“We’re all just different!” How Intersectionality is Being Colonized by White People

Working in student affairs on a university campus, I feel like I hear the words “intersectionality” or “intersectional” said out loud at least 20 …

“We’re all just different!” How Intersectionality is Being Colonized by White People

—- Aaaand my comment:

The nature of society as an imagined symbolic fantasy is to commandeer and distort for the sake of maintaing the known (real) universe.

Intersectionality, regardless of who puts forth the ‘original’ definition, is the ‘indivisible remaider” where the imagined world coalesces around symbols.

All objects constitute points of origin and markings of relation to other objects. Intersectionality, as a reductionary descriptor for social relations, is a “weighted” object of social concern: It grants the symbol, as a point of deconstruction, or the fantasy, as a ‘vanishing point’ or ‘master signifier’ of the oppressing reality.

The True issue presented by this post is: Will we be permitted to see how our reckoning of change, itself is changed by the force of this argument that is imvolved in real social change?

the Modern Real Method

I keep coming back to what I see as a basic and fundamental issue in philosophy.

Why must we reference others to support the veracity of a proposal ?

I mean this in a de facto sense, not de jure. For, of course most modern philosophers we know of make implicit to thier argument the necessity for reference to other authors.

My question is: Why?

Why is Plato and Aristotle and whoever is ‘basic’ not required to reference for thier proposals to have veracity ? And yet no one currently is allowed to propose truths in the same way?

Why is no appeal to truth permitted to thought?

Any ideas?

Normativity and critical race theory

apple.news/AAMsdATRIR9SSRpKGhegrZQ

 The renowned and infamous critical social theorist and Philosopher Slavoj Zizek Develops a notion somewhere in one of his books about the significant issue of reality in the context of philosophy is not simply change, but a change in how we are able to reckon what change is– and whether or not we can notice this kind of change.

This is all I’m gonna say right here about this post of this black person denouncing critical race theory.

I will let the reader Come upon the truth of this real development herself.

With one hint: What else supplies normalcy if it isn’t that which guides us to what is normal?

To Deconstruct the term “normal” to then say that the term does not identify anything that actually exists is merely to say that the term itself, ie normal, is identifying the very operation through which deconstruction is operating.  

Juneteenth. The Issue of the Two: Reality and Truth

apple.news/AQFsABTbhT6qNcx1XrcN4ww

The United States’ Second Independence Day!

 Ive heard opinions that while this moment should be officially recognized, we should’ve named it something different because it’ll confuse everyone having two independence days.

I think it’s fabulous. Yes, fabulous in that we are recognizing a significant truth in the real history of this country, but also that there are Two recognitions that ultimately inform the truth of the actual situation.

This resonates so incredibly well with my philosophical notion of the Two Routes upon objects.

In thier individual truths, they cannot reduce to the other in fact. They can only do so in real reductive argument.

Yet, aside from that method of arguing, one always excludes the other, while the other includes the exclusion. They both, as real non philosophical aspects, constitute the truth of the situation.

Reposting How Psychedelics Could Help Cure Various Mental-Health Disorders | by Viktor Marchev

It’s amazing how psychedelics — from being initially known as the ‘party drugs’ and excessively being connected to the ‘underground’—are now seen as …

How Psychedelics Could Help Cure Various Mental-Health Disorders | by Viktor Marchev | ILLUMINATION | May, 2021

—- I am having a like/dislike relationship with the psychedelic frontier of treating mental disorders. Its not a Love/hate relationship, it is definitely a like/ dislike.

Let’s see if I can explain my ambiguity.

The psychedelic experience is so unlike any other experience someone can have, whether it be from introducing a chemical substance into one’s body or otherwise. , At its core, the psychedelic experience is a complete unanchoring of experience from what we generally understand as reality. But not only that, for, It seems to me that people who have not fully engaged with the potential of the psychedelic experience tend to reduce that experience to a real action. This is to say there is an incredible duplicity and large irony involved in the experience itself, and so to eliminate the incredulity which is inherent to the psychedelic experience, is to reduce the psychedelic experience to something that it is innately not part of. This activity somehow offends me deeply. This is a part of the “dislike” part of my attitude.

On the other hand, the “like” part of my attitude really stems from the fact that the insight which defies the very definition of what insight might be for mental health thereby compels me to understand that most people with mental health issues will not be able to comprehend such insight. So it is that I must acknowledge that there may be some sort of initial and profound help that can be gained through a scientific approach of using various psychedelic – in The loose sense of a group chemical compounds – in the effort for mental health. I am open to psychedelics potential for treating mental health issues.

