Blame and Capitalism

Consider that our global system of trade involved with semantic economy may be based on a system of blame. Or, more properly stated, those who make the most money, the tally of systemic “goodness”, are those who are best able to displace blame from themselves. Titles, invoked with all institutions, thus are a systemic firewall by which the individual is established as a ‘master’ of deferring blame onto another, of using the system most effectively.

We might find theoretical correspondence with Deleuze and Guattari’s metaphysical response: the individual becomes schizophrenic as a means to deal with this ontologically-ethical compromise. Bodiless, or, a body without organs, the agent-identity fully embodied by the transcendent ideal of systemic forgiveness never fully off-sets the existential actuality. The psyche thus “splits” into many pieces, which can be assembled in many ways. An individual never has a body let alone any organs that proceed to do any substantial or viable function in themselves, sense, any of those assemblages can be reassembled to take in or produce or reproduce anything else. Hence, a kind of ordained and permitted psychosis.

The standard method of empirical research, embedding ones position in a proper lineage of other people’s ideas, a method of becoming indoctrinated into believing, exacting, performing the dis-embodiment. As I say, The modern religion.x

how fast the world ? As fast as our arrogance.

Futurists from the 20th century predicted that labor saving devices would make leisure abundant. According to the great economist John Maynard Keynes, the big challenge would be that… Rather than…
— Read on medium.com/accelerated-intelligence/google-director-of-engineering-this-is-how-fast-the-world-will-change-in-ten-years-6f1e653b5374

— I am always intrigued when theorists use the word “we” — and a bit skeptical.

I am pretty conscious in my writing when I use “we”. I’m not perfect, though. But I try to use “I” when I cannot be sure I am talking about “us”, and I try to use “we” only when I am talking about an experience of the reader that should have been aroused through the reading. For example; as I make an argument or describe a situation, I will use the “we” to indicate where the reader should be in their conceptualization of matter discussed, as a sort of check in to see if everyone is on board.

The linked post I have to question, simply because it is obvious to me that the “we” he is writing about does not include me.

Much of what he assumes in the “we accelerating”, the symptoms and reactions/responses, I have not, nor do I experience. I understand that many people can relate to what he is saying — I do understand that people can identify with his panic, yes, but the way he is saying it sounds like he is overextending the experience of being human, as well then, overextending the possibility of what he sees as so terrible.

He is actually talking about “them”.

It is for those he is talking about, and that reality they live in, that brings me to have compassion for those poor souls.

I just can’t help but feel for them because it seems that they have been sold a bill of goods, and it feels better about it is they look around as see “us”.

But they are really only seeing what they are able to see.

It is “us” in so much as they might hope, but it is really “them” who are, supposedly, going to suffer from this ideological acceleration.

This is why I feel it is my responsibility to help people.

*

From my vantage point, everything is changing all the time and at the same rate. Hence, the view upon the world is a particularly cosmological view, an incorporated view which sees in the events of the world a correspondence with what is being felt, as these emotions inform his one is able to think about themselves and the world.

It is not therefore ‘the world’ or society that these people are talking about; rather, it is thier own sense of Being. In the same way as certain congregations of institutional religions throughout history have seen that the world is going to end in various ways and according to various evidences and proofs, so it is with the ideal of acceleration.

It is individual ontological perception, not existential foundation

Every generation has its reasons for the shittiness. That’s what being a modern human is.

*.

We are Only gonna die From our own arrogance

Means

That it is The arrogance itself which sets up a system of knowing which perpetually “kills itself” as its own ideological teleology.

How could hell be any worse than to live in a self-reflected world that you see as The Real world ?

…Maybe read some Slavoj Zizek.x

Fox Be Defunded

Last week, the NAACP wrote a letter to the NFL making a request for the good of humanity: stop giving money to fucking Fox News. Okay, that wasn’t their exact phrasing, but it captures the spirit…
— Read on level.medium.com/its-time-to-defund-fox-news-a99234035d4e

—- Interesting.

I wonder if the United States at least will be able to pull out of the downward spiral news based from idealisms, and get back to news about actual events and issues that surround those events.

I feel like this is what the author is calling for, I feel like this is what Fox News is being indicted for: Fox News is the reflection of a kind of human being which views the world through their myopic idealism, ironically, what Philosophy. has been making arguments about for the past 200 and some years, and which the newer “realist philosophy” rebut as a methodology.

