Unexpected synchronous object semantics

Be Your Own Rock

Everyday

Listen

……

Sometimes I feel that I am being drawn forward. And other times I am just making my Way, doing what I do because that’s what I’m doing.

Presently I am going through a phase of the latter.

I am not sure that I ever construct meaning intentionally. I never purposely sit down and make meaning from things.

Rather, I might be perplexed, or feel out of sorts, even lost, at times.

Sometimes I do ponder things like dreams, and a meaning will show itself.

Other times I’m not thinking about anything. And meaning still shows itself…

Such is the case when I opened my WordPress reader 5 minutes ago.

The beginning of this post shows the titles of the first three posts that were in my Reader.

——>

Naysayers and reductionist psychological Science congregants may point to all the studies about how the mind will make meaning out of anything.

And yet, the conclusion of those kinds of studies never tell us how we are able to come to that conclusion, nor why that conclusion should be any less random than the meaning that the subject gained from a series of random images or words.

If a person has faith enough to set aside the psychological proof that a mind is just assembling random meanings into a string of meaning at all times, then I really have nothing to say to them philosophically, because they have not looked deep enough. They have only stopped where it suits them, as I say, for their faith. I have no criticism or argument to give them; for why would I critique or bombard someone’s faith?

Nonetheless, If I wish to take those psychological studies for what they’re really telling me, which is to say, where I do not hold back, I do not stop at my faith in what I already believe that I’m coming upon, then I might ask further:

What series of random events has coalesced in such a way to allow me to be presented to that particular arrangement of phrases or pictures that we are deciding is random?

Against what sense of truth are we deciding that any arrangement of pictures or phrases or words is random, such that the meaning that I am making (in that case) has no real basis? And is thus meaningless?

Basis Truth

I could go on.

What these kinds of questions tell us is that science is not giving us truth of the universe. Rather, what science is likely giving us is merely a reflection of our culture, of our ideology, of an ability of mind, and not the mind itself nor the universe that arises in truth.

I say this not to resort back to relativity or mirror (or mere) opinions, or subjective perception. I say this to point out that if we reject all those routes into reality, we must find that indeed reality did not disappear, but that there is a truth which can be known which does not reduce to real faith, as I say, To the religion of modern ideology.

Again and again as I said elsewhere, I’m not saying that faith and religion is inherently bad or that it needs correcting. I am merely suggesting that this is the way that consciousness functions. When a person comes upon the truth of how consciousness is indeed functioning, what is able to happen is that the way we participate in the real ideology changes.

It is then possible that it is not so much that we make meaning, but that meaning is what we are. And further, that what we are is not separated from the universe in which we arise to meaning. A reduction to individual brains is able to be come upon and is indeed able to derive necessary reason and rationales. However, An opening of that same system reveals that there is a truth beyond that kind of limited orientation upon things – but a truth that the orientation upon brain/mind religion implicitly rejects. The religion of the scientific mind rejects any knowledge that itself does not support. That is why it is a religion: Becuase there is other rational and knowable knowledge that does not adhere to its cosmological mandates.

Again: this is not to say that reality and knowledge about it is not real or does not function; rather, it is only to say that it is indeed real and refers to real things, but not true.

A Theory of (counseling) Truth

Philosophically speaking, there is a line of sense which understands that there is no common arena to which a philosophy is entirely addressable.

Following along this line, we can begin to understand that philosophy itself, as a name of some thing that arises in the world to knowledge, it’s not always what it proposes itself to be addressing.

Counseling and Mental Health

There are two, and only two ways that knowledge can be understood in the context of counseling.

— There is “mental health” which is the effort to get you back in line (conventional-ideological)…

— there is “mental health” which is coming to terms with who and what you are in the world (existential-philosophical).

Every theory about psychology, mentality, the psyche, thinking, etc. necessarily falls into one of those two categories.

Now, this is not a thought exercise to help anyone towards mental health. It is a statement about the epistemological foundations of what we understand to be mental health.

