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.

cancel culture and ‘bad religion’ – BBC News

The musician believes political correctness online is having an “asphyxiating effect” on society.
— Read on www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-53768254

——- and of course, my commentary:

That’s cool. On the other side of it though, I think the ideal where everyone just gets to say whatever they want and everyone is in awareness and excepting of their own emotional reactions, is a utopian pipe dream.

Lol

Wow I didn’t know he was 62 years old. That’s insane. Lol.

It’s interesting though, I think this idea that has accompanied the web and Internet which sees free speech and free expression as naturally extending to the infinity of Internet access, it’s self is a kind of religion.

I think the idea of free speech and acceptance of difference is much easier when you don’t have the full range of human experience in your face, or the potential there of.

It’s easy to live a tiny life that only encounters other people if you travel, or through the newspaper or through the TV news, and say that we should all have free speech and freedom of expression.

It’s a little bit more difficult when you have every type of speech and every type of expression available at a click.

I think both extremes are two types of religious expression.

What we have as the left and the right, and I think the myopia over each is really the manifestation of our present political climate.

And I love Nick Cave, but Nick Cave as an old man, I’m not really sure of.😁

He’s definitely the artist type, And now he’s an older artist who thinks society should be made up of a bunch of intellectual artists.

Well, actually maybe the left and the right are switching places. Said that the left has become so left that it’s starting to implement its liberal strategies as a kind of dogma.

And then it’s the right who’s actually taking on more liberal ideas, American ideals about free speech and letting everyone say what they want and not care what anyone else feels. Like, we are all adults and just grow some balls would you? And don’t be so sensitive!

But you know what, what I think kind of addresses both of these ends is something that neither of the extremes really understand.

*

It really extends from race relations, critical race theory. The idea is that the institutional/systemic norms (we could even bring in Foucault here) are made by white people. And so to be inconsiderate of other people under the assumption that “we’re all human beings, and just grow up already” is to deny the lived experience of people that fall outside of the norms, namely, people of color, but really anyone who doesn’t fit into the operative “top down” norms. 

This is the experience of America, though, and when you get out side of the generalized Americans and United States white culture into other countries, the hard line of critical race theory seems to meet some contradiction. However, the more we look at what is contradicting, the more we begin to hear voices that confirm what we are finding is the case in America, or the United States in particular actually, actually holds water across the globe.

So, the issue really isn’t between the “you need to be considerate of others”, side of things, and the “just get over it and stop being so sensitive” side of things.

But it’s more about having a realization about how the norms of society itself, and now I mean global culture in the widest sense, has been shaped by white identity.

And we call this identity “modern capitalism”. But even if we have a difficult time seeing history as the history of white capitalism, It doesn’t take very much to look around the globe and it’s history to see that it is always been lighter skinned people who developed the privilege, and it’s the darker skinned people who end up being oppressed, in poverty, excluded from what is “civilized” — yeah, like a dogma. Exactly like a religion. We can go even back to what we know as the first civilizations. It is pretty well known that even in the pre-history of India it was the Aryan races that came down and subjugated the darker skinned people of the subcontinent of India. The Aryan people are known to have lighter skin; And they were from the north.

(Please, some historian and/or anthropologist please correct me if I’m wrong!)

We need only Paulo Freire’s Formulation of oppression: both the oppressor and the oppressed play the game of oppression. And what typically happens is that the oppressed are so repressed that when I offered a chair at the oppressors table, playing by the oppressors rules, most gladly take it, and thus end up oppressing their own people, their own culture, their own kind, so to speak.

So the idea of this left and right Politicalization of this basic and fundamental issue is really a misunderstanding of the issue, actually identity politics.

Actually both sides are only being able to see what they are able to see, all the while proposing that they see the “whole big picture”. This is where the rift appears, in the blind spot that neither one can see nor really want to see because they both view their ideas as “liberal”, as in, having to do with liberty and freedom.