Idealism is where the individual is understood as sacrosanct. It is correspondent with the ideal of phenomenalism. And uses post modern deconstructivism as a methodological firewall.

This approach upon reality understands the human being as a generator of ideas, and that these ideas are given to the individual as a kind of divine right. This divine right thus then informs what all human beings, as individuals, are able to see. It is this closed circle of idealism which then understands the human being as involved with a common effort, which can be understood ultimately as an arena where by various subjective idealisms confront each other. This manner constitutes the individual asserting its own ideas upon the world, and upon each other, as opposed to gaining ideas from what is actually arising and occurring.

The newer approach to reality understand itself coming upon what is actually occurring, which is to see that reality is just filled with things, and that the human being has a responsibility to encounter the issues that arise from the relationships between things.

The polemic that I’m laying out here is not some thing that we have encountered before in history, I believe. Simply because there was no need to discern between these two approaches. It is not so much that idealism once dominated; in actuality it is because the meaning of idealism has changed while the symbolic representation, otherwise known as discourse, has remained the same. It is the ideal, the very idea that the terms are relating Constant meaning through time which is the source of discrepancy in our world today. This is to say that No matter what we would read or think of idealism that was written 200 years ago, there is no way to say that the meaning that we are coming to right now is the meaning that they meant 200 years ago.

What we are finding in our current politics is the gap that appears between a “living document” (reality) and an “original intention” (idealism).

It is a manifestation of how human consciousness is behaving now. Which is to say, this is not how human consciousness was behaving in the past. And the discrepancy arises within the event where someone would propose that we have a way to come upon a meaning that someone had a long time ago.

This is not to say that we cannot come to some meaning that someone had a long time ago, but very much what some authors have talked about before, but likewise has been missed in the estimation of a constant semantics; Namely, that we would have to bracket, they didn’t so much as we might understand some sort of meaning that occurred in the past, it is all he was qualified within a bracket of knowing that is only occurring right now. This is not an argument for any sort of presentism, because there too with the ideal of presentism be subject to the same condition in the attempt of trying to overcome it .

*

The irony lay in how original intension supports idealist righteousness through its use of the “living document”: postmodern deconstructionism allows the truth to arise in how one uses discourse: the truth stems from the right of the individual who can present it any way that fits with the right of divine audience, since it has no responsibility to any thing, or anyone else but the relationship of the individual with the source of the inspired truth, namely, for any other term, God: Reality is what the argument can be made to present.

*

So I wonder if we can ever really get back to the issues at hand, such that we are Americans talking about issues, rather than individual people talking about who constitutes the “actual American”. 



xx

Philosophy and Guitar Equipment: The Tower of Babel

xThis isn’t about what you might think it is about.

I am going to attempt to speak to the problem of philosophy as it arises currently. This is to say, the problem of philosophy.

The problem with philosophy nowadays, if it was ever really any different, is that to say that we are now going to speak philosophically, or we are going to talk about philosophy, is no different than if I was going to say that now I am going to talk about guitar equipment.

What I mean by this is that to say that I am having a philosophical discussion gets no further as to its topic and content, then a discussion about What brand of guitar I use, how I like my frets spaced, or what Amplifiers I prefer and which are better.

The modern problem of philosophy is that it thinks, or it implies in contemplating or otherwise accessing philosophical material, that it is speaking about anything else that is not philosophical.

The analogy would be to guitar equipment Is so much as I might be talking about Ibanez guitars, the various electronic components that go into it, the artisans that made the particular guitars, the country in which they were manufactured, the pick ups used, the string gauges, I assume that I’m talking about, say, the politics in Western Europe, or my girlfriends decision making ability around getting a tattoo, or what it means to be an American, or what it is to exist in the universe. Discussions about philosophy are only speaking about philosophy In the same way that discussions about guitar equipment are only talking about guitar equipment.

I am fairly positive that many people who will be reading this post right now will think it’s a ridiculous comparison. But I say it is a valid analogy, and that philosophy, philosophical discussions, themselves get no further than philosophy. They do not even come close to addressing the water in the stream that is flowing along side along side the path upon which I am walking my dog. The various components existence, the actuality of, perhaps me being frustrated at the limits of my empowerment, philosophy never speaks to them or of them one iota. For, philosophy is only talking about philosophy in the same way that a discussion about guitar equipment is only talking about guitar equipment.