However, there is another part of the “dislike” part of my attitude and it really Has to do, again, with the all too quick reduction to scientific empirical truth.

From a Pure philosophical perspective, it is possible to conceptualize the action of psychedelics on mental health as the opposite of what empirical science will Tell us. Philosophy addresses the foundations of what it is to exist, what it is to be and what it is to know. From a conflation of those standpoints it is just as likely that a transformation in my view upon the world would influence a neurochemical State.

My dislike tends to stem from an apprehension where we might transform the empirical neurochemistry and translate into an improvement of mental health in the sense that we would want to believe, as opposed to what is actually occurring. We might be all too ready to see statistical improvement as support for developing psychedelic compounds in the treatment of mental health yet more in the interest of money and big business, more in the interest of people who like to get high believing what science says to their support, rather than what is actually occurring for the person with the mental health issue.

Which is to say, a 30% improvement (whatever that might mean) upon mental health from the approach of empirical Science Might be selling short the potential for what psychedelics are actually capable of achieving for mental health, that is, approached from the other way, approached from the standpoint that a fundamental change in the way that we are viewing the world necessarily corresponds with the change in neurochemistry. A change in the way I view things might have 100% effect on my mental health in a Beneficial Way And might appear to alter my neurochemistry in whatever way, but to approach it from the neurochemical side — empiricism simply does not have the bandwidth, it’s simply does not have the bit depth. 

I am concerned that those who see a promise in psychedelics will be all too quick to side with compromise Because it makes them happy that The statistics seems to confirm what they believed was right. From my experience, the psychedelic experience is not about being right, it is about understanding. Hence my comment about insight. 

Nevertheless, in the same way that we legalized marijuana, it may be that we have to approach a psychedelic treatment for mental health similarly. This is to indicate that the reason why marijuana is legal today is not because science proved anything good about it. We wanted marijuana legal because we saw and see the benefit of marijuana in actual lives, and so we used whatever leverage we could get, whether it be religious, which actually came first, or science or history. But ultimately it is neither religion nor science nor history which has allowed us as a country at least to want to smoke weed legally. Science and religion are extraneous, even though for our purposes we have to pretend that they are primary. alcohol is not legal because any sort of benefit except that we like it. Translating this imperative to psychedelics moves along a slightly different trajectory, but categorically it is the same to the same. As I have said, we can treat mental health by trying to alleviate symptoms and think that we’re doing good. Ok. We probably are doing some good. But I feel that we are leaving out the more significant in a profound implications of psychedelics in mental Health by merely leaving it to “what helps”.

Hopefully this is just a sentiment and not what is actually occurring. 

x

… And I didn’t even mention the problem with “curing” mental illness. I’m just leaving that be for the benefit of doubt. And, you can look to my earlier post about that one.

Being Really Mentally Healthy

Here is my question about health in general.

Because my teeth are not quite shining white, does that mean that my teeth are not healthy?

Here’s another one.

Because I can barely run 50 yards without getting totally winded, does that mean that I’m not healthy?

And, just one more for good measure.

If I only have one friend, does that mean that I am not healthy?

*

I’m going to put this link on here, not because I am trying to promote this product, but because this product is part of a marketing campaign that has to do with a certain ideal of mental health that I question deeply.

Always mind. Is a catchy little phrase to promote mental health, I imagine, come up with against the colloquialism “never mind”.

And, keep in mind that I am also not necessarily saying that I don’t agree with the ideal behind this marketing campaign, nor am I saying that you should not buy their products or should not agree with the general push of their message.

For sure, there is an idealism which places me along a continuum from unhealthy to healthy, and where I am placed upon that line is less important than I do place myself there in the reckoning of my quality of life and mental health.

My problem with that way of knowing is that I question idealistic promotions, whether they be about my health, whether they be about my talent, my personality, my happiness, my place of living, etc.

When it comes to mental health, because I’m a counselor, I am often thinking less about some idealistic state of mental health, and more about people who are actually suffering from mental health issues.

If you can follow my line of reasoning here: my teeth may be yellow and I may have a couple fillings, but they are far from unhealthy. And this, even though I can talk about how my teeth are not as healthy as, say, my dentist would want them to be or that they should be if I would’ve been a good little boy and brushed my teeth and floss after every meal or at least twice a day throughout my life.

