be made about whether or not being white is a discursive reality: The argument to be made must have to do with power relations and so is automatically reflective of this real situation of postmodern multivocal realities. In other words, there is no argument that can be made in the ethical region of common humanity that can argue that arguments about the problemitzation of whiteness should not be discussed; Even as we might be able to describe a situation where the discussion about race, power, and privilege becomes a secondary concern, we cannot, in good faith, dismiss the discussion as merely some sort of Idealistic fashion.

The only real way to get back to the things themselves is thus to create or establish or, even more, recognize that there is a partition that must occur. Some will cry “foul”, though, seeing this partition as another means to install a justification for segregation. But such a reaction is not comprehending the issue, nor the statement. Integral to this partition must be the fact that there are not separate species of human beings (we know that race is not a description of genetic fact), that ultimately whiteness as an indication of a particular group of people as well as a particular power structure of systems which is ultimately an ideology, and that this ideology a particular type of scheme of ideas that is been placed there necessarily. Nevertheless, this necessity is uncomfortable and tends to rely upon arguments that only make sense unto the ideology they support. Hence if we are to get around the contradiction that arises of the bare fact and the ethics that sees the necessity as incorrect, then we need to be able to theorize about the nature of Being that gets outside what necessarily has been given us for such Being. We find the placement of the postmodern as a rejection of this necessity. The problematization of whiteness is a pushback of ideas based in a universal ideal of proper human treatment. The idea struggles with itself.

We then must acknowledge that we are not allowed to acknowledge that we are dealing only with ideas: ethics demands that we are dealing with something that arises outside of discourse. And this is because of the insistence and near impossibility of getting outside what is present of discourse and it’s meaning, as an identity in itself. We must adhere to what is ethical to the common idea of humanity and no longer argue about what is real and what is Ideal, or what is actual compared to what is merely an idea. All such arguments are hopelessly caught in what philosophers Have termed lately “correlational”.

The very idea that we can formulate some sort of discourse that is able to get beyond what is correlational is itself based in a real idea founded in what is correlational, which is to say, discursive. The philosophical efforts that attempt to give to us some sort of argument to get us outside the correlational cycle is then, ultimately, based in the ideal that discourse is capable of identifying another way of getting to some actual situation of reality, an actual discourse that will lead, through its linking, to what is outside of discourse. Hence the continuation of the postmodern idea: correlation.

I’m not sure how many more ways I need to say it: If the problem is not understood by now then we have just realized an actual situation that occurs outside of what is correlational.

We’ll let that sit in a minute….


Once this situation has taken hold, and is no longer an effort of building on quicksand, then we can begin to understand why identity has become the valued thing that founds real ability of human interaction with the world. We have to admit that what is real, while a discursive formulation, functions more akin to a religious institution on one hand, and a thing in-itself to notice and have on the other to thereby be able to use and discuss without worrying about whether what is correlational will suck it back into relativity and conventional philosophical speculation.

This means that we are able then to problematize whiteness without asserting or attempting to impose again a hierarchical racist structure. The issue will level out to become an issue of the human being because of the religious effect of a common humanity.


Everywhere is War…

Actual Philosophical Difference.

“In the philosophical context, a difference exists where offense marks a boundary. If I move to describe a leaf, and I say it is brown, no one is offended and no one argues over the simple description of that fact of autumn. Yet, for some very particular and indeed knowable reason, if I  move to describe a real human being, and say it relies upon an assumption of transcendence, all sorts of argument arises. This is exactly what enacts philosophical difference as difference: The religious offense at confining what is human unto itself as an identifiable object. The category of philosophy thereby bifurcates to reveal itself unto a state of non-philosophical idempotence. From then on, we proceed to retain the privileged subject as an unassailable entity at our own risk…

…Much like the ideal that everyone should be allowed to speak freely…Such a practical ideal has missed the reality of the moment for the sake of the privilege of freedom, granted to him, the ideal subject, as it should be granted to everyone…

…Never admitting nor realizing the mistake he has made in his grand assumption of historical eternity, his solid faith, yet does he proclaim his mistake so loud and firm so as to allow no-one to reproach it, as he perpetuates the neglect of the real and actual situation before him.

…at this level of appropriation …applied philosophy leaves its ideological home…[and] makes the journey into the social world.”

— The Philosophical Hack. 2018