Usually, especially on blogs, when we tag with “ mental health” we are not talking about counseling, we are giving the regular person, whoever that may be, a “tip“ about how to be “mentally healthy”.

As people may find in my blog, the very idea of mental health is a questionable proposition. For sure, there are better and worse ways to go about anything, whether it is digging a hole, climbing a mountain, or showing up in the world. I think this is what we generally mean when we propose mental health tips, or strategies to have better mental health, positive thinking, things like that. And it’s good, and we have to start somewhere.

Counseling is not necessarily about mental health. Psychotherapy again is usually understood to be a method towards gaining better mental health, but we have to think about what we’re actually doing, both as a counselor and perhaps as a client if they wish to go there. For, what we are really running circles around is validating experience.

The Institution of Trauma

Being a counselor that comes from the standpoint that all mental health issues arise as a response of some sort of basic trauma, The way trauma is relieved and worked with is not to tell the client who is going through trauma that they just “need to get it together”.

I think this is the issue that I Address around mental health and counseling and psychology in general on this blog.

In particular, it is the issue that arises when a person comes into a therapist to get help with their mental health issue, and then the therapist approaches the problem as if something is wrong with the client. This happens by method, which is to say, from the standpoint of psychiatry or psychology. The method states implicitly that anyone coming in with a mental health issue that they want to solve, is necessarily problematic themselves as it is assumed that something is wrong with the client.

Then there is the middle ground, sort of, an irony, of those therapists that work from a theoretical foundation that we need to understand, empathize, and not judge the client.

I am reminded of a client I was talking to, not my own client, but someone who had been to psychotherapy for many years— she brought it up:

There is the fucked up implication that something is wrong with you at the same time the therapist is telling you out of their mouth that you are OK and there’s nothing really wrong with you. It’s like a deception, this person said. And I might add that where this is the case it is an institutionalized or an ideological mechanism that arises as a residuum even often with even most best therapeutic intention. Therapy is supposed to be about being honest, but the method is often based in a foundation of dishonesty.

I suppose the work of this blog is an attempt to recognize this residue and try to work with it. Attempt to try and get rid of it somehow or at least acknowledge that it is there.

More later.

…and further commentary.

Last year, I published a review of Sbriglia and Žižek’s Subject Lessons anthology, a review that can be found HERE. Sbriglia’s response has just been…

Russell Sbriglia responds

Thanks Doctor Zamalek.

Here is my small comment.

Note: I have not read the book but I am buying it presently. 

My comment is strictly on the contents and links of this repost.

It appears that there is a division that is made by the comments of this book That contrasts authors and arguments in a way that on one hand, I understand, and thus engage with as a sort of philosophical endeavor, Yet on the other hand, reject.

As we will find in my work, which I undertake from a counselors philosophical perspective, and not a philosopher per se, I enact a partition which groups components of the universe in a manner whereby nothing is excluded. Which is to say, the only thing that is excluded is nothing, which is always a moot point in its essence.

If nothing is not a moot point, then we are no longer talking about nothing but we are either talking about the material which constitutes nothing, or we are talking about the object of nothing. Beyond those two categories there is no other way to truthfully grasp what we might be referring to when we use the word and thereby understand the word “nothing”.

But that is a the point that is addressed by method and not by confronting the point itself.

The Conventional Philosophical Method

There is material and there are objects. There are ideas and there is reality. And then there is truth. If we are to be honest with what is happening, nothing significant arises outside of these considerations. In the context of my work, this is to say that everything else that we might talk about is real. The conventional method concerns what is real in contrast to what is true.

The Question of Truth

The various proposals that arise through the subtle contours of phrased definition, are subsumed in a kind of assumed methodology. This methodology perpetually avoids itself as an object of critique. This is to say that what we understand as philosophy in a general way is never confronted; in fact, the method is so assumed as integral to knowledge of reality, every philosophical argumentative subtlety given under the auspices of academic and intellectual production is able to be located and described to a commonality, as evidenced by this paragraph.

