A Holiday gift: Objects and Subjects

“The true substance of things lay in the depths, while the dramatic power of material churns and crashes like waves on the surface.”

A paraphrase of Graham Harman, I commandeer his polemic to notice a felicity to the actuality of the situation.

We are taught, both religiously and philosophically, that The truth of things lies in our subjectivity. We are taught that all the drama that’s occurring, all the argumentation, The passions, the perceptions And conceptions, the interaction, is where we are to look for the truth.

We tend to ignore post-structuralism’s critique as merely another subjective argument. Namely, that post-structuralism as a philosophy appears to arise from nowhere, has no basis, ultimately having no substance that could’ve made the argument or pointed out the various things.

And everyone seems to just take that as a given. Indeed the whole comment of Post-structuralism is that subjectivity itself, while involved in these various negotiations of historical and discursive elements, is ultimately repressed by them, the truth of the very interaction repressed, is denied, is excluded from the negotiation itself as subjectivity, the knowledge-power. The conclusion that we tend to rely on and work with is that, well, the truth of the matter must be that human beings and the world lie only in their subjectivity.

The radical truth which begins to describe the fallacy of orientating substance upon the exchange of materials concerns objects, and ultimately, the truth of the situation.

As this rephrase tells, true substance lay in the shadowy depths.

So ironically, it is a counseling, it is an anthropology, as I call it, which uncovers the true substance of what we’re dealing with between the Selfand the world, what true universal objects are in themselves.

Conventional Philosophy. becomes ultimately this place of politics, this place of “playing around”, at once comedic, at once tragic. We find d that a group of human beings which attempt to find itself and themselves in a substance of material negotiation – ultimately these human beings become fucked up. They don’t know how to behave. They begin to collapse in upon themselves, to create discord and problems everywhere because ultimately the source of “there being” it problematic in insubstantial.

The failure of the enlightenment is the victory of ideological power which subjugates human beings to its whim despite themselves.

It is not “we” that are subjects of ideological power. It is that we are involved with a faith that ideological power is synthetically a priori not only to our own very ontological substance…

….And the substance of everything in the universe



Socialism, Dictatorship, Democracy, Communism


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.


We have nothing to fear but fear itself: Take care of our own. They need help.



Sometimes I feel there are just too many people. And that numbers can amount to a sort of ignorance that the idea of intelligence just cannot account for or educate. Politics then falls outside of mere rationality.

These Trump supporters may be victims of merely being in an environment where they don’t see difference or encounter anyone who thinks differently than themselves. And have little ability to reflect on experience outside their own. Basically, blind and desperately seeking.

Can’t we just lose gracefully? When Trump won, did the other side claim voter fraud and March to Washington saying “it doesn’t add up”? We want honesty ? No. They said “well give him a chance Becuase that’s what America process decided.

I wonder if these people just feel excluded. Have little recourse to a true global identity and feel left out. ? They thus recourse to the only thing they know: Conspiracy and religious belief.

Hmm. It’s really is kind of sad. Somehow, We need to support these people in ther person, to feel empowered and not dumb or stupid.

Maybe. ??

Truth? Honesty? It appears the “post truth” President has a following of people who want honesty, but they are unable to have a criteria which meets those standards unless they win.

That seems dangerous..

We need to take care of our own, and these people are Americans.

Less a political crisis, and more a mental health crisis/ spiritual crisis:

They are scared.

Ignorance breeds hate.

….. OR… these people are just sore losers and whiners.  😜


The project we can generally call the Enlightenment was about including humanity is one common category. It’s economic and political arms involve incorporating difference and investing in unknowns we can call excess.

The failure of this project is actually the culmination of its effort, its fruition. Where ever difference may appear, it’s manner of viewing the universe has filled in, colonized every possibility of thinker including ways to think about thinkers and thoughts that could not think of have a thought.

The enlightenment and its project of colonialization continues because thought itself is understood commonly as a particular set of instructions and descriptions that most people are simply unable and will not ‘think’ outside of. This is so much the case, the project so solidified, that even philosophy itself thinks that it is able to overcome this ideological theological maxim.

What we call ‘Esoteric’ is that manner of coming upon the universe which, for any group of human beings, cultures or “religions”, is unable to be communicated to the aggregate of constituents.

Confusion arises in the world, dissolution of group coherence, when everyone one is assumed to be party to all ability of knowing and thinking in potential. Individual withdraw into subjectivity, the atomization of the human group, the dividing or separating of things along “improper” junctures, causes demoralization in the groups constituents and an ability for large exploitation of those individuals due to the conceptual excess which arises from the ‘fission’ of people who would otherwise see themselves as a whole being intimately involved with a coherent and meaningful group.