But what they are really developing is a kind of religious dogma which colors of the world for the benefit of that particular side.

And I don’t mean to use the word “color” just as a insignificant adjective. I literally mean it in the sense of critical race Theory that both sides who are involved with their sense of white righteousness actually color the world through their moral and ethical imperative of which they are incapable of seeing outside.





x

Event and Substance

Various philosophers have already discussed the “event”recently. I generally consider three philosophers contemporary that are significant to the discussion of truth. I talk about them all the time: Zizek, Badiou, Laruelle; The indivisible remainder, void, and void qua void as implicated in non-philosophy, respectively. Which is to say, in a very Witgenstein manner, that whatever might be nothing is nothing to be concerned with. There’s nothing even we could begin to say about it that has anything to do with what we name it. Nothing here becomes foundational as opposed to merely speculative.

It is this last significance that encompasses the event. The event is nothing that we can talk about, but it is everything that we must be concerned with. In this way it is not fully present, as various sorts of random occurrences filled with content That occupy as well as catalyze change due to the fullness of their content that we unpack meaning from. Rather, it is very much like Rudolph Otto’s slight mention in his book The Idea of the Holy where he quickly suggests that the “mysterious tremmendum”, the “awe-full-ness” Which motivates our very being, which in his discussion is really the root of the holy, is that center of vacancy around which religion arises.

But the event is also not pure nothingness. Zizek points to this contradiction of speaking about nothingness as “a catastrophe” Which arises at the beginning of the universe, where everything is turned on its head, and what we understand is love becomes the manifestation of real evil. With Zizek, Nothingness inscribes us from all sides and indeed it is the event which brings us into the middle to form political identity, as one might say, out of nothingness, or, in the middle of nothingness, stretching backwards to a moment of pure absurdity, and extending forward into a ‘Master signification’ which avoids all scrutiny.

Badiou attempts to tell us what being and event actually is. Indeed his masterwork book is called “being and event”. We find, though, that he too must take up a sort of Zizekian tack and move everything into the political realm. In very short, Babiou says that the event is where being irrupts into the world. The event “begins the count” of reality. And I imagine we are supposed to gather that this “count” is quite similar to the generation of meaning by human beings. And so where else do we generate meaning but in the political realm, I guess.

Laruelle is really the only one of these three that actually takes seriously the idea of nothingness. He takes it so serious that it becomes a foundational feature of existence. Like I said, there’s nothing even to say about it; it is being so effective. One could even speculate that if I had anything to say about nothingness, it must not be very effective. One could also gather that where nothingness is effective thereby do we find Truth; and indeed I’m pretty sure that this is why many people have accused Laruelle of conspiring toward a religion. Indeed, many people that really enjoy this philosopher sound like religious fanatics, but I would say, honestly, it’s because those people really don’t understand what he’s talking about.   When nothing becomes substantial, when nothingness is indeed a foundational term of a universe, Then something changes in the way that we reckon the universe. This is to say, as opposed to the invisible given that what we understand is the regular or conventional philosophical approach, what Laruelle calls “sufficient philosophy”, Understands as an essential substrate, a criterion of truth where everything revolves around everything else, all the while assuming that there is this fundamental “truth of the universe” that we are finding through experimentation, empirical science, academic philosophy — I’m not really sure what label we would put on this given. Badiou I think makes the best proposal for this kind of real philosophy, because it gives everyone involved a legitimate stake in the game by allowing their being, they’re thinking, their efforts in reality, to arise from nothing without ever having to admit that indeed nothing is what is informing their activity. How offensive to my being in the world to consider that everything that I’m doing is based in nothing! (It is devastatingly offensive, in fact. What the hell is alienation if it isn’t an identity which understands itself in the context of nothing and thus meaninglessness?)

