The Conventional Limit

–from “Re-visioning psychology” by James Hillman.

The modern idea of ownership permeates into every thing that we think. This preoccupation with one’s “owned” ideas manifests world as some thing to be or to have as owned. Hence we have the eternal problem for the modern individual which shows up in one instance as rational subjective opinion in a world of argued relative opinions, and in another instance as mental illness. We might even begin to discern what mental health is by understanding how it seeks to commandeer the problematic modern individual which is — by the plain evidence of all the problem it vomits everywhere by simply being itself — ideologically and institutionally mentally ill, by placing it in a “positive spin”. For I think the most salient and pertinent issue of philosophy and not only psychology is: What exactly is mental health?

We tend to ignore this question as well as ignore the absurdity involved in the object of mental health by trying to reduce it to some physical state of brain or some organizational state of some “pure” mind, by trying to bring about various conceptual apparatuses, or simply talking about “ways” or practices that we can do to thus be mentally healthy by the doing of them. But none of these ever really tells us what mental health is except maybe a sort of stillborn fetus of modern science to poke and prod at.

And the people who are really suffering are the ones who mostly get to remain in a state of suffering overall.

Why do we continue to remain so myopic towards a problem which doesn’t seem to be responding very well to these narrow idealistic methods? 

But this is not really to make any sort of criticism against processes, interventions, and other efforts to help; for sure, we have to try.

 Here, we are taking on the interface or relationship between psychology, activity, and philosophy. 

The most pertinent philosophical discussion of modernity in this regard was made by Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari in their book “capitalism in schizophrenia”, but indeed their work is saturated with the attempt to come into a plural solution to the problem of the singular self. 

The issue, though, that we find permeating philosophy, or what I call conventional philosophy, can be viewed through the adjective pronoun “we”; for, what those philosophers pronounce in their philosophical works, in their psychoanalysis in one sense, is exactly “not” we, but indeed that group of people which is only able to understand humanity as a generalized and common, modern, “we”: Meaning, not the We that arises as world to form the contours of self, but indeed the modern We which is the presumed isolated self within a world of individual isolated selves “out there”, huddling in cold groups, and indeed only of beings associated with the category that we call human. The We doesn’t think of the We which involves rock formations, buildings and quarks. Anything that lives outside of this, what I call, religious and theological designation, we label and denote as ethically inferior and or in need of correction due to its epistemologically implicit error of cognition.

We might then ponder what indeed the idea of correction is manifesting around in this regard. What is this idealistic calcification attempting to protect?

*

I’ll stop there. 

A defense of skepticism — A Traveler’s Thoughts

As an anthropologist, I am usually a proponent of respect for “non-Western worldviews” (whatever that means). However, I noticed something problematic in the comments section of this video by the channel Genetically Modified Skeptic. This video is a deconstruction of the Gaia channel/streaming platform, which is purportedly a channel devoted to alternative medicine and […]

via A defense of skepticism — A Traveler’s Thoughts

And my comment:

Hello from outer space!

That is not you in the video I think; another picture of you I have in mind looks nothing like that guy.

I love how you have put voice to ideas and concerns I have thought about but have not formulated; you put them so well to take apart the issue. Thanks!

While I absolutely understand and mainly agree with you, here is my addition:

As I look at humanity, while indeed I must adhere to the ‘ideological base’, if you will, of ‘non-foolishness’ –

“Know yourself. Be obsessed with distinguishing knowledge from foolishness. Build for eternity”.

I didn’t read word for word you whole post, but I probably will over the next few days. I did scan and read parts. BTW —

When I look at humanity, I do not see a “correct” or “true” manner of things, rather, I see a “sane and preferable” manner of things, and that this ‘sane and preferable’ manner cannot be proven to its justification to everyone even as they may contribute to it. Let me explain..

I see that it is not that people are thinking stupid or incorrect things…

(for the most part, to distinguish between, say, actually mentally deranged and defective mentalities, and mentalities such as the GAIA, but a plethora of other also,  represent – and don’t get me wrong: I am not making a theoretical argument here; I’ll do that elsewhere. When you come across someone that is obviously compromised in their ability of sanity, you know; lets leave it at that for now)

…people are not believing illusions. They are not misunderstanding anything: On the contrary: They are behaving exactly how humans behave.

I would say: The brain/consciousness functions in a wide manner to manifest reality. Most human consciousnesses function with, what we could call (I have not really thought this all the way through, mind you) ‘majority inclusion’, which could mean that the reality it forms functions to manifest an appearance of inclusion in various ways. And I have not thought this through very far: like a bell curve, say, where most humans occur as sane in the 20-80% lets say.

The significance is not that the outliers are insane and the aggregate is sane. It is that within what we call sanity, we are beginning to understand, a multitude of possible forms arise, such that we can laugh at some and adhere to others, but that the ‘project space’ as large enough to include all sorts of strange ideas of reality. Sanity is not so much based in a ‘correct version of reality’, then, as it is, ‘able to contribute’ to the human project (for lack of a better term right now).

The significance I think Zizek in indicating is that we should distance ourselves from taking a position of illusion/not illusion, as though we have the correct organization of actuality.

The truth is that we merely have one organization of what works best, what is optimal for the project that we are involved in, and in this project we need many many human beings behaving as they do in the capacity that are able, including the ability to have a reality, whatever that may be. In other words, we need allow people to have their reality and not create another opposition as thought “I am correct, and you are stupid”. The fact is that there is no justifying this latter Zizkeian-sort of move (if I can say this) to everyone to get them ‘onboard’, so to speak, with the project in a manner which could change their view of reality.

We are not lying, then, nor manipulating, but rather allowing people to be the form of human being they are able to be, indeed they Are, all the while moving the project forward without exclusion, without oppressional ideals (which transfer into to manifest the real world), without inequity or dismissal of the fact that they indeed are informing me as to my reality, are inclusive of it. I think this is the intensional meaning of ‘namaste’.

An example analogy could be the current system of United States. The ‘project’ is the system of democracy; the system is functioning, if everyone ‘believes’ in the system as the preferable ’truth’, then everyone gets to do and be however they want. The support for the system does not, though, rely upon everyone being a public servant nor even voting. Rather, it relies upon those who see the system and behave as though the system is the best and preferable ’truth of reality’. In this respect, I allow for what ever ‘reality’ to manifest for an individual, all the while having them (us) answer to what is preferable without direct enforcement or even having to convince them that it is ‘true’.

In a very real sense, the divide we see in the United States is perfectly OK so long as everyone involved sees the truth of the matter, The actuality which allows for them to have their positions, as gained from this ‘preferable truth’ that is the democratic system of the US.