The problem with modern philosophy is that there is a particular kind of thinking, a particular manner or orientation upon what is occurring in philosophy which sees it self as addressing some thing more than philosophy itself, say, that it is addressing existence.

And if you’re still following this and you’re just seeing how much more ridiculous this post is, then I will draw your attention to philosophy itself, what actually happens in the “philosophical Arena”.

*

Consider the following:

Is there something called ‘philosophy’?

Well, as I begin to contemplate what philosophy is, as I perhaps attempt to do some research into what other people say philosophy is, I invariably find that there are different little pockets, different “schools”, various academic fields. I find that as I come to some sort of opinion about what philosophy may be and I begin to write about it or talk about it, I invariably find that only a small group of people or even care about what the hell that I’m saying. And the small group of people will call them selves by some sort of name, for example “continental” Philosophy, or “analytical” philosophy, feminist, existential, idealistic or idealism, patchwork, realism, materialism, deist, Muslim, empiricism, scientism… I bet I could write a post that is so filled with types Of philosophy, just listing the names, that you would stop reading before You ever got done with the list. Never mind if I would ask each of these names of schools what they thought philosophy was. 

So on one hand, there is no such thing as philosophy. There is just this word that we use to categorize what is basically nothing at all. It’s not even proper to say that they are different ways of thinking about things, because as soon as I say that, then there’s gonna be some other school of philosophy that would say no that is not the case, and amongst those no’s there would be an infinite amount of other ideas about why it is not the case, as those would divide up into an innumerable amount of sects and denominations all of which consider themselves philosophy and have deep and profound ideas about what philosophy is.

And some people still ask me why or how I could possibly suggest that philosophy is a religion.

You can Google the paper that was taken by the convention in Toronto a few years ago: Philosophy religion and negation, I think that’s what I called it. i’m sure I got a link to it somewhere in my blog.

But I’m not making an argument here about what philosophy is or what it is not or whether it exists or whether it doesn’t exist. Because then I would just be involved in an exercise of ridiculousness. sometimes I just go ahead with the ridiculousness because, hell, we got to do something, eh?

…but In fact I find myself right in the middle of the problem of modern philosophy.

*

However, I think my analogy is not philosophical in the slightest sense. I think it is absolutely true and real. When do I ever encounter discourse, say, while I’m walking my dog?

My answer: only when I start to think about how discourse might be occurring while I’m walking my dog. In a way of speaking, there is no extension to discourse. What I mean by this is that there is no fundamental “discourse” that underlies me holding my iPhone, pushing the voice recording button, me speaking, and the computer algorithm printing various symbols, let alone the Internet world of code and electricity that is upholding this performance, for another word. Similarly, there is no “data” which underlies any of this situation. In fact, I could even go so far as to say there is nothing underneath at all, and even as I might argue along a certain line of extension, ultimately we find that the end of that Telos nothing at all. Not even contradiction, but exactly a reasoning which finds itself in nothing.

*

My analogy to guitar equipment holds. For I could have just as much a meaningful conversation filled with substance and existential depth in speaking about and having a discussion with someone about whether a Vox tube amplifier sounds better or is a better quality than say a fender solid state. I could have months long conversations of idealistic substance and meaningful profoundness around whether a 64 Stratocaster is a better guitar for playing blues then a Japanese 1980s Gretsch. Whether or not an MXR equalizer is better than a boutique equalizer made by say, Earthquaker pedals.

*

The issue that is not that philosophy has no substance, but what is assumed of substance, what is assumed as common, and so much as we indeed a rise in the modern context, is not getting anywhere further than the tip of its nose or the momentary irruption of sound waves in the air.

Sure, it’s real. I deal with it every day, so do you, all over the place, and a myriad of discussions about all sorts of topics.

Yet, the
Significance of this moment is not found in eternal relativity.

Indeed people still have discussions about philosophy as though they’re finding some profound truths, as if they’re discussing something with supreme depth and significance. this happens. It’s happening in all of those sub discourses, all of those various threads that are talking about which TickTock videos are the funniest, which punk rock band sounds more authentically punk rock, which pop music star has the best moves.

