Parts, Objects, and the Event: less and more

It is less a assemblage of parts that, placed piece meal into a storyboard semantic collage, that constitutes an event.

It is less the pieces of objects that come together in order for us to find and understand what an object is.

Rather

It is more the Event that brings about the whole instance and significance of what an object actually is such that parts have meaning. The object organizes knowledge around itself.

The weaving of threads brings material about to constitute a blanket, say, but that blanket itself is only partially available to knowledge through the material occasion.

The blanket arrives only at the event of being that is a blanket.

The blanket itself thus recognizes its material in a way that the material can not quite appreciate or comprehend of its object…

…the jump…The Leap is not made by hoping: It is not made at all.

Guattari and Deleuze’s Modern Teleology

Two Routes unto objects constitute the truth of the universe.

On Exploring Emotional Intelligence from a Linguistic Perspective

Exploring Emotional Intelligence from a Linguistic Perspective
— Read on www.academia.edu/53579692/Exploring_Emotional_Intelligence_from_a_Linguistic_Perspective

—–

I disagree with this author‘s particular use of supporting examples because they detract from his point about emotional intelligence, but as well, linguistics involvement with mental well being.

*

What are we trying to accomplish?

This has to be the first question involved with any statement that’s supposed to say something factual. For, even the very idea of there being fundamental and basic facts is based in an assumption about what are we trying to do by referring to facts. This is not to say that there are not facts, or that everything’s relative, but more to suggest that in so much as I am referring to facts, I need to be clear about what I’m trying to accomplish.

*

So let me be clear: facts exist truly. They don’t have anything to do with what meaning I’m making out of them (except the fact of meaning making) as though the fact that I might be making meaning dispels the potential for there to be facts. For, How could I be making meaning then? Since there would be no factual basis to say that I am merely making meaning.  The point is redundant, as I discuss elsewhere.

Semantics as a basis for discussion is overrated, ‘overmined’ as Graham Harman might say, and to call upon semantics as some sort of universal fact of being human in the world is really to call upon and assumed project about what human beings are supposed to be involved with; which is to say, if you are A human being then you are involved with the world.

I disagree with this giant assumption. And again, this is not to say that the world of human beings is made up with a bunch of random opinions based on personal experience and semantics. I am saying that that assumption is involved with a certain type of project, it assumes certain things, and it moves people toward a certain goal that is unspoken.

My work has to do with laying a foundation by which people will be able begin to speak about what is unspoken before they assume what is common.

*

OK.

To the reposted essay.

I agree that the greater emotional intelligence a person has, the greater lexicon to describe emotion, the more access a person has to who and what they are. I’m not sure that really this short linked essay is really saying that though. It seems to be saying that if you are a human being then you should have a greater lexicon so you can achieve more in the world.

Think of all the assumptions that go into the difference that I point out there. Then when you read the essay, think of the huge weight of assumptions that are going into just the fact that he would write a paper in such a way.

For, while it may be a nice thing to be able to achieve, to be a high achiever, I severely doubt that more than 20% of people in the world ever become a high achiever no matter how much they will try, or even if they will want to. So, to talk about some sort of common human being that should have any emotional quotient of intelligence, and that achievement is the reason why someone should have a greater lexicon to expressed their emotions, kind of argues the point that you’re a really fucked up individual: it communicates to you implicitly that you are screwed up, in need of improvement due to your inherent ignorance and you need to do better, that you’re screwed up and you’re probably not a high achiever.

I’m not sure that being a high achiever really matters beyond the studies. But maybe that’s because I’m a high achiever. I don’t really know. I’m fairly sure that most people really couldn’t care less whether they are high achiever or not, and those who want to be a high achiever could probably care even less because they’re already on their way to achieving very well. Again: redundant (discussed elsewhere).

*

Read on if you really want to know what I’m saying here, because, nevertheless, for sure there is a vast majority of people that reckon themselves to achievement; I’m not saying that they are incorrect, nor am I saying that people who speak to measurements of achievement are wrong.

I am merely pointing out facts about the situation, as an example of how we might be able to discern differences in projects that are otherwise assumed.

The Point of this Comment.

The reason for this really came out of the repost authors examples that he uses to support his short paper. I’m not sure that he needed to put those examples in there on one hand, but on the other hand that he felt that those examples supported his paper really says some thing about why I would not want to have any emotional intelligence at all, if we’re gonna be honest here. 🙂

Thus we get into the linguistic Symantec trope that pervades much of academic scientific promotion, at least in the area of psychology maybe.

He uses two examples. One is that a particular African culture cannot see blue simply because they don’t have the word for blue. The other example is that another culture has difficulty with discerning, for example, 13, since it lies somewhere in between 10 and 15 and they only have a lexicon that deals with fives, I guess.