In truth, this is why I believe it is more justified to call such a real activity thus “religious” in nature. Because in reality we can talk about whatever we want to as if it has substance, for example, we can talk about nothingness and what it might be and how it manifests in various this and that, but all the while never recognize or rely upon that nothingness as indeed as that which is informing the activity again. Instead, people point to the effects, and use that as an argument for an ontological foundation of relativity and eternal interaction of thinkers which establish for themselves and for each other the world, the real universe, etc. Such approach I call religious because it requires a certain amount of energy, or force, in order to overcome the contradiction involved in having all efforts actually based on nothing. Because most people will quickly retort “well, what is nothing?” And begin the cycle of eternal recurrence again.

There’s is a faith because they (we) are involved with what the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre Proposes that every good being does when they encounter the “abyss” of freedom: we “revolt” from it to gain our freedom. There is no freedom in nothingness, though; nothingness is really nothing else but nothingness, And the “…of freedom” part of the encounter is really the ability and capacity to deny what offends us.

It is the ability Part that is most significant for me, because it indicates to me that this is not some essential truth of existence, something that all humans do automatically or something, or how the universe actually is or — again I don’t even know how I would talk about it in the short venue right here on WordPress…

But it is an ability of consciousness, an ability of the human being to revolt from that abyss to create our own worlds of intention, worlds that we want to have. Worlds that we desire, worlds that we use desire to make. Etc.

This context from which I’m speaking here on this post, this particular post, I am just saying that while I might be able to revolt from the Abyss , I don’t have to revolt in order for the universe to remain viable and for me to be an actual person in society. And in fact I think that is a significant issue is whether or not I’m revolting from anything. Here and there are use the term “acceptance”. Indeed, human beings have an ability to revolt from the abyss of nothingness in order to gain their freedom in society, but this freedom is not essential in the sense that it somehow is implicit in the nothingness. The nothingness is nothingness. It is nothing. It’s nothing to talk about. It is in our effort to speak that we find freedom in denial that such speaking is based in nothing at all.  The overcoming of this contradiction I call faith.

It is a particularly 20th century industrialized capitalist democratic religious congregant which finds its identity in revolting from the abyss of freedom in order to make choices about who and what they want to be in the world.

Presently, it is this particular mode of reacting that we call “modern”, and what I described amounts to a reason why it is so difficult to think beyond capitalism. It is just one particular mode of being human, but being in general, though, and that indeed it projects itself both forward and backward, we must necessarily understand that it is not some essential human trait, or some essential human way of being that has gone on since the beginning of humanity — But it is indeed the “beginning of humanity” that is arising as a psychic component within the modern individual around the event.

When these parameters and limitations Are realized, are comprehended and accepted, Then we find the only truthful way to discern what we are involved with in our current situation is a religious faith, A mythological cosmology which is actually effective.

X



The Conventional Limit

–from “Re-visioning psychology” by James Hillman.

The modern idea of ownership permeates into every thing that we think. This preoccupation with one’s “owned” ideas manifests world as some thing to be or to have as owned. Hence we have the eternal problem for the modern individual which shows up in one instance as rational subjective opinion in a world of argued relative opinions, and in another instance as mental illness. We might even begin to discern what mental health is by understanding how it seeks to commandeer the problematic modern individual which is — by the plain evidence of all the problem it vomits everywhere by simply being itself — ideologically and institutionally mentally ill, by placing it in a “positive spin”. For I think the most salient and pertinent issue of philosophy and not only psychology is: What exactly is mental health?

We tend to ignore this question as well as ignore the absurdity involved in the object of mental health by trying to reduce it to some physical state of brain or some organizational state of some “pure” mind, by trying to bring about various conceptual apparatuses, or simply talking about “ways” or practices that we can do to thus be mentally healthy by the doing of them. But none of these ever really tells us what mental health is except maybe a sort of stillborn fetus of modern science to poke and prod at.

And the people who are really suffering are the ones who mostly get to remain in a state of suffering overall.