Hence, that which is transcendent the philosophical proposal is inherently excluded from its own kind of analysis by virtue of the fact of its availability as knowledge.

Yet also, that which is transcendent is able to be appropriated by knowledge, but this time, in fact again, necessarily excluded from the previous epistemological iteration.

The total epistemological description of this constitutes what is true of knowledge itself, that is, despite that typical philosophical method that perpetually avoids its own contradiction and constructs ideological labels to battle against its failure.

Flat Ontology is an idea that arises in some contemporary realist philosophical circles.

These circles amount to an example of how what is true and what is real is regularly obfuscated in the course of the real conventional method.

By the description inherent the necessary presentation of such semantics reveals a true description of what is actually happening in the universe despite, as well as inclusive of, the real arguments.

Zero is New Olds

A second part of reporting my thoughts upon reading “Zero: the biography of a dangerous idea” by C. Seidel.

From Zero. (2000). Used without permission.

Recall that my work centers upon orientation upon objects as the significant philosophical issue of our time.

The excerpt pictures above gives a manner by which to apprehend the coupling of history and idea that informs subsequent reality.

“It is hard to imagine something with no width and no height — with no substance at all — being a square.”

Why?

The statement is not axiomatic. It is not a truism either. Rather, it is a cosmological statement, A statement that reflects a view upon the world that is taken to be accurate of the actual universe.

This is to say, if I can find an instance which takes a count of the mathematical conundrum that is presented, and yet defies the conclusion that appears automatically common and sensible, then we can say that the statement is reflecting a belief rather than an actual instance of a true universe.

I propose that it is not hard to imagine something with no width and no height that is also a square: It is an idea of the square.

Likewise: the area of a rectangle with a zero height or zero width is the idea of the whole universe.

These two instances, these examples I just give are exactly the opposite of what is implicitly proposed as assumed of the mathematics drawn upon for this book.

There is an assumed coordination between the physical reality of the universe and our ability to analytically and logically come to formulations about it, but along a particular orientation as to our relationship with the world.

In the exercise just in this particular post, we can notice that there is a gap, I kind of invisible space that twists the view that we have for that we gain. We miss that there is a difference between the idea of the rectangle and an actual rectangle, and we superimpose these upon one another. But the superposition does not align, and we glaze over that, we forget about it, we set it aside for the sake of our belief. This is to say that “our idea” is not actually “our“ idea. It is an idea that arises within a particular faith in what is being given to our knowledge. And we could even go so far as to suggest that the infamous poststructuralist analysis of the situation indeed finds subjective repression. Ideology posed as absolute knowledge.

This is very similar to what the sociologist Bruno Latour calls a pass in his book An Inquiry into Modes of Existence.

Science, Physical Health and mental health: Climate change

apple.news/A6MVCFaN1Rcyg5onm3ir7aw

One of the problems surrounding Mental health is the weighing of solutions upon the primacy of empirical science and physical health.

A good example of how this is an improper manner to approach solutions is the issue of climate change.

Take the example that this post exhibits. We have known for years and years that these sorts of issues are going to happen. And yet our ability to take action based only upon the empirical ideal is not effective to bring a solution change.

Thinking and proof are not sufficient to constitute the truth of the matter. Something else is going on. The reality is that climate is changing, but the reality of our knowing and thinking about it and doing anything about it does not accord with the truth of it, so far as what is considered a sensible response is not taken.

This is why we need consider that the truth about this situation is not being understood. The truth is what is happening is something else than the reality.

*

How we approach mental health is similar to what we are seeing of our environment. Mental health suffers when we base healthy interventions weighted too heavily on empiricism and without considering and applying solutions out of what else is happening in the situation.

(Note: Subjectivity and it’s accorded phenomenological analysis is empirical.)

Now, keep in mind, I’m not necessarily saying that the people who have not agreed with climate change or what it means are wrong. I’m not putting up that kind of polemic to say that, oh, a smart people over here know the truth, where as the ignorant people over there are false.

That’s not what I’m saying.