Vacant Leaders

We should by now realize that our leaders have only a simulacrum of intelligence.

The climate is changing because the manner human beings view the world is changing. Involved; inseparate; acausal.

Storms arise and destroy; the storm must be a storm, even while those who live intelligently and ethically resist and ride it out and rebuild.

Yeah it sucks; but there is, at this point, no ability to effectively mount an argument with the storm, and indeed such efforts merely fuel the power of the storm.

Storms move air, only circulate energy but on a scale that intelligence can only speculate about. And that is because the storm has no intelligence but it a Natural force which arises within certain conditions which involve the human ideal of intelligence.

But the storm is vacant of intelligence; it is only a motion of energy that has developed out of the ideal of intelligence, a motion that moves beyond intelligence, which will dissipate in time, as it attempts to organize use itself intelligently. But it is vacant of such organization of intelligence.

What you think?

THE SECOND PART * crossing your mind near you.

thephilosophicalhackthephilosophicalhackthephilosophicalhackthephilosophicalhackthephilosophcialhackthephilosophicalhackthephilosophicalhackthephilosophicalhackthephilosophicalhackTHESECONDPARTthephilosophicalhackthephilosophicalhackthephilosophicalhackthephilosophicalhackthephilosophicalhackthephilosophicalhackthephilosophicalhackthephilosophicalhackthephilosophicalhackthephilosophicalhackthephilosophicalhackthephilosophicalhackthephilosophicalhackthephilosophicalhackthephilosophicalhackOUT SOON

The Point of the Slavoj Zizek Vs Jordan Peterson debate: An Assessment

Slavoj Zizek Vs Jordan Peterson: An Assessment

— Read on aussiesta.wordpress.com/2019/04/27/slavoj-zizek-vs-jordan-peterson-an-assessment/

Thanks Neotonos! I agree with much of his assessment.  He hits on some significant turns of the debate; Im glad, because I didn’t really want to assess a play be play.

I’ll use this repost to give my final comments on the Z/P debate.


It’s intresting to me that none of the commenters saw what I saw, which is, really saw any big picture. It really is, like Neotonos said “like a bunch of people reporting on a cricket match”. To my eyes and ears, it really is like people miss the debate for the spectacle. I think Noetanos gets a little more involved that the others I’ve read, though.

First off; yeah, I get it: people wanted a WWF slam-a-thon, of whatever that WWF thing is.  Zizekians wanted Zizek to take Peterson apart, and the Petersonians wanted him to show Zizek where he is stupid liberal, or something like that. These two celebrity philosophical figures represent a certain polemic in the philosophical world; people wanted a battle.

The thing is, if you have been listening to Zizek lately, and understand Peterson’s general effort (which he does use his point in the Z/P debate), both are actually more concerned with the world than they are just political voice boxes. Both actually care. They both advocate responsibility.
You can listen to and read my essay about the current state of philosophy HERE, the essay I wrote before the debate. One of the main reasons why one can tell they actually care is because they don’t give a shit about towing the political lines.

It is interesting to me that people seem perplexed about Zizek’s apparent shift from what they understand as his usually Marxism, and his basic support for capitalism. But if one is familiar with Zizek’s philosophy, he has not changed his view; rather, he had elaborated more upon the situation given the condition at hand.

In the debate Zizek even alludes to his earlier work about Marxism, of which he says he’s not going to take the debate that way; it is obvious to Zizek that Peterson has not read Zizek enough to be able to address the subtleties involved with Z’s “Marxism”. He highlights his Hegelianism. But the reason for this, I think, is because Zizek was not concerned with showing how Peterson is a ignorant fool (like many of us were hoping). Zizek’s point has always been Marxist in that the subject is a state of being which is involved with a dialectical reality which shows up in the Lacanian manner at all times. That is; through the symbolic order mediated by what is ‘imagined’, or what is the real fantasy. This fantasy is manifested in the (further) dialectic between what appears should occur due to the symbolic presentation. But there is a problem (as we understand the “barred S”). When the subject attempts to speak about what the symbolic world is presenting, a transformation takes place: similar to Derridean issues of subjectivity, what was once the true meaning of reality is noticed as a fantasy. The issue within this world, though, Is that one has to be able to notice it (clean house; think).

