Mistaken Identity: Something Other Than Human: A Reification of What it Denies?

Here is a REPOST in which there is a link the the post which has the comment quoted below that I address. Whew!

240_f_165318724_fgbwpoa4b5er1cec9rouxutekhulxbu2
The author of the link in the repost seems to have issue with the idea of some Post-human proposals that we need get beyond the ‘human’. The question: Why does everything have to begin and end with human?

Note: Im gonna be greatly confrontative, and possibly even rude, so, just take it as I expect just as much back. It seems sometimes that everyone is too civil. Maybe that’s the problem: Everyone is too comfortable. IDK. I throw a hand grenade into the room, and find out whats in there by the effects of the explosion. Often its dead people who don’t know they are dead, but sometimes there are scientists with special instruments who get some interesting readings.

O kay…

Orientation: This is an essay about identification and not condemnation.

I say such a position (reflective of the comment below) does not understand its own position. Rather, it creates a position that is naturally complicit to the state it is supposed to be critiquing. Similar to what I suggested in my POST about Anslem’s God Proof, this is to say that the position it advocates (as a critique) is artificial (as it proposes to account for all reality), and insincere, as well as in direct contradiction to the meaning it proposes to be conveying as a suggestion for…what…belief? So it is unstable in its posture. When we think about it, I think the first thing that comes to mind is How are we to take the notion “post-human/beyond human”? As a belief? A suggestion for how to organize terms? An answer to a view? As an academic position? As pure nonsense?

Can we PLEASE be honest with what we are doing? If we do not ask our selves the purpose of what we are doing, then, what are we doing?

No one is really trying are they. (Irma Dork. 1977.)

If we are to take its base (Deleuzian mythos, I ass-u-me) as cogent, which is, as representing itself in total, and not as pieces to be assembled together and applied will-nilly (despite what rebuttal would say “its all pieces to be put together as we wish” (ZZZzzzzen).); if we can get under the determination which proposes a complete view despite what it argues to the contrary (I am going to argue that the argument I make is not an argument), then we have a manner to actually see the truth of some things (this allows for two routes to become visible/knowable) We allow for the possibility, however tight and hole-proof our logic and reasonings might seem, to loosen ourselves from our own noose mythology.

The Deluezian ontological base, which supposed to remove (maybe) itself from an ontological proposal (Modernity in general) through a de-ontological definition (or even a definition that smooshes them together – the Deleuzian Zen-like ontological default), as though definition establishes a non-essential essence that destabilizes…um….more definitional essences (wait a minute), perpetually only destabilizes itself, and argues its own fantasy through an over-determination of its power and positional authority; in short, it perpetuates the same ideological form of reality that it proposes to destabilize: It argues itself as having an ability to destabilize itself through its apparent stable ideological position of de-ontology.

My question is, can we just stop with the magical thinking? Or, can writers just be forthright with what they are doing?… And Deleuze, (sorry folks) is the #1 philosopher of magical thinking (as least it appears from his proponents). I mean, I am sounding silly there, but if you really read Deleuze for what he is saying, and be honest (as opposed to wanting to be ‘seen as an intellectual’), it pretty much just repeats stuff you already know, and, it seems to me, actually says nothing (how ironic, huh?). So it is that he uses the example of him saying nothing to explain the fact of how it is that people will see him as saying something, and then spend years and years discussing it. (Wasn’t it Deleuze who said something like discussion is extraneous? I mean, wtf? )

We can use the following comment as an example of how such a ‘deontology’ falls into itself. (also note: I could be wrong in assuming the comment below stems entirely from a Deleuzian shoot, but even the employment of other theorists here move to the point of contradiction regardless.)

The difference between this older classic version of technicity and the conceptions in our contemporary speculations is this notion of supplement (i.e., prosthesis). In the old system we invented these prosthetic technologies of externalized material supplements because we lacked something essential in our own nature (i.e., the whole Prometheus/Epimetheus mythos). In our current thought following those like Deleuze/Guattari who overturned the Platonism of essentialism in which the concept of lack and deficient give was to difference and repetition; or, the notion of our unconscious as productive (Deleuze/Guattari) against the unconscious as a lack/void (Lacan/Badiou/Zizek) becomes integral.

Though I think there are some typos in there, I think we can get a pretty good idea of what is being said.