Why do we continue to remain so myopic towards a problem which doesn’t seem to be responding very well to these narrow idealistic methods? 

But this is not really to make any sort of criticism against processes, interventions, and other efforts to help; for sure, we have to try.

 Here, we are taking on the interface or relationship between psychology, activity, and philosophy. 

The most pertinent philosophical discussion of modernity in this regard was made by Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari in their book “capitalism in schizophrenia”, but indeed their work is saturated with the attempt to come into a plural solution to the problem of the singular self. 

The issue, though, that we find permeating philosophy, or what I call conventional philosophy, can be viewed through the adjective pronoun “we”; for, what those philosophers pronounce in their philosophical works, in their psychoanalysis in one sense, is exactly “not” we, but indeed that group of people which is only able to understand humanity as a generalized and common, modern, “we”: Meaning, not the We that arises as world to form the contours of self, but indeed the modern We which is the presumed isolated self within a world of individual isolated selves “out there”, huddling in cold groups, and indeed only of beings associated with the category that we call human. The We doesn’t think of the We which involves rock formations, buildings and quarks. Anything that lives outside of this, what I call, religious and theological designation, we label and denote as ethically inferior and or in need of correction due to its epistemologically implicit error of cognition.

We might then ponder what indeed the idea of correction is manifesting around in this regard. What is this idealistic calcification attempting to protect?

*

I’ll stop there. 

Viewing Corona: Phenomenology and Orientation.

HERE is a link to some current statistics that compare the flu and corona.

The thing I think that video in my previous post marks out is that what makes coronavirus so incredible is that we are looking at it “in just that way”, which is to say, that we are seeing something through a particular ability or manner.

I am a layman, so I could be entirely wrong in my interpretation of this, but…

What I hear the doctor saying is that what we consider the flu is just a few instances of pathogen in a vast array of contagions that cause people sickness, either cold or the flu or various other types of illnesses. Coronavirus is the name for a particular set of viruses that cause symptoms, that cause sicknesses. The reason why we often hear it called “novel coronavirus” is because it is a new mutation of a type of coronavirus. Coronaviruses are around all the time and people get sick from them all the time, it’s just that the scientific community is relatively familiar with these various types of coronaviruses, influenza, the common cold. But the one that we’re calling COVID-19 (corona virus disease discovered in 2019) is one that we’re not familiar with, a mutation that we aren’t very familiar with. We aren’t really sure what it’s going to do because it’s a new type of mutation.

But what the doctor in the video is saying, I think, is that given any cycle of various types of viruses and pathogens that cause sickness, such as respiratory sickness or digestional sickness, there are thousands of such pathogens that enter the human biome and then exit the human biome, routinely.

The scientists monitor this cycle of growth and recession of hundreds if not thousands of pathogens all the time. During these cycle they kind of make an educated guess about which pathogens we are going to have to concern ourselves with. For whatever reason, this particular cycle had a “novel” pathogen that was taking place more than what they were counting on, what we were paying attention to, what we were expecting; the novel coronavirus fell outside of that kind of usual monitoring. So they decided to start monitoring it.

And what they found was pretty much the same as the flu. Yes it is more contagious than the flu, and is more intense, but the way that we stop spreading the virus has less to do with how contagious this is (what is inherent in itself) then it does with preventing that we get it (what we do about it). How contagious a particular pathogen is doesn’t say anything about whether or not I’m going to get it. The determinant of whether or not I’m going to get it has to do with the situation that I am being.

Nonetheless, statistically, I think he is pointing out, almost the same percentage amount of people that die from any other similar sickness are dying from the coronavirus and just as well, people that are getting it is not too much larger than any other type of pathogen of this kind. The difference is that we’ve just somehow decided to pay more attention to this particular novel pathogen in any given cycle.

I’m not sure exactly how true that may be because if people all around my neighborhood are suddenly getting sick to where they can’t go to work and function that in itself shows that there’s something slightly different going on with this one.