I’m saying that given as a category there is this creature called the human being, and that most human beings, as they are concerned with in the industrialized globe, defer to empirical science to assess what judgments they should make. I’m saying that this manner of understanding the truth of the situation it’s not effective when we think about mental health problems.

But more so, similarly to the global environment, this empirical approach to try and convince people of through evidence and guilt tripping and appealing to some “common human intelligence” is insufficient to bring about the change needed, or at least the change that is advocated for addressing climate change, just as it is appearing I’ll-suited to the task of addressing mental health.

I think this is strangely ironic when we consider that philosophy itself is considered a “sufficient” philosophy, Meaning that our ability to reason upon things is sufficient to excel the human being progressively through history. It is this type of philosophy to which I associate empiricism And phenomenology. If we look back, phenomenology is a type of empiricism, and indeed propagated or at least coincided with the prominence of the ideal (idea) behind “empirical science”.

Apparently and obviously it is not as Objective as it would like to pose and present upon.

So it is that our current understanding of climate change must be incorrect. Both of the people that talk about the empirical science and things that we should do to address climate change, but as well as the naysayers.

*

This is a radical form of understanding and this is why I say that I am addressing truth, not merely the negotiated reality of proof and attempt to convince through argument.

I am talking about objects in themselves, truth as truth. what is actually occurring.

Christian Apologetics and Predication

pushingtheantithesis.blogspot.com/2021/07/the-final-reference-point-of-all.html

I enjoyed this essay of Christian apologetics. It makes a good point as to predication. In short, what he means by predication is that which enjoins reason to reality.  He is making the argument that one either predicates this end situation upon man himself or God.

Aside from the strictly Christian terms, I think this is really the case at hand. However, the issue that I have with this Christian apologetic is in using no different means than that of any other argument. I disagree with his sentiment and his strict argument. The reason why it falls into the category of Christian apologetics is because ultimately he is making the argument that all predication has to be founded in God and not in human beings.

My point is that I could just as easily make an argument why it should be founded in human beings themselves.

So really we’ve just come to a stalemate. Because, what we are really dealing with here is the power of argument to convince or persuade, and then ultimately a decision upon what one wants to believe. In short the Christian apologetics really come down to whether or not one believes in God as the end of predication, or whether one believes that human beings are.

Decision and Denial

The significant feature of predication should be understood as involved with the intention through which the content of discourses manifest.

I will go out on a limb here To say that the issue of predication necessarily reduces to two Possibilities. The issue around significance has to do not only with what we are predicating the idea of reason and reality upon, but indeed upon the predication by which we come to the conclusion that it must be of man or God. 

For The significance of which I speak Is that such a choice is already predicated upon man. And this is to say that “Man or a God” is predicated upon reason, and that’s what we are really asking into philosophically but also apologetically with reference to religion: from where does reason find itself.

Reason is left exempt from the problem because it is assumed.

It is the predicate upon which not only the posing of the question but the possibility of choices to answer the question reside. Reason itself is never in question; rather, it assumes that reason is a ‘one thing’ that itself addresses, but as well, that which is left out if the debate.

Reason must be established either through Mans ability or through God. In other words, the question itself is redundant. In short it merely says that reason posits choice, that ultimately we only have two choices — and you better make the right one!

God and Truth

I am going to go out on another limb here. I’m going to assume that what is intended in the argument for predication upon God, is in actuality something which is “not God”. What I mean by this is that ultimately if I say or argue that the end of predication is God, I have asked another question implicitly about the end of predication that is God. In other words, what is God predicated upon?

So my answer must be that there is no difference between the Christian apologist and what I call the conventional Philosopher. Both are ultimately assuming that reason can find itself as a predicate, and this is exactly Kant’s idealism, exactly his point of the synthetical a priori.

In a very Lyotardian manner, The terms that we are using to set up reasonable arguments to find some ultimate end of predication, to come to some sort of conclusion about reality and about our existence, this particular manner that supposes to reduce to something that falls out of predication or somehow find some term that identifies that which is not predicated, which is to say, not defined, is ultimately a contradiction in terms.