These discussions are not wrong or bad, but in so much as philosophy crowns itself as the king or queen of all possible discussions of significance, thereby does it miss what is actually occurring philosophically.

This is the problem of modern philosophy: there is only modern philosophy, and that any other philosophy which has a supporting describing adjective Attached to it, such as pre-modern, postmodern, mideval, ancient, ultimately arises only in the modern context, Which is to say, only in as much as people are talking about it at the time that they are talking about it yet while they believe they are talking about something which is extends to it or from it, and it is much as we are able to notice this situation. As well, Only in as much as someone tells me that it is saying anything about my life, the world or the universe, for indeed never is it encountered in my daily activity except when it comes up. There is nothing underneath, and hence what we call modern ideology, or in another way, the philosophical religion. 

Any position which poses to escape this modern world is ultimately using modern techniques in order to posit that there is some thing else that is knowable which is not modern. and this is to say that the view or orientation upon things which understands The various modes of discourse, that is, thought, idea, communication, knowledge, just to name a few, which imply or otherwise understand it’s self with reference to the implied extension is really a line of flight, a revolt from the abyss, or what we must call in all honesty now: a denial of the truth of the matter at hand.  or, what we should also understand as a reaction against an implicit offense to the way of Being by which we regularly understand and conceptualize existence, ourselves, the world, and the universe. 

This significance of philosophy I think is best summarized by Heidegger’s eternal question which resonates even to this day, into this post right here: have we yet begun to think? 

xx

On one hand, there is the content semantic which evidences a telos which is never fulfilled, the Lacan- psychoanalytical “master signifier”, or, the vanishing mediator, the “great catastrophe”, which informs the meaningful sense of the universe as it should be.

…and then there is…some thing else…which speaks of the universe as it is.

Repost: Same Wolf, Different Clothes. White Evangelicals and Critical Race… | by Matthew Teutsch | Arc Digital

White evangelicals have made Critical Race Theory their greatest enemy. This harms the church, writes Silas Lapham.
— Read on arcdigital.media/same-wolf-different-clothes-560ad3165a86

A Proposal for The Global Religion in the 21st Century: A Conversation with Noetic Nomads Founder Albert Kim

x

Amidst the growing uncertainty of the world around us and the erosion of public trust and good faith dialogue, I was drawn to several thinkers and …

Sensemaking in the 21st Century: A Conversation with Noetic Nomads Founder Albert Kim

—– This is interesting for a number of reasons. I’m gonna just focus on one.

The first and i think most significant is found in the beginning of the “Rebel Wisdom” video. 

Basically he says that all empires decline, but in the past all these empires were local, and so other empires arose. The implication, I gather, is that these empires were local manifestations and so the rest of the globe could absorb their dissolution, meaning, other civilizations or other developing empires could incorporate what had “Been left to the winds”. Basically that there were enough other humans across the globe who are not part of that empire who could, kind of, cushion the blow of the disintegrating empire.  Then he goes on to say that the issue that we have now is that we have a global empire and the assumption in the rest of his video, indeed the rest of his “wise rebellion” point, is that there’s nothing left to absorb the collapse of this global empire.

That’s my quick synopsis of the first 30 seconds or less of his opening statements.

Now, I’m going to introduce what I feel is probably some very controversial views upon things.

Immediately when I started watching this video — because I pushed play in the video before I started reading into the rest of the post–  I was struck by his introduction of fear. It appears from the whole layout of the blog post but then even kind of in the imagery of the beginning of the video and including himself and the office that he is sitting in, it feels to me as if some sort of spiritual message is going to be conveyed. I don’t really know if this is intentional, but this is the feeling that I get when I first open the post and started watching the video. Maybe you all get a different impression.

Nevertheless, I got this feeling that there was going to be some sort of spiritual message, some sort of message that we need to grow spiritually as a human creature if we are going to survive as a species.

The first point of contention toward which my remark aims it’s exactly that he presents the assumption of fear as if it is something true and common knowledge. Even as he talks about history and our present condition, he conveys it in a way that sounds very intelligent and kind of matter of fact, as though everyone automatically agrees that there is a major problem happening right now that is different than what has happened in history or before our times. and for sure, I am fairly positive that most people would agree with him that we are facing problems nowadays that are entirely different in degree and seriousness than we ever have before in human history. So, he draws from this assumption and then offers his solution.