Before I get started: that last statement appears incorrect: It is lack by which subjectivity becomes infinitely productive; desire is not productive, at least as a reasonable manner (sure, we could say that using 3000 rounds of ammo to kill 50 people is productive, but…how inclusive and nihilistic do we want to be? Yeah, we could say that The Final Solution was productive, but why? ) it is fetishistic, it produces and maintains fantasy, and falls into and move toward nothing (lack). Any discourse that places these in a exclusionary framework is most probably trying to sell you something; probably a product. The historical distinction of ‘techne’ arrives through a desire, that is, a blank spot, a point of nil, so that kind of Historical Consciouses could be said to have ‘produced’ the World Wars. Also, though I agree with the synopsis of ‘techne’, I think the results he proposes do not follow in all instances, hence its overestimation.

My response is: first we have to begin to get over our want for discursive fantasies of degenerative-progress. If we hang on to our tendency to want fantastic stuff, like unicorns and Pegasus, chaotic aliens, Neuromancer bestsellers, a purpose for history, etc… then we pretty much continue to stew in our sweat, over and over. Sure, it makes for good fiction books and movies, but I doubt that such theorists are putting forth theories for the purpose of inspiring fiction; the regular idea of ‘philo-fiction’ is a misapplied “pop” excuse (but it doesn’t mean its bad, it just means that the theorists that claim sincerity in their theorizing perhaps need to reconsider their methodological base.)

Can we please just be honest? I know that in another arena, the author of this comment will pivot back and forth upon the concept, off Deluezian “plateaus” to say that we can speak of different ontologies through different “rhizomes”. So perhaps I am commenting more on what is implied within the quote: Not even a critique, but more a type of sense that, if we call to such “philosophics”, has nothing ‘common’ about it, but just makes sense, then a comment on any position that allies as Deleuzian could go something like this:

— {His point in the post, I m pretty sure, was that ‘human’ is just a construct that is becoming outdated. That we need begin to think away or beyond what is human. I think this is a theoretical fantasy that is more a discursive commodity than it is any type of legitimate theory. But we all know that such a distinction doesn’t matter now. (that is the postmodern condition). } —

This kind of discursive gymnastics goes back to Kierkegaard’s complaint, as well as his admitted style and ability. It is easily seen for its magical connotations, but only once we understand that we are no longer caught within the paradigm of discursive identities; such identities is but one manner (one route) of appropriating discourse (it is not wrong to take this route, but travelers along this route do tend to condemn and or discount other routes as false and wrong). Here, as an example, the author supposes to get beyond identities through defining things in different manners, at once, in some instances using Deluezian “deontological” categories to supposedly shake up ontological categories; using definition to pose a definition that is (somehow) outside of definition or indicates something outside; so easily such wizards can wield the magical terms to state their case beyond question. Off to one side, there will be a discussion about how everything reduces to an indeterminable moment wherein all past, present and future collapse into nothingness, unsupported except through some (miracle?) of (what?) discourse? Then out the other side of the polygon Janus we get some sort of ordinary Greek version of terms (of an old order)? On and on down the rabbit hole of a definition of immanence such a position will routinely grab ahold of a transcendent, only to then confound us again by telling us that “transcendent” is defined differently, or that they are not sure what ‘transcendent’ means, or what is transcendent is countered through another definition of… — why ? Because we have defined things in such a way or by a recourse to a tradition that supposedly only exists in an atemporal ‘zone’ ( I guess) that can behave in a manner that defies all notions of consistency. It seems (oddly enough) the only consistency is some sort of schizophrenic biological brain or organ or “body without organs” that is able to somehow get outside of this never-ending discursive cycle (somehow “brain” or “consciousness” or “plateau” etc.. is able to transcend the ever-recycling immanence to be able to speak of something “substantial”? Something ‘beyond this human conundrum’?). And no one look where the accusation is made toward Platonic recurrence and repetition; here we are with a Deluzian discourse entirely unable to indicate to us how it is different except by using its own scaffolding of definitions that say it is. It is different because it is putting together the terms of discourse differently? How does that accomplish any difference from the mode it is supposed to be different from? Admittedly,

what?

this is really kind of a “Adam Ruins Everything” kinda essay. I am The Philosophical Hack. But the need is real; many people see it and it doesnt mean the end of the world, only >some people’s world, and that can be hard to swallow. These kinds of philosophy do not get us anywhere but more things to discuss; it’s a philosophy of self-fullfillment proclaimed and argued internally to apply to all human beings. Here it is, the overdeterming in application of a traditional discourse to the common category of human:

…In this sense then originary technicity states that ‘techne’ and technology were there before humans,”

On which Deluezian plateau does this “before humans” reside?