There are two things going on here. One is that yes there is an ideal of health that I surely fall into with reference to what is unhealthy.

Yet, when it comes to my mental health I am not sure that putting me into such a scheme is healthy for my mental health.

Yes, there are people for whom it is very healthy to place themselves in the scheme of mental health and to strive towards some idealistic presentation of being mentally healthy, whatever that is. But, I would say that those people for the most part who enjoy or otherwise are able to fit themselves into such a scheme such that it works for them, I would say that they are already mentally healthy and they don’t really need to worry about their mental health.

At least, for those people if I am helping them with their mental health, I would hardly say that they have any sort of mental health issue except that they have some notion that they want to be “better mentally healthy”.

When I think of mental health I think of it in the context of what could be wrong. Sure, there is the fad of a sort of “positive psychology” which would beg to differ with my estimation, but then I would beg to differ that the very idea of a positive psychology is based on an inflated idea that something could go very wrong with my mental health. So, there’s that useless argument.

What I mean then is that if someone is asking for help, for mental health therapy, it is because something is off, something is wrong.

If I’m going to the dentist to get my teeth cleaned, yes I’m going for my dental health, but I don’t have any dental health issues under the premise that I’m going to get my teeth cleaned. I go to the dentist and I get a cavity filled because something is wrong with my dental health. However, once I have achieved a certain state of dental health, say that five of my teeth have been extracted, two others have fillings in them, one is a crown, my mouth is no longer Dentally unhealthy, despite that I am missing and I have damaged many of them, or in comparison to people that have shiny full set of teeth. My teeth in my mouth are dentally healthy. And so I’m not really sure why I would say a reference my mouth to a dental health except in as much as I was worried about some thing that is going wrong, but more pointedly: in so much as I might have to go to the dentist, it is because something has gone wrong.

At least, this is my point of view as a counselor.

Physical health is not the same as mental Health, because it doesn’t matter what I think about my finger being broken for my finger to be physically unhealthy.

And yet for me to think that my mind might be broken and that it needs to be fixed, may just well aggravate and perpetuate the problem to a mental disorder.

So it is that I have issues with an idealistic Notion of mental health. 

x

In a kind of structuralist manner, I am healthy only to the extent and with reference to the potential for me to be unhealthy. Therefore. There is no necessity for me to worry about being mentally healthy if I am effective in living my life. So it is that to be concerned with my mental health, what past incarnations called “mental hygiene”, is itself a kind of mental issue, what we could say is a sort of institutional neurosis.xx

The Reposting Human Consciousness Post

This article provides some insight on how and why the explanation of human consciousness might be the reason for a paradigm shift of science away …

Human Consciousness and the end of Materialism

—- He has some really good extrapolated points.

I think the shorter version of what he is saying, so far as ‘the whole of correlations do not a mind make’, I think concerns my hard problem of consciousness as distinguished from Chalmers hard problem; Chalmers hard problem I think it’s just a very difficult problem, and not hard in the sense of the word that we understand hard beyond the meaning that is “very difficult”. My Hard Problem of consciousness actually indicates a significance of the problem of consciousnes that must be come to terms with before any other problem of consciousnessness has any skin in the game. Without addressing my Hard Problem, the rest become merely an idealized word game.

I keep saying it here in there in various posts of mine, but here it is again:

The hard problem of consciousness is that there is no way to absolutely be convinced that someone else’s brain has anything to do with one’s own consciousness, or consciousness whether or not it is mine or someone else’s. That is, I am only able to be convinced because I’m already convinced.

In other words, it is merely that I believe that I have a brain in which my consciousness resides and that when I look at another human being with a brain, what they find out goes on there, actually has to do with my consciousness.

It may, but then does it really have to do with a brain ? and then as well, does it have to do with my brain (do I have a brain)?

These are the hard questions because Typically They are answered with answers that have wiggle room, for a word, that are soft answers. 

We love soft questions and soft answers because it never requires us to really think, it never requires us to really reflect upon what is actually occurring. On The contrary, it only requires of us to a stay one dimensional, that is to say, non-reflective. we get to have opinions, we get to argue all sorts of great ideas. It’s all really interesting.
x

There is plenty that people could say to convince me through various proofs that working on someone else’s brain, or doing anything to someone else’s brain has to do with my brain and by extension my consciousness, but the only way that I could understand the equation is to already believe that it is the case.

