Essential Alcohol part 2

Think about it a moment…

Yes. There was Failed Prohibition in the early 20th century US. Why did it fail ?

… actually take this moment and think about the reason why liquor stores Are considered an essential business and are allowed to stay open.

And think about it’s because that people would freak out without their alcohol.

The reason why they are keeping the liquor stores open is because people would freak out if they were closed, and this is to say, that they would freak out if they could not have their alcohol.

And then think about those people —

You ask a person who drinks or smokes pot if they are addicted to it. What is their usual answer?

No. I’m not addicted to it, I just like it. I just want to do it.

And I’m not talking about alcoholics or chronic drug addicts here. I am talking about your regular run-of-the-mill person who works in a come home and they may have a couple beers or a glass of wine or a scotch after work.

Or the people who smoke pot recreationally.

These people will tell you they could take it or leave it but that they choose to partake.

Then the pertinent insignificant question is why is drinking alcohol and smoking pot Essential?

If they are not addicted then why do they not just not drink and not smoke pot?

Without going into the equivocal answers which really makes no sense when you think about it even a small amount…

When you think about society you have to come to the inevitable conclusion that everything that we think is rational and civilized is based on a huge number of people who are addicted to being intoxicated.

And that is the fact of the matter despite what anyone would want to say to argue the contrary. Because the only argument that one could make to the contrary it would be that it’s not making my life bad or it’s not interfering in me being able to support my family or etc.

So basically what they are saying that if I have enough cocaine and I can go to work every day and support my family and put food on the table then I am not addicted to cocaine.

Or we could say that the 1015 years of someone who is a heroin addict where they can hold a job and maybe they sell drugs on the side and they support themselves and pay rent and everything looks perfectly fine on the outside, that those people are not actually addicted because they are functioning well.

And despite what ignorance would want to imagine the contrary, there are many people who are addicted to intravenous heroin use who function quite well for a long time in society.

I wonder if the coronavirus epidemic will allow humanity to become a little bit more honest with themselves.

No Judgement. I am not saying alcoholism or drug addiction is necessarily bad. I am only pointing out facts that often people will want to wash away as not factual, ie. An opinion.

Maybe take a moment and ponder the history of White historicism’s turn toward the discrediting of moral facts.

But that is a Philosophicalexploration for another post.

Religion and Spirition and mental health

Religious and Spiritous.

I am not sure what would qualify a general category of people who are not religious, or who claim they are not. But if I may call upon that general category, I’ll say that they would take issue with the following:

Without religion, mental health as a description or indicator of a group of bodies that functions well individually and together, regardless of the details of that function, deteriorates.

And id say that the first defensive posture would say something to the effect about the “history of religion” and corruption and “what God?” and all those young adult arguments that we all have been over so many times.

so.

I must thus qualify that.

I elaborate upon what I mean by ‘religion’ elsewhere. But likewise, philosophically, I don’t really enjoy the idea of ‘spirituality’ as a counter position to religion; the two polemics seems to me to miss a valid point about being human, again as I elaborate elsewhere.

So perhaps a way to skip the longer discussion and get to the meat and starches of the table, is to draw a parallel between the conjugates: religion and spirition, and religious and spiritous, and rephrase to say without spirition the group and individual deteriorate. And this also conveys a deterioration of world.

In very short short, the orientation upon what we could call empirical facts as a means or true substance to draw the individual in a world misses a significant and necessary element in being human for the establishment of a healthy individual and society, and thus world.

That is, to reduce the human to the physical-empirical (and I might add as much as it tends to signify the same absence: political), defies that the physical-empirical contains any significant meaning. Hence, the deterioration of the world.

Spirition. I like that.

Tangent: Bad Faith, part 1

In an earlier post, I suggest that Francis Laruelle, by his Non-philosophy, is in bad faith, ala. Jean-Paul Sartre. So I might do well by explaining what this means.

One could easily come to a close idea of what bad faith might mean by comparing it to ‘good faith’. I would say that good faith is a kind of trust one has in another but before the other person has really earned it: the trust is given in good faith. And this can be closely associated with plain Faith, as in, I have faith in you, or, I have faith in Jesus.

Sartre comes up with the idea of Bad Faith in reference to what may be common to general human experience; so far as what may be real life, people tend to take it on good faith that it is real, or at least tend to take experience with the benefit of doubt. Even things that seem odd or disagreeable are still taken as an occasion for a plausible judgement as to what may be real or not.

Now, Sartre is making a claim against such typical experience, that such realities taken in good faith are actually of bad faith. One avenue of looking at this is to see that he stakes his claim on the possibility of freedom. In an extended analysis, one comes upon the peculiar confinement that reality places upon a person, that freedom is defined against other qualifiers of reality such that freedom itself is designated and so does not qualify itself to its meaning: freedom has no essential meaning – and this means that we are not really free.

Here we get to what is meant by existential angst. We want to be free; we feel free but upon consideration of what this means we never find any more freedom than what we want or what we feel. What has been termed an ‘ existential crisis’ is a moment when we become trapped in our existence; whatever the actual circumstances or events, we come to a point where a sensible decision into action becomes impossible, a catch 22, where the definers of free choice crowd in upon us and blur and do not allow us clearity. The decision, then, that is ultimately made is one of pure event, of pure experience: we are thrown into existence, the inevitable movement of existing itself. In response to this moment, one thereby makes sense of it, and thus comes to real freedom. Sartre says we make a choice out of the inevitable, what he calls the abyss of freedom, back into true agency where we find real freedom in our new found ability to choose truly of ourselves in reality, we ‘revolt’ against the abyss of freedom. Bad faith is the condition of the usual events of living before such crisis. This is the typical existential reading.

But this reading is wrong; it is a superficial reading that justifies freedom by denying basic existence for the sake of reality.

We cannot stop at feeling like everything is ok, because soon enough everything will not be ok again. Bad faith indicates a situation of denial. I contend that it is due to this denial that all problems occur – and if this is the case, then we will find that philosophy, and rhetoric in general, speaks of a maintenance of incorrection.

So what am I really saying when I say that Laruelle’s Non-philosophy is in bad faith? This is the issue at hand.