I totally understand this idea. But I’m not sure it’s true. It draws upon facts, but then uses its own Symantec to make an argument within the idealism that everything is relative (semantically). And the proof he, they, usually give is that in the production of communication I would fail to communicate to someone else that I understood what blue was. And this goes to the traditional academic trope of the economy of language.

Follow me here; I am not saying that that particular way to organize knowledge is wrong or bad. I am saying that it is being unclear as to its motives, because the project it is involved with is “bettering humanity” and this is assumed as an ethical project mandate. I’m just really not sure what this humanity that is trying to get better really is. It’s not wrong that we’re trying to make a better humanity, but I suppose I am making the argument that it moves so fast into the future that we really don’t get very far at all because no one is really telling me what it’s about let alone what it really is.

Take the number 13 to someone who doesn’t have a lexicon which includes 11,12,13,14.

Does this mean that If I give a person 13 gold coins that they either believe that they have 10 or 15? I would say no. It doesn’t really matter what they can talk about, and the language that they are using is not really expressive of what they are thinking. Of course, we can’t know exactly what they are thinking because of the limitation of language, but that does not mean that if I give them 13 coins that they do not understand that they have 13 coins. We never know exactly what someone is thinking, it doesn’t matter whether or not we have the word for it, because this happens to everyone at all times, in so much as they are a subject (see my discussions elsewhere). 

The number 13 is a purely arbitrary definition about what is present. What actually occurs is more significant than whether or not 13 is being able to expressed.

Keep following me here…

This is why the elucidation of what project is being assumed is important.

Because this person in the essay of the re-post is really talking about mental health. However, they are doing it under a rubric that it must fit into all knowledge perfectly, as though there is this one common knowledge in which all humanity is involved entirely, and yet this assumption is being talked about as if everything is relative to the language we are able to use or have access to. ?? 

This is where his essay falls to the side so far as he might be talking about something specific.

The point that he is making about emotional intelligence, and its relation to linguistics and semantics, doesn’t have anything to do really with whether or not I can discern 13 or the color blue. This is just actually talking about mental health, if I’m actually talking about a person sense of self in the world. 

So it is that I made a super long comment, went on a kind of parabolic journey, to come back to the point that his two examples really detract from the point of his essay.

If I’m trying to help a person develop more comprehensive lexicon to express their emotions, I’m not doing it so they can show up in the world more consistently, so then they can achieve more. I’m doing it so they have a better sense of self, so the issues that they struggle with may become more clear to them. This doesn’t have anything to do with Whether they understand what “consternation” is. Because for sure, as opposed to what the author suggests, at times they might be feeling consternation, but it is that they were unable to express themselves and know them selves that specifically, and so they use the next best meaning, they use the next best way to describe themselves and to therefore act.

It is not that consternation does not exist, but that instead they behave, say, with anger, or they get mad at themselves, or they think less of themselves, or they act out, among any number a things.

For sure, consternation exists. It is the discrepancy between their understanding and actuality which is manifesting the difficulty. It is not mere lexicon and semantic; if it were then there would be no issue. The person simply wouldn’t understand what blue was, and would go about their way perfectly fine. It wouldn’t matter to her what blue was because anyone referring to blue would be simply set aside and described in some other way.

Hence It is due to the discrepancy, it is due to an assumption about what is proper to the universe that is at root of the problem itself.  

The greater point is that there is no viable common project. If we are speaking of emotional intelligence in the context of mental health, then certain supportive examples fail that project, and to use them thus shows a failure of the effort itself. We need a manner to be able to discern these invisible ruptures of epistemological continuum.

So it is that we need a manner by which to be explicit — in the same way as a deficit emotional lexicon yields aggrevation of problem — about what we are up to.





New Material Law

a = all possible material

b = all impossibility of possible material.

All the impossibility of possible material accounts for any thing that is not accountable as material.

a+b = every real thing.

Every real thing is qualified by either a or b.

x = the number of possible instances

An instance is a more-than-one. An instance never arises as one, since one requires an other for its ability to arise to itself. Any posit which argues differently merely proves this instance is true. That is, the definition is not true, but the instance itself is indeed true.

It can only be denied, but not proven so without the covert act.

An argument which does indeed argue something different, is subject to the condition of the universe, C.

C = (a+b) ^x

C is the entirety of possible universe.

Once this is found, only two possibilities arise:

The Real Material

And what we must then call

The True Object (Substance).

This fact is due to the redundancy of material in its possibility and impossibility, whether we call it material or use a different term for it.

That is, once we reach C, the true description of universe, then C becomes subject to being a condition of real material (either a or b).

Hence, it is not nothing that arises outside or beyond the universe C, nor other universes.