Orientation 

The question of orientation upon things thus falls to our orientation upon the terms themselves, that is, The truth that is supposed to be indicated by the terms that is never found in the content of definition nor the intension inherent the argument.

Yet where philosophy or Christian apologetics find this rhetoric to be indicating nothing, (Reason or God) thereby have we found a particular orientation upon things. It is not that we have found something absolutely positive against a defined negativity, a defined absence. Rather, it is that we have found where one particular method of organizing, discussing, and presenting Reality has failed…

…yet where reason yet endures and persists, albeit in truth. Truth thus can be spoken about, defined, delineated and yet not be required to answer to conventional philosophies reliance upon a singular definitional Foundation for everything that can exist rationally, which is to say, that singular epistemological universe where we have a choice upon what we want to believe. 

x

The Great Divide: Was The Handmaiden’s Tale Nonfiction?

apple.news/AvymzKonZSYuFKxUS0EHwHQ

Intelligence !! That, is the question.

I am not that dense to believe that any piece of news is Above pure propaganda. This link to article is by the guardian, and I do like to think this news source, though leftist, has its neutral facts in order and is reporting neutrally, with a liberal bent. 

That’s what I like to believe. But I know it’s false.

However, I do think they’re reporting on some thing that’s actually occurring, somewhere, and somehow similar to what they are reporting on.

And yes my opinions are biased also. But I think this goes to my point I’m going to make here about intelligence.

The Notion of Intelligence Has No Substantial Basis for Legitimacy

The notion of intelligence itself must be an inaccurate way to identify a human being.

I say this because my first reaction to this article is that human beings are not intelligent. Lol

What I mean by this is, their opinion makes no sense.lol

And what I mean by this is that they are stupid. lol

I could go on, but those last three sentences don’t really say anything at all except that I feel that I myself I am intelligent, my opinions make sense, and that I’m not stupid. Any definition that I would want to bring up around those terms are necessarily biased in my favor.

Notice that my post one or two ago ask the question: where does legitimacy reside?

It largely comes out of “intellectual/ethical” divides such as the arguments around birth control.

I have to admit that whatever these people are, that they are so adamant about not getting abortions antiabortion and such, must not be the same type of human that I am. I mean this in the sense that regardless of what seems intellectually sound to me, that is, that everyone should have the right to their own opinions and be able to voice them, Obviously the people who are “pro life”, as if strangely enough, I am not for living and for allowing people to live how they want to live, Do not hold this opinion that I have that everyone should be allowed to uphold their own ideals ethically about life and how to live it. Obviously that maxim only goes so far for them. Ultimately, and I would say due to what this ethical maxim means to me, again, namely, that everyone should be able to uphold their own ideals and live life as they see fit, The people who are prolife do not agree with me about what this simple statement says. And this is to say that they agree with it so long as you agree with them about this one particular issue; it doesn’t really matter what it is.

It’s like the “great divide” of ideology. There is no source of legitimacy from which we could find an intellectual or ethical common ground. Even if we believe in the United States system of government, ultimately we have to admit that the charge on the White House and the Trump in whatever they might be called, again only believe in the common humanity so far as everyone has to believe in the basic ideals they believe.

I don’t think I need to run this in the ground. I think you get my point.

The Theory of the Logistical Basis for Ethics and the Two Routes

This is why I say that ethics is not something that Arises innately within us. Because of the great divide, it appears more true to say that ethics are trained into us. Surprise!

Really the great divide must be how we are oriented upon how ethics arises within oneself. 

If I feel that I am instilled with the ethics that extends over the human creature as a global manifestation, by, for any other term, God or deity or “natural morality”, then what we have in these kinds of debates is really a battle between religious zealots. For, even if I am the most liberal minded atheist, if I am also pro life then I am believing in some transcendent yet substantial and foundational “should” that encompasses the human being as a species.