“…and in fact it was technicity that conditioned and shaped the human rather than the other way around.

How is this possible? From where is this statement gaining its veracity? Ill tell you: From the very history that the larger Deluezian slight-of-hand says is a suspended kind of ‘illusory’ trick of consciousness (oh yeah: Consciousness gets a get out of jail free card also). If its an illusion, the question becomes, then how is it possible for someone (say the author of this comment) get a hold of another author (say Deleuze) to be able not only draw upon his ideas, but to even be able to understand it to be able to agree with it? From where does the ‘illusion’ arise? At what point in history? Nevermind the extensive scheme of definition that cannot be challenged due to the ever present philosophical method of weaving and dodging that the method had prescribed through its (de-) ontology.

I know this is useless, but is anyone getting the picture?

“… And, in our time we are realizing that the human was a fiction, a transitional being for whom technicity has all along been utilizing it for its own ends and purposes. This fatalist and determinist view is not that technicity is opposed to the human, but that humans have never been human and that we are grounded in technicity from the beginning. So that in our time with the rise of the Mechanosphere (Deleuze/Guattari) we’ve come to see ourselves as part of the machinic phylum, as machinic multiplicities whose organic systems are over the coming centuries going to give sway to inorganic systems, a mutation from one material platform to another with modifications of intelligence and robotics as one pathway to this. This notion of Superintelligence is just one more technicity which is part of this conditioning process of transition.”

We should see that “we” in this context is the picture itself of the philosopher who takes himself too seriously, that is, who sees the terms that are come by as identifying ideal substrates, ideal mechanisms by which his consciousness is functioning. And this is to say that this is what consciousness does. It is not that what he is saying has any credence in my world, except as it is an aspect of my world, an identification of a process; not the process the author (or Delueze) describes, but the process that wishes to justify itself in any world, which is to say in this instance, that author’s ideal world. Human was a fiction because this agent of desire could not fulfill itself in another way than to proclaim itself over the entirety of this kind, which is, not human in an actual general sense, but merely one particular human (and maybe a few more). No matter what he argues, this ‘we’ somehow includes me only through the proclamation of his omniscience, but as well, a condition of my existence: He realized that his whole situation is equivalent with the common human, and so it must be that ‘human’ was a fiction. How is he able to understand what a human was if he is involved with a fiction? How was he Being a fiction? Its funny how such topics lend themselves to actual fictional stories. Sounds like he doesn’t want to take himself seriously.

But here is the kicker: Delusional Guitar Player (Delieuze and Guittari) says nothing less. This is an example of a self-fulfilling aspect of consciousness, such that it defines a moment as that moment extends out beyond itself. It is indeed a proposal of unconsciouness based in –not merely any desire –but the desire that is overcome by its lack, which is, namely, the author that subscribes to such a philosophy as though it actually describes what has, is and will occur. The point is that such philosophical analyses reveal their own bias within the asserted encompassing context itself.

And the extra-point: This whole ideal is based upon the founding term of “human” as an essential and common thing in-itself, a basic premise that underlies the whole motion that desire wishes to accomplish: attain the Subject as a valid and real identity. This is why these folks must come up with “post-” human things: because they have found that their “humanity” is lacking. This is why “before” techne meant something –what? –better ? or just indicated an organization that was different than what (should be?). Such that now we should or are going to have a different (better?) relationship with technology. Of course! My failure at fulfilling myself as a human (in the attempt to ‘fill’ my desire with the ‘substance’ of discursive and non-discursive ‘things’, I ended up with nothing) means that ‘human’ was a fiction, and that this thing that ‘humanity’ made (this thing that I made that was unfulfilling for my desire for it to fill me) will surpass what is human, to thereby justify my empty Being of desire by being that which is ‘after’ what was once human (that ‘thing’ that I believed in which failed me). Frankestien’s Monster! What a novel analysis! But wait; didn’t Mary Shelly tell us this very same thing like 300 years ago? Oh yeah; NOW things are really going to hit the shit fan. Finally. Boy, thank God for us modern theorists. I would have never known that we are going to have a ‘new’ relationship with technology. Genius!