What is controversy all about my view is that I do not believe that our particular problematic condition now is any more or less serious than any other problem that we’ve had throughout history.

My position is that at every moment in history, all human beings, at least in aggregate of them, view the situation as impending catastrophe. And this is to say, that not “all” human beings see the world in this way, but that human beings that are invested and involved with that particular ideological formation that is “civilization” and or “Empire”, as this guy calls it, understand the world as on the verge of falling apart.

I feel that it is a function of “being civilized” to understand that there is a massive catastrophe close on the horizon.

And I feel that this “rebel wisdom” is caught in this kind of civilized ideology.: that the rebellion is that aspect of being “the civilized” which maintains the ideology of that empire. He has been groomed to justify the present markings of civilization in the context of “the global spirit”, for a term, what we could very well equate to what he sees as “humanity”. This grooming is so complete, and draws upon the human functioning towards ideological investment so thoroughly, that’s the point he makes does less to move towards some sort of “wisdom” and more towards consolidating the sense of the civilized identity in the localized context.

My point is that the localized contexts constitute the global context at every moment. But also, that every localized context views itself with global concern.

We see this always and everywhere in history, no matter where we look, no matter what civilization we look into, no matter what time We focusing on, no matter what culture we decide is “local” as opposed to our global and true view of things.

More later… 
x

Postmodern Academics and …

I can’t count the number of times I’ve defended Postmodernism (PoMo) from attack, so I am publishing this, so I can link to it. Perhaps I am not …

Descriptive Postmodernism

—- Exclellent points!

I agree. and I too have been known to appear to overgeneralize postmodernism.

Mostly, though, So far is out right rejection, I reject the kind of post modern theory that appears eerily similar to essays that can be generated by The Postmodern Generator.

And there are a lot of them. Ive came across so many, and there is a group of people extended through academia who produce essays, legitimate essays, that sound ridiculously similar to these nonsensical essays that are made by the post modern generator. This is so much the case, look back into my posts maybe a couple years ago about the danger of such post modern academics generating theoretical essays that appear legitimate merely because there’s a bunch of people that like to generate meaning within the confines of a group; The orientation that whatever meaning comes to mind, whatever semantical construction is able to make sense, must make sense. Meaning, it must be true, it must have some veracity in the world.

I refute this. I disagree with that kind of post modern approach, Simply speaking, because it has no ground. It is the pure example of Kantian idealism imposing itself upon reality, As opposed to theory and their categories being generated from real situations in-themselves.

There is a larger, extended, argument here, and you can find it interspersed throughout my blog.

I also reject the kind of post modern that people identify with as they’re being is associated only with a method, as though because my brain works in this way, because my thoughts automatically go to being skeptical, therefore the being of things must be the conclusion, the grand conclusion of that method.

Further, I would argue that adhering to that kind of semantic method for Being, is itself a metanarrative.

This is why I say that certain types of reductions, for example everything reduces to a kind of Zen Buddhist nothingness, is contradictory, and is why we need to set our ontological selves within the truth of that contradiction uncomfortably if we are to come upon what being actually is as a real thing in itself. And this is to say that to set myself in a conceptual nothingness while I indeed interact with real things, gives rise to a different ontological condition than merely “Zen Buddhist phenomenal nothingness”, for that merely gives us one side of the situation. 

Something else is actually occurring, and I say that this truth can be known, and can be communicated. 

I would identify myself as a post modern thinker, but without the added necessity of having to agree with the “-ism”. And I am also very much a realist. (Without the “-ist”. Lol)

…one could say that my work involves the intersection of those two aspects of universal existence. 

Thanks philosophics!!x
xxx

Is the Modern Religion making a name for itself? Metamodernism

I’ve been hearing that metamodernism is the next stage in the march of history toward progress. Metamodernism will synthesise modernism and …

Can Metamodernism Sublate Modernism and Postmodernism?

—– Thanks Philosophics! Great post.

The title of my Repost is a little tongue in cheek, but not really if you have been following my blog.

I suggest that Modernism and Post-modernism define the Modern Religion.

The simplest explanation that accounts for all the facts is my approach. As a loose generality:

Modernity is definition.

Post modernity is deconstruction.