But from a statistician point of view…

…the doctor is really saying he’s not really sure how it happened that everyone got so excited and worried about this particular pathogen because if you look at any other pathogens throughout the world they’re all pretty much doing the same thing; that is, a small percentage of people are dying from it, a somewhat larger percentage of people are getting sick from it, and a vast array of people are carrying it around, or are positive for it, but are not really getting sick from it.

And we probably need not mention Miellassoux’s remark about the reason why the world should hold together for any amount of time, for we should expect that we would be walking down the street one day and all of a sudden everything changes beyond comprehension or completely falls apart. Well, that’s kind of what happened with the coronavirus, and indeed that could happen at any moment due to the nature of nature. 

Anyways…

So, as I said in a previous post, the question really becomes about the climate. And it really begs the question of, less perception or how people’s opinions or beliefs might affect how they act, and more about how ontology, how a person’s being is in-formed by a fundamental way of viewing the world which then allows them to see what Is real.

Innoway it is more philosophical, which is to say, how being is, as opposed to religious, theological, or epistemological, which is to say, what we believe, how we feel about those beliefs, and how we might analyze objects of knowledge that are feeling-belief.

The reason why it is nonsensical to argue something like “everyone is being hysterical”, or “The corona pandemic is not real”, it’s because the reference of those sentences is too imprecise to really address what is occurring so far as real reactions real perceptions real occurrences in the world.

Indeed, the word “real” and “reality” necessarily designates something that must be dealt with, an imperative, something that not cannot be dismissed by a wave of the hand, Or a whim of witty intellectualist thinking. It is a manifestation of concrete material.

Indeed if I fall onto the sidewalk without putting my hands forward I will probably hurt my face and bleed. And even while there is no argument that can be put forth to ever prevent that same fate every time it occurs, there are ways of thinking, ways of speaking, ways of acting that could alter the situation so that the event happens at different times, more or less, or not at all. So by analogy, even while the coronavirus pandemic may be blown way out of proportion, it is indeed blown to the proportion that it is, and indeed blew the way that it did blow. We surely must take precautions. Just because something might be blown out of proportion, as a way of speaking or understanding the situation, does not necessarily mean that one should not take account for it and act accordingly, yet also that one should be able to make an argument for why it is not the way it indeed is. Not how it appears, as though it is an illusion. And this is exactly because it is real. The question becomes more about the tools we are using to address reality. Less about perceptions and belief.

To address the situation as if it’s some sort of an illusion is kind of like trying to use a scalpel to hammer in a 4 inch nail. Not only is the tool (the tool we call ‘illusion’) inappropriate to the task, but also, it could work given a certain condition of application and time. These two possibilities do not really correctly reduce to one or the other because to approach the scalpel with the need of hammering in a 4 inch nail into a 2 x 4, by all reasonable and sensible standards of knowledge, amounts to nonsense, in this analogy that I’m putting forth here. But in fact, the tool called ‘rationality’ is also imprecise to move to describe why a common occurrence could cause such an “irrational” response (along the same argument of ‘illusion’), because then we are attempting to exclude the real situation of how most people are able to see the world and their role in it, which is to say, what human beings’ purpose is in the world as a teleological signifier for what they (the individual) is and supposed to be doing. What most people ‘think’ is more like a instinct (inthinked? Perhaps a phenomenological theological tenet?)

The scalpel is an imprecise manner of approaching the nail. However it might “know of it” never does the nail “do” what it is by applying the scalpel. Of course, we can create any sort of meaning we want of hammer and nails and scalpels–the post-modern phenomenalist loves to come up with all sorts of interesting perceptions upon things and situations and see those as foundational to everything. But the assumption there, in a way, is that scalpels must always be able to hammer in large nails. The phenomenalist refuses to see the nail as the nail simply because he sees what he is able to view. Sure, I could use a scalpel to comb my hair with, but it is an imprecise way to comb my hair. Lol. It is not ethically wrong, it is simply a limitation that defines the objectivity of the phenomenon, in the same way a nail defines itself, and a scalpel. It is about an ability to respond.