Nevertheless: The world and technology may indeed occur through the author’s analysis: The real world is the world of desire. Post-human ideals will have repercussive effects in meaning, but first ‘post’ would need to depart from regular analysis to exit from the historically progressive fantasy. The point here, then,  is that such an analysis does not concern every human being, and thus is not speaking to what may actually come to pass as “post-human” because there is no True category for which ‘human’ can be exceeded or surpassed; there is no effective unitive category called ‘human’ that can be overcome or gotten past. Indeed, it is the epitome of a basic misreading of Nietzsche and Kierkegaard to suggest that there is anything “beyond” or “post” but a fantasy made out of the desiring machine that is over generalized into “human”. Once such a desire is understood for what it is, then the world changes because the fantasy is dispelled. Yet, the Subject of traumatic unfulfilled desire (or the Subject of imposed trauma) becomes a “post-traumatized” so long as the Subject still identifies with the fantasy. There is no ‘post-human’ reality except in as much as the Subject is still attempting to justify itself in the same metaphysical space. Our relationship with technology is the same: We always use it as a prosthetic of some sort, despite what definitions are in place. We are always human, even if I become a car; even if I am Robocop. The ideal of post-human is another fantasy of desire, based in the lack of fulfillment of that desire, or the relative fulfillment of repeating defacement.

The ideal of getting beyond how humanity actually functions as a unitive category is a utopian dream. This dream is then placed in ‘post-human’ category of (often dystopian) progress for the purpose of satisfying the failed desire of an individual identity. It is based in a complete misunderstanding of its own theoretical base: ironically proposing nothing. The best we can do is use this aspect in discovering and admitting a true human for its universal object. 

*

See, though, that my critique is an identification. My intent is to show where and how particular philosophies operate, and not so much that what it proposes is incorrect. It is a description of the dynamic and universally ingenious manner that consciousness “creates worlds”. Similar to Graham Harman, here I using a foundational term “consciousness” to delimit what is most universal of universal objects; I could have said “rock”, and then we could speak about all the aspects of “rock”. No longer are we concerned, then, with “rock-ness”, because we already find that “rock-ness” is already encapsulated in the Being expressed as itself a rock. It manifests rock as rock and is in this way impenetrable as a subject of discourse: Discourse reveals in one way or another everything there is in relating to the Being-there of the rock…

This resonates with the author’s statement “…that humans have never been human and that we are grounded in technicity from the beginning.” But with a caveat that is not included in the phenomenal mode of such desiring-subjectivity; namely, that we have never been human in as much as we adhered to human as an aspect that my consciousness has access to in-itself, as a universal object that has properties that are uniquely human, that is to say, that only we perceive things, only we create ideologies, and have political identities. It becomes obvious that this is not the case, once we get over the phenomenal obsession with identity. The question of how we could know this is made once we realize that the entirety of our Being is contained in the objectivity of being human; not so much in the interrelatedness of the common category called human, but in the objectivity of universal Being, not as a known ‘consciounsess’ of cosmic proportions, but as a relation of the unity that always withdraws from view. The parameters of subjectivity have been laid out; we have only to fill them in with whatever real situation presents itself, which are eternally diverse as they are manifested through consciousness functioning. This is nearly concordant with the statement, that we are determined by objects, subjectivity being the ‘empty place’ of conflation of effective objectivity. But the phenomenonal intension behind the statement will exclude itself (will withdraw) from the more generalizing universal mode for the purpose of, again, establishing its ‘world’ as an all inclusive ideal. The irony only ends when we allow it, that is, when weve had enough of it. This doesn’t  mean that it ends or the world ends, or humanity fades away with its own creation. It means that humanity will always be humanity despite what terms we use to define it. And this will be proven 200 years from now to those who read this essay (under certain conditions). 

The production of desire abhors a vaccum, and due to its desiring machinery will fill the hole with evidence of a world that is vacant, or in time, becoming vacant –of what? Of that which the desiring philosophical agent cannot achieve in its fulfillment: a filling of what is void: desire itself: the world. Hence, the meaning of such historical analysis will always yield a fading of humanity. Under every sort of definitional scheme, whatever was of a ‘history’ will be absorbed into the empty space of desire, discourse will coalesce around this ‘cognizant space’ to manifest the emptiness, the nihilism as an actual true basis of world.