Rather, the nothingness that arises is merely part of the real universe.

This is true, since no possibility arises outside of its instance. For any other possibility, again, would be redundant.

The situation which confounds the reality of this situation is that such truth has knowable content, content that we may call substance, that brings into question the real condition of materiality (a+b) as a total accounting of the universe.

Therefore, since the true content of the real universe is not reckoned by or against or in relief of nothing, the true content of the universe is not simply everything, (as a platitude or truism), but must rather involve a different manner or orientation upon what real material objects are in themselves, and thus what information they are yielding to knowledge.

Two Routes upon or otherwise into things.

Rp and comment: Twitter To ‘Pre-Bunk’ Criticism Of Left’s Climate Narrative During COP26

Originally posted on PA Pundits – International: By Alexander Hall ~ Twitter is unleashing a new program to proactively protect the left’s climate …

Twitter To ‘Pre-Bunk’ Criticism Of Left’s Climate Narrative During COP26

—-…and my comment:

Here is another example of The Two Routes in practical effect.

The fact of the climate changing is true.

Climate Change is real.

The truth of the climate changing is something human beings must deal with — and will deal with — despite politcal argument about what is real.

To say that Twitter is not being politically neutral in thier allowance of news, as this repost suggest, is to say that what is real is always politically negotiated.

However, to promote this negotiation as though the climate is not involved with human activity is still politically real, and harms humanity by attempting to avoid the truth.

This is the basic issue at hand in our real political world at this point: That what is true takes a while to get an effective foot hold into the political discussion. The debate shows that the truth is not being discussed, but only reality. Over time, the truth of our relationship with the climate will be beyond effective dispute, and reality will have likewise changed.

The overall issue of Climate Change is that we have named the problem, but we have not realized that we are in a relationship with it, with Climate Change, as so have not been able to imagine ourselves in a different situation. In other words, we are in a dysfunctional relationship and we continue to try and fix the relationship, but the “partner” is not having it.

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

Resiliency Mental Health

Dr. Amy Marschall, Licensed Psychologist

A New Vision for Mental Health

New and interesting things are happening in mental healthcare – find out about them here and help shape a new vision for mental health

Mental Health 101

Author/Writer @ Thought Catalog, LiberoMagazine, Invisible illness&TotallyADD peer supporter trainee I blog to bring awareness to mental health issues

Secrets of Mental Health

The Choice is Yours!

rethinkingscripture.wordpress.com/

Facing The Challenges of Mental Health

Spo-Reflections

To live is to battle with trolls in the vaults of heart and brain. To write; this is to sit in judgment over one's Self. Henrik Ibsen

Mind. Beauty. Simplicity

living with less gave me more to live for

The Tony Burgess Blog

The Home Of T-Bird From The Dork Web.

Olivia Lucie Blake

Musings of a Millennial. Life, The World and Everything In Between.

Damon Ashworth Psychology

Melbourne Clinical Psychologist

Mental Health @ Home

A safe place to talk openly about mental health & illness

Self Care & Mental Health

Know Your Worth; Own Your Life

Learnography

Format your brain for knowledge transfer

Object Relations

"A Word of Substance"

The Absurd

piles of dog-eared books, fountain pens, poetry, romance and despair, existential crisis, anarchy, rebellion

THE HIDDEN SOUL

Want some motivation,this is the place

Bio-Blogger

Bio-Blogger is an excellent source for collaborations and to explore your businesses & talents.

Wibble

Just another glitch in the matrix

Filosofa's Word

Cogito Ergo Sum

Climate of Sophistry

Climate science is sophistry...i.e., BS.

Tallbloke's Talkshop

Cutting edge science you can dice with

a joyful life

happiness joy love kindness peace

The Twisting Tail

the world turns on a word

Creative Expressions

Professor Ashok Misra shares with you literary expressions.

Mytika Speak

Where Logic and Feeling Unite

Notes from Camelid Country

A travel blog from Bolivia to Belgium via Berlin

Heroes Not Zombies

becoming not being.......

Emotional Shadows

where all emotions are cared for!

Soulsoothinsounds's Blog

For those awakening divine humans

Peacock Poetry

by Sam Allen

Union Homestead

An urban homesteading family move to the country; still a story of trial and error...a lot of error!

The adopted ones blog

Two adoptees - one vocal the other not so much...

Conversations on finding and loving who I am

Let's have an open conversation about life.

ThoughtsnLifeBlog

Change your thoughts change your life

Tips from Sharvi

Tips to make your daily life easier!

mulyale mutisya

what the eyes have seen, ears have heard, being has experienced and what the Spirit has felt.

Paul Militaru

Photography Portfolio

TheCommonAtheist

One minute info blogs escaping the faith trap