Presently, as I have argued elsewhere, the Traditional categories and methods that we use for philosophy are no longer sufficient to grasp , contain or communicate the situation that we are coming upon so far as knowledge might relate to what the world is, or the Being of the World.

So Again, we can begin speak about the climate of world and knowledge. 

x

Here Is another flu/corona comparison article.

Secularism vs. Pluralism; a comment

I had the opportunity to participate in a live podcast episode with InkleDeux for the third time. Our topic was“Secularism vs. Pluralism.”We had a …

Live Podcast Episode: #3 Secularism vs. Pluralism

I didn’t listen to this whole podcast. But I listen long enough to have something to comment upon. I couldn’t really listen much longer than I think around seven minutes, because it had already brought up so many philosophical problems just in the introduction that I already knew pretty much what they were going to talk about, what vector they were taking.

I don’t mean that so much as a condemnation as I do really as an indication that there is a discrepancy involved with the use of the word “philosophy” that is not regularly recognized and in fact is assumed to be nonexistent in what I call a conventional philosophical Orientation upon things.

Anyways…

The point at which I stopped in the podcast was when they introduced the idea of secularism with reference to the US Constitution which guarantees a separation from church and state. Their comment upon that establishes philosophical ground as though it is common, and I’m not sure that we can assume the route that they took, even though they speak as if it is indeed a common ground, as it is indeed something that is “common sense”. And, I’m not arguing that it is something that I don’t understand or is incorrect as a line of reason; I’m not arguing against their further arguments. I’m arguing against the assumption that they make from which they build the rest of their discussion.

Nonetheless; the discrepancy that I am indicating could be located exactly at that point where I stopped listening to the podcast. The discrepancy arises where we understand the difference between extrinsic mythology and intrinsic mythology. That is, what actually occurs in the establishment of A government which runs according to our along or in correspondence to a separation of church and state, is a government which understands its own theology as implicit to what is common.

And this is to say that by that amendment we suddenly are able to point to something else as if we are not the embodiment of what we are pointing to. To me this is the significance of secularism: it is a faith which does not recognize its theological grounds. In a way, exactly the psychoanalytical “mirror stage” which leads to alienation as identity (Lacan/Zizek).

 The reader can find various comments about how I develop this philosophical theme further back in my posts on this blog.

But in short, America, if I can generalize, establishes its self as a global religion through the missdirection of calling religion as identified with something else. This goes to an evolution of the human being as indeed humans are evolving not separately from the universe, as opposed to the human being that has pretty much been the same for thousands of years and is evolving Only in some intangible manner. Indeed, the issue that they in the podcast argue as foundational to a secularism is is a foreclosure of bringing transcendence into what we can talk about. Again, with that motion it is actually bringing the transcendent into imminent conversation, or communion, as the case may be. The amendment there by establishes its own religion in distinction to other things that are basically “false religion”, basically believing in “false gods”.

It is not difficult to trace this kind of thinking back through Protestantism, but I am not arguing that America or capitalism is based in Protestant thinking. But indeed has been at least one author, weber, who argued Protestantism as a basis of a proper secular society. But that point is nearly moot.

I’ll stop there.

Perhaps some of your readers wanna listen to the whole podcast and see if they entertain or see if they’ve gone kind of the long way around to get to the same conclusion. Then maybe you could let me know.

Or perhaps you could see where their discussion comes nowhere near what I’m talking about.

I don’t know. Let me know either way OK?

Or you could tell me that what I’m saying makes no sense. If you cannot understand what I’m saying, please ask, and I’ll try to say it more clearly.

I’m sure the podcast is a good discussion because I enjoy listening to her philosophical things, even as I might disagree with them fundamentally.

But I’m short for time right now.