But the Truth of the situation is that subjectivity is filled infinitely with many things; it is not empty. The idea that there is no existential ground meaning nothing, that all is void and meaninglessness is a particular take upon terms, a particular orientation upon things that amounts to a twisting of desire into its want: the empty subject, nothing. It is not sad that there is no Subject; it is amazing because such a statement means that we get to look at what the subject actually Is. The point of the existential as well as a few of the postmoderns is that this fullness is not illusory, but rather that it cannot be communicated sufficiently. It is not that there is nothing or that all is meaningless. It is that nothing is still something, and meaninglessness still contains meaning. But for many f not most, this fact is never communicated, indeed, cannot be communicated in its Truth.

We can then re-approach the whole of Western philosophy under a different light, and begin to understand the meaning of Hiedegger’s proclamation that “the spirit is destitute”. It is not that we are left to a dystopian future; it is that this is just a moment that marks a significance, and it is not that we ‘lose’ our humanity to some machine A.I or any manifestation of technology that commandeers the meaning of human for another essentiality….

Post Script:

In his book “Dante’s Broken Hammer, Graham Harman appears (half way through the book) to make an argument against a formalist ethics, and toward a materialist ethics (again, Im only half way through the book, so my opinion may change).

In short, he says that Dante is more interesting and actually more intellectually stimulating because he deals with ethics within a sectional and progressive scheme of value, and that Kant’s ‘formal’ view of ethics is rather dry, and actually accounts for why we ned get over Kantian idealism.

In a way, this is what I am pointing out of the Deleuzian form: It is a kind a materialist ideal of graduation of experience, and inclusion of all possible experience of Being into a explanatory text (metaphysics; he does say he is a metaphysician; no irony there). But this this is why Graham must situate his Object Ontology as a proposal of polemical ideals: Because it is more interesting. Personally I think it is more interesting when we see the issue itself concerns an orientation upon objects, over the strict ideological proposal of an Object Ontology. I have said elsewhere that the reason why he must be ‘speculative’ is because in order to do anything progressive within the institution, one must adhere to traditional memes (in the original sense). One has to tow the line. And strangely enough, I am saying that this kind of line towing tends to argue against itself: Regardless of what Harman might say that has significance, it kind of loses its punch when we have to recourse to the traditional lineage: Its as if I present you with a wonderful brownie, but then when you go to eat it, it is switched for a carrot. Still good to eat, but the brownie seems much more interesting in the actual reckoning of experience. Once presented with the carrot to eat, yeah, carrots are ok, and they are good for you, but its still a carrot, and Im still thinking about that brownie.

I am not saying that Kant’s ideal formalism is correct necessarily, but more that despite what was presented, the meaning gets dilluted and too often becomes an argument of how good it is instead of the goodness that was innate in the idea itself. Materialism can be formal, and it is this kind of delineation, to “human defined essences” (conditions that human are able to not only define for themselves, but actually come to understand an interact with them as indeed universal essences), that reveals to us the extents of colonialization as a human aspect, a manner by which humanity behaves in the creation and establishment of worlds. It is not bad, it just is. And, it is only through the same kind of redundant institutional posture that we can have a ‘materialism’ that is in opposition to a ‘formalism’: the very idea that there can be a distinction is itself a ‘formal’ distinction. This is why we say postmodernism is a kind of religious apologetics: because we are not concerned here with various ideological manifestations, but their scientific application, which is to say, their control. One does not discover and or create an atomic reaction due to the politics of its use; these are segregate and independent aspects that only fall into a common praxis under the imposition of a unitive politics. Both may be involved with a situation, but not in actual simultaneity.

We cannot have an individual that recourses their behavior at all times to a fact that, for example, their freedom is not really free, but only defined as such. This simply does not happen, and the rationale that arises to ‘explain’ freedom in this way does nothing to impose itself upon daily activities and affairs, that is, except as one sees such metaphysical proposals as ‘always’ enacted and occurring even when not under the specific conditions of its activation; which is to say, only under the presumption of a religious truth. We find this very thing in contemporary China, where the issue of freedom is not regularly applied to the transparency for government, but is more understood as an actual lived experience.