 For example, there are plenty of people that believe that we should try to help every human being no matter what due to the fact that they are human. I’m not sure how that kind of morality is not based in a religious type of formulation. I’m not sure how that relies on something that is not transcendentally encompassing to the category. 

Ethics that’s always argues, in the end, for a logistical basis of its epistemological foundation Rather than a transcendental one.

We Have Never Been Modern

We get to this point and ultimately we have to begin to notice the sociologists discussion Bruno Latour we have never been modern.  specifically, he points to inherent contradictions in the modern way of conceptualizing things, but also the contradictory motion that must be in play to uphold any one of the positions.

For example, we can argue that no God exists, and yet as I have shown above, at the same time that I am making the argument that there is no God, I am nevertheless relying upon a transcendence that is forming my ability to have such knowledge. If I move then to define what transcendence is, proposing to rebut your argument that I am relying upon some sort of God for my proposal, then I have entered into the contradiction that I propose to be solving. It is these types of contradictory positions/motions that the author draws upon to make the suggestion that this is what modernity is, but in order to come to such a critique we must never have been modern. 

The Two Routes, again

So, I come back to the problem inherent to the issue of abortion in America. There is a reason why our form of government must pose “one nation under God”. Presently, in order to govern modern minded people, a governing body must reside in that space of irony. This is what our legal system is based on, standing on the fulcrum of modern contradiction.

However, the most pertinent to our case here and what this article represents. If indeed ethics is only a logistical solution and not an ideal solution, not a solution which arises inherent to the universe and or inherent to the human being itself, then we have a huge dilemma.

The logistical rationale for ethics thus argues that there is no human being that has inherent worth. That a human being’s worth is ultimately in relation to The prevailing ideology.

Hence, The basis of the logistical approach to ethics. The problem of ethics has Little to do with whether someone has inherent worth; it has to do with the fact that I can never totally eliminate my opponents or ethical enemies. As I posted elsewhere, because I can never get rid of people who, by my estimation, Are not intelligent, nonsensical, stupid, I thereby have to reflect back upon myself how I am going to live comfortably and happily with them.

 Disgusting, right?





What Does This Have to do with Mental Health?

Mental health either is the effort to bring the individual back into the ideological fold, whatever that is.

Or,

Mental health is the effort to help the individual find themselves despite ideological maxims.x

Commenting on Medieval storytellers

x

The 12th century was arguably the most ‘storytelling’ century of the medieval period. If the Dark Ages – which were not dark at all – were centuries …

Medieval storytellers

—–

I marvel at history and it’s commentaries.

I love this guys blog; he’s always got really interesting stuff about the middle ages and books and stuff like that.

Today I was once again struck by the huge swath of time, say the 11th or 12th centuries, that he generalizes to say that writers authors told a lot of stories.

It is interesting to me that a short two page essay, for example his post, could have anything to say that was remotely accurate about the “eleventh and 12th centuries of Europe”.

This goes to a very philosophical heart in me, One that just appears now and again, like a did today.

Think about your life. In fact, think about just the past month of your life, say. Think about all the information, all the experience you’ve had, the perception and conception of time, how a month can seem like it takes forever to pass, and yet once it passes it seems very quick. Think about all the thoughts you had about the world and all the events that were going on just in your hometown or the city in which you live. Think about all the multitudinous situations that arise every moment even three blocks from your place of living.

Think about how difficult it would be to summarize what happened this last month, just even in your own personal life, think about what happened at work, think about what happened in your local businesses, in your city news, in your state or country, in your nation. Think about what happened at the party that was at your local college fraternity house.

Think about what sense is being made when I go to describe any one of those situations. How accurate that description is.

Now think about I’m extending from maybe a couple hours out to only a month. The accuracy of any of my descriptions, whether it be merely today, the past week or even the month, is exponentially distorted even within one hour of description. Let alone if I try to describe or summarize what happened in the past month.