Of course there is more to them, but I think those two definitions, ironically, define the religion: through the definition I find ways that the definition is not sufficient. Thats it. Im not sure how any knowledge that we can call knowledge is not ordained and presented in that way.

Then: There is no more to a category of knowing and activity than those aspects. Together they constitute the Modern Being: identity and its concordat nothingness.

People just gotta do something to make a living. Meta modernity is it for intellectualism now, I guess.xxx

The Critique of a Mistaken Synthetical A Priori Knowledge

If Kant gave us a first bifurcation, and Ludwig Wittgenstein gave us the second, then Michel Foucault gives us the third.

From Foucault we have the subsequent “post modern” discourses which then evidences what we could call ‘structural’ bifurcation; which is to say, that which becomes bifurcated is the ability to have a view due to the language as it is viewed.

Foucault gives is a very clear explanation of what happens with the Postmodern — one manner of which leads directly to Donna HarowAy of my previous post; we could say that Donna is an example of the clinical tradition:

(From “The Birth of the Clinic“)

“So it is not the gaze itself that has the power of analysis and synthesis, but the synthetic truth of language, which is added to the outside, as a reward for the vigilant gaze of the student…
…In no sense was the clinic to discover by means of the gaze, it merely duplicated the art of demonstrating [that the student could remember the corpus of previous experience] by showing.”

The point he makes here is that actual reality is left behind as the remembering the clinical ((read: corpus (technology, as opposed to the actual body) of a priori synthetical knowledge)) knowledge is rewarded due to the student being a part of the group of people who are developing a set of diagnoses which more and more leave the body (patient) behind as an empty place holder for disease, as opposed to that for which diagnosis is meant to treat (the actual body).

The postmodern tradition which sees a a body of priori synthetical knowledge justified over the actual in-itself real body is the tradition by which Donna Harroway finds her place: The world of fantasy to which she then posits a solution of more fantastic words.

The actual real world is missed and set aside in the argumentation which is based upon an assumption that the world is created by a priori synthesis. What happens, though, as we are seeing, is that the world gets more and more screwed up because knowledge for itself is posited in having no responsibility for the actual world that human beings live in actuality.

I’m not sure how many more time I could say it, Becuase, just the same: no argument about the non-existence of God will ever be proven to change a congregants religious faith. The same with this postmodern faith.

*

But my point is not that she is necessarily incorrect; rather: Why does she feel compelled to use such obscure and verbose language to express such simple ideas?

It shows something about what is really happening when we personalize what is actually occurring to an actual body that is the person herself. Something that mere argument consistently and purposefully avoids or misses: Denial. (Don’t Even kNow I Am Lying)

It shows, as again Foucault speaks of elsewhere, that the act (a body which is doing the crime) of the crime is being set aside for the sake of an embodiment of crime (an idea can only be argued against), as a person can be criminal instead of merely what they do. Here, it appears opposite, in true postmodern form: Donna is excluded or shielded from her act (the act that her body, or person, is doing) by virtue of saying things that appear intelligent but are actually based in assumptions of a body (stereo-typed person), that is, never dealing with the body (world) as it is right now in front of her gaze. She is lumping the act into the body as though they are one and calling it justified. And this is exactly what Foucault warns against (see my earlier post about Age of Consent).

x

Nonetheless; Harroway has a semi-famous video she put out I think in the late 80s where she talks about history and knowledge as like a ball of thread or yarn. (I have that posted somewhere). Her point is that at no time are we ever encountering nor finding “what truly is happening or happened”, but that we “pull threads” from the wadded and tangled ball of yarn and then see that line or string as representing “history” or knowledge in general. But in actuality it is always a tangled ball of yarn.

This analogy is what I draw upon also by the term “modernity” or what we view as modern. What upholds an idea of history/knowledge is a faith.

Society and the world suffers when we disclose the nature of reality and impose it upon people in general, simply due to our knowing what is true. This is irresponsible Becuase humanity to function well and smoothly needs its fiction. It is not able to do well under an imposition of truth: it needs faith in reality.

The idea that the truth should be understood by all is a fallacy Becuase what happens, as we see, is all sorts of mental health and social problems. The ‘regular’ human psyche cannot process well, cannot reconcile such “high knowledge” without all sorts of compensatory behaviors. Such behaviors are the messed up ethical world.