In other words, I have to already understand that there is a correlation between my consciousness and someone else’s brain that has to do with consciousness.

This hard problem that I am elaborating upon is no different than this authors post of the correlation between electrical activity in one’s brain, say, and consciousness itself.

I would also beg to differ in his use of the idea of “materialism”. For Sure I know what he’s talking about when he refers to materialism, but this materialism he refers to, and then also references it to a true Philosophy, (even as I tend to agree with his definition of philosophy) it’s just one type of materialism, and in fact, it is an “Old materialism”. That is, the “new materialism” is of a different sort.

However, in so much as the correlation pointed out by my hard problem of consciousness is no different than the correlation he makes note of between brain activity and consciousness itself, I would then have to point to that problem in which he is inherently involved with is in fact an “old” materialistic problem.

But I like his argument so far is one adheres to the old version of materialism. 

xxxxx

Object Orientation, Tool Being, and Kierkegaard

https://anchor.fm/s/50bf1544/podcast/rss

Trying to link this to the podcast. Just click the link, I guess? Its not embedding very well.
Podcast episode cover art

https://anchor.fm/lance86/embed/episodes/The-Object-of-Called-the-Subject-Object-Orientation–Tool-Being-and-Kierkegaard-eutue1

https://anchor.fm/lance86/episodes/The-Object-of-Called-the-Subject-Object-Orientation–Tool-Being-and-Kierkegaard-eutue1
The Object of the Subject

A comparison of objects

x

Comparison of sizes reminded me how insignificant we are in the universe, yet we are full of ‘ego’ and try to dominate everyone! Do we matter in the …

Size comparison of objects

—– I’ll push back on that:

The version you advocate here is along what we might call a “smooth scale” of variance. This scale is a manner by which to view and associate things. Yes. But it is one manner.

It seems like is is common, or foundational to the universe. However, when we really begin to notice ourselves in the universe and how indeed the universe acts or behaves within itself, how objects behave with reference to one another, we find that there is a scale variance between objects and not a smooth scale. Indeed, we are able, we are capable, of viewing things from top to bottom, big to small, microscopic to macroscopic, along with some of the scale, but when we really look at the universe, like I said, things do not really occur that way.

One great example is that gravity, that we think of it as a universal constant that has to do with mass, the structure of all things do not conform to a smooth scale with reference to gravity. For example, the structure of functioning bodies. The smooth scale only works within certain limits. But when we get down to say insect levels, or even cellular levels, that’s smooth scale stops being consistent. We find that different things behave with reference to gravity differently structurally, conform to different rules about how it’s supposed to be put together or how it’s supposed to behave.

I think the idea that myself, or human beings, are insignificant speck in the universe, is really arguing a certain kind of project. A certain kind of agenda about how I’m supposed to view myself, and not necessarily how I actually am…

Or how the universe really is in actuality.x

Boulder, “3 square miles surrounded by reality” has joined the rest of the planet

apple.news/AfoMUjfmDT7eGcc3er-e-PQ

Yesterday, The City of Boulder, which at one time was widely considered “different” from the rest of the United States and the world, became the same as everywhere else.

This comes as a time when the United States is having a reality check as well.

*

I remember in 1995, gun violence was basically nonexistent. I believe there was one gun shot on record for that year occurring in town– zero for decades prior.

It was the year when 12 people died from overdose of heroin – the whole year – And the city was alarmed at the “heroin problem” in the county. And Even though that summer, at least an ounce of Speed and crank (that is, good methamphetamine, before it is refined) was being sold on the main drag every day, right out in the open, where no one could see. Two beat cops patrolled during the day shift downtown.

That year as well, the Ku Klux Klan held a rally in the middle of town that was highly and vehemently protested. All the while the KKK message at the rally was “were just saying; Boulder is the kind of town that we like!”

Still to this day, even though Boulder has long departed from that iconic fantasyland of “keep Boulder weird”, people still think of Boulder as a unique city because if its citizens’ eccentricity, and hippie artistic “let it be” attitude, which mostly disappeared and become merely a commercial tag-line at least 10 years ago.

Four years ago Boulder County started to address its implicit systemic racism.

Maybe it’s about time.

https://apple.news/AV0zwUVLdRoqpelhHL8oFjQ

Apple and Big Tech is taking over anyways, so…

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_60590410c5b6bd95117f2f90?ncid=newsltushpmgnewsc

…and death sells.