It is in this dialectic that Zizek locates his Marxism, because it indeed functions to supply all the multiplicity of material for and by which the subject is able to act in reality. There appears to be an element or aspect which oppresses the subject’s ability to appear in the world. This is why Lacan’s “Real” is impossible; because reality presents that which appears to not exhibit a contradiction in its terms for existing as such. It indeed shows aspects of its operation everywhere as contradiction in the, what i call conventional and what Zizek calls naive, sense, but because the withdraw that this ‘Real’ enacts occurs in the dialectical relationship with the symbolic-imaginary domain, as I just said, manifesting an appearance of real truth. As Cedric Nathaniel discusses in his book The Philosophical Hack, it is this ‘real-truth’ that is the political world.

There is no “actual” reduction to the usual traditional-conventional rhetoric or some “actual” political state where the “pure” Marxists or the “pure” capitalists exist because these supposed entities, states, or situations are –yes — already occurring in the discussion, as Nathaniel discusses, of term-object identities. The idea of ‘identity politics’ is a mistaken or distorted use of the the concept of the Term-object Identity in the same way that reality is a ‘mistaken’ apprehension of what is Real. They are dialectical mechanisms.

Now, the situation that I described above is the real political situation. It accounts for why we are having such huge discrepancy in political ideals and ability to get things done in government across the globe. It is the situation of what I call “no communication”. This situation of no communication is what Zizek refers to when he says that he does not see a way out of our capitalistic situation of inequality and exploitation, because it is exactly the ‘equality’ which is posed in the politically real estimation which is able to skim profit off of the ‘excess’ which occurs in the dialectic between what is true and what is real, between what is ‘equal’ in the dialectic of relation of what is Real, and what is ‘unequal’ in the dialectic of what is real politically. This current process of existing in which humanity finds itself now, seems inescapable because it is indeed how we function ethically, which is to say, in remaining fidelitous to what we know as true (Soren Kierkegaard defines this space, and Alain Badiou describes our activity within it).

OK. Peterson, on the other hand, sees a ways out. Both philosophers (Z and P) do not see any constructive point in continuing with the regular status quo situation which they both see in their ways. They both do not simply give up and be naive nor inauthentic (in the Kiekegaardian sense).

In another lecture, Peterson gives us a similar description of Capitalistic nihilism, of the situation that Zizek cannot see a way out of: Peterson describes the situation of larger projects losing their ability to be effective. His idea is thus that we must begin with the smallest or more local project. As he says, we must clean our own house first. We must begin with ourselves, put our own houses in order. He thus extends this manner of being able to get honest with oneself and associates it with a Christian kind of theme.

Both of these philosophers thus pose the same question, have a similar manner of understanding it, and also see that the only way through is, indeed, Capitalism; we must use what we have, and stop attempting to escape the problematic situation through all sorts of fantastic psychic mechanisms (for those kinds of ways of denial enforce the philosophical correlation). Hence, Peterson’s “see how apparently antagonistic positions can work to communicate”, and Zizek’s “think!” as their closing statements, respectively.

Yet, to focus on the small, segregated, details of the debate is exactly a capitalist manner of approaching discourse, even if one says they are Marxist. The hard Marxist activists are indeed perpetuating the capitalist agenda by constantly reifying routes of control for the capitalist congregant (all of us). It does not matter what kind of revolutionary (or fundamentalist) state would do or say to assert a proper manner to have reality because reality itself is being informed by the ontological exploitation of subjective excess. Hence, political-reality is that inescapable condition where philosophers find themselves. And yet, the move seems to be to stop attempting to be Gramsci-esque proponents for the masses, because so long as this kind of philosophically ‘enlightened’ manner attempts to alleviate the struggle of the disenfranchised, the activist has only asserted that those she would help are indeed lost, as they both become as now a positive historical cause.

Yet I am skeptical that siding with the super-wealthy (as some have already decided is best) will be any more effective, for they, as a general class, are “large scalers”, abusers of excess, exploiters of the world, creators of chaos and confusion.

Ok. I could go on, but I think Ive made my point. And if you ae really interested, you can always read mine and Nathaniel’s books.

The Left and the Right.

The “left and the right” is a “kind” way to speak about what is occurring. It is a way of not only catering to those who do not comprehend (whether is be the left or the right), But as well as a way to think existence, to be the enacting of thinking which views the world in a certain way. This way is thus kindly appropriated toward the psychologically religious maxim of offense, a way to speak without addressing the responsibility which is inherent to that way, or manner offense, as though to exist that way is the only way possible.

The way forward, then, is to elaborate these lines of offense responsibly, that is, in a manner which attempt to own what is inherently offensive.