As well, i submit, I would say that there is no difference in the capacity for description between what I say happened merely in this past hour, or this past month. Whether I am describing the situation of walking my dog around the paths and open space and sidewalks around my house, or whether I am attempting to describe or summarize the events of that same half hour on any street in my city.

Consider The capacity in each description is exactly the same. There is not something “local” to my description of me walking my dog, and then some thing that is more extensive in my describing what is happening on any city block in Lodo during the same period of time. There is exactly the same amount Of information being condensed, there is exactly the same amount of information being conveyed, there is exactly the same extent which is being communicated. There is neither more nor less information in my summary and description of the past 10 feet that I have walked with my dog, then there is of my summary and description of what is happening in all the bars in downtown Denver off of Colfax.

Consider how you might understand the various capacities and extents automatically and naturally. As well, consider by what standards are you being able to assess and perhaps rebut the situation that I am describing in this post.

Now contemplate how this linked post is supposing to describe a situation of 1000 years ago. Ponder that he is summarizing and describing a situation that occurred over some 150 years.

I for one cannot even describe with any amount of accurancy what happened in my own life of the past 5 years, let alone a whole continent over 150 years.

What exactly is being communicated. What is truly happening?

Comment on “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?

Colonialization or Meme of Popular Cohesion

Colonization? Whiteness? These have become the vanishing mediators for the present existential motion. It is not necessarily that “white people” are commandeering what is otherwise authentic and particular to people of color; it is more that these terms have become the object around which reality presently or under certain circumstances manifests.

Recently there has been developing around race relations, critical race theory etc., the idea that there can be an ideology, for Black people, for example, that can be distinctly and totally separated from that of the white colonizer. Tommy Curry is one of these who tend to be idealistic about social relation and law.

While I definitely concur with the philosophical notion as it resonnates a similar notion that I have developed around the two routes, when applied in the social sphere, my question would be how are we even communicating this other ideological foundation if there isn’t an underlying ideological foundation through which the two cultures would be interacting?

I feel that Many critical and racial theorist and Philosopher’s are beginning to see through this kind of idealism. Yes, it’s a good discourse to get people to think about what’s actually occurring, but if you stand by that idealistic utopian version of the potential involved with being human, I hate to say it, what has happened is that you are trying to colonize social reality by saying that you know something more which arises outside of our ability to communicate. In this sense, Black people and people of color are just as much colonizers as white people. Indeed, the issue of “whiteness” is not so much about the color of one’s skin, but how individual human beings show up within a framework, themselves intersected by symbols and semantic fantasies in this sense, and Black people and people of color are just as much colonizers as white people. Indeed, As some critical race efforts will agree with, whiteness is some thing that we are all involved with in order to have any identity at all. 

Reality and the two routes

This really is the issue of the two routes that I talk about . With everything positioned in reality, there is some thing that withdraws from relation. but also, that content that withdraws arises in a condition through which communication does take place, perhaps in a different epistemological environment. This is to say, I might be drawing a polemic between ideology and epistemology. 

For, when we began to talk about what knowledge actually is, and if we agree that we are all human beings communicating with each other in some cents, then this idea that there is whiteness and blackness that are ultimately unreconcilable as a social feature, it’s really depending upon the same idealistic notion of a priori reason That realists, speculative or not, are pulling apart. If we want to call this “white Philosophy.” then that’s fine. However, I would offer the challenge of how one would communicate to anyone at all an alternative version of knowledge involved with the human being without at some point resorting to, again, some underlying “big reason”. And that’s my And other philosophers point; Namely, some thing with draws. Some thing tends to always be underneath, which Graham Harmon calls “undermining”, or something that is out of reach above us, what he calls “over mining”.  it seems that whiteness, blackness, and colonialization is an inherent part of being human in the modern world; and indeed, here we are dealing with it. It is not wrong, it is just the particular coordination of knowledge through which Real objects come into being an allow for idealized intersectionality. 

However, where I think my discussion of the two routes is significant, is the admitting that this is the case despite what we might want to argue. As I say, it is a true situation that doesn’t depend on what we argue about it. 

xf

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?