*

Dante may be more interesting, and more juicy, but then when we start to talk about how this is the case, we automatically entered into a formalist state, even as we attempt to argue away from it through the definitional disclaimers. It appears, all to regularly, as a false dichotomy.

Something else is occurring in philosophy that tries is damnedest to stay hidden. 

Risk 2…

So what do I mean when I talk about Heidegger’s risk and his support of nationalistSocialism? 

Right off, I definitely do not mean that ones philosophy should be founded in a type of social activism. Indeed philosophy in the loose sense in the larger sense can be said to be a kind of Political philosophy, like someone’s philosophy of human rights or gender equality or merchant access; for sure one needs stand up for their philosophy in this sense. But likewise we should be more so skeptical of the view that see his philosophy as primarily, essentially and inextricably linked to social activism; I do not believe that The veracity of a philosophy need to be evidenced or proven by some sort of social activism, for example marching on Washington or something. Yet it is by this determination and apparent orientation that we find an impossible partition between essential, what we might call, cosmological substrates, The political ideological realm being that what we call ‘real’. 

No; we are not associating Heidegger’s risk with this type of philosophicalorientation. That he is perceived within this orientation to perhaps have taken a risk of that same sort is based in the type of argument that I call redundant. For sure there is a Heidegger that took an ideological risk in his move toward nationalist socialism; but this is not the only Heidegger. In fact that Heidegger is a phenomenological being.

And so in reference to Derrtida’s book “of spirit”, we can begin to find a more significant meaning to Heidegger’s destitution of spirit. 

Though I have yet to begin my reading of “logical investigations” (Husserl; Hs mentor), I feel it is not difficult from the pool limitary sketches that I’ve come across of phenomenology to understand Hursserls General form, and though I will approach his books with an open mind through a tabla rasa if you will, I am fairly confident that the reading of his material will only serve to and large in the ways by which to speak about what is said; I am eager and hopeful, though, that reading of logical investigations will completely disrupt not only my preliminary understanding of him but likewise my whole view upon the universe. We shall see. 

If we can trust a certain generic and typical historical presentation, The common of history given us, then it is not difficult to agree with Sartre that Kierkegaard may have been the first exit stencil lis then it is not difficult to agree with Sartre that Kierkegaard may have been the first Existentiaist, but more that the break had most probably already occurred with Hagel such that Kierkegaard became necessary. We find then by Heidegger the voicing of the situation as it was already becoming apparent the destitution of spirit. The desperation of Kierkegaard was only slightly an earlier indication, and Hursserl then appears to be, if you excuse my crass language, and almost frantic attempt to re-suture what so Obviously and apparently was drifting apart. With Heidegger we have the Mark of the ship drifting from its mornings. The move towards nationalist socialism and the question that involves Dasien creates the condition of post modernity through the doubt involved by the risk invested in the discourse evidenced of Heidegger work. 

For the risk was exactly that: The question that moved the enlightenment within a singular force was brought upon itself to question by the movement of world forces. We find that, in effect, Dasien was defeated in World War II. Make no theoretical mistake. 

The desolation of world was brought by the destitution already invested in the question as evidenced by the discourse of the question itself which is Dasien. The risk of Heidegger was the inherent possibility of the question itself manifested indeed as world as argued by Heidegger. What is apparent then and now is that no one gives a fuck. The question thus resides in whether or not we resort to finding truth in a common humanity, which is to say in the majority view, the route wherein the mojority find identity in religious comfort. 

If we understand Heideggernot as a proposal of what might be occurring, which is to say as an argumentative proposal , but indeed a reflection of what ‘is’ occurring as a ‘has’ occurred, then we can do one of two things, but actually three. 

The first is what I call conventional. This approach takes material within a scheme of essentially valued orders. A scaffolding of real truth. In this arena various authors and ideas are commodities to be used within fashion and fad to establish identity move careers and make a happy living . In this course it erects and maintains the political idea logical economy of real things. 

The other two concern Dasien in its originary sense, we might say and it’s true sense. Here, similar and largely correspondence with conventional route , either we take Dasien as an essentialcategory of being human and transcribe the meaning of Heidegger’s work into the ever present moment of transcendental being and use his ideas as platforms to make further statements upon what might be real of being and time and such; or we already understand Heidegger and what has occurred and find that indeed the spirit is destitute, which is to say marginalized, denied,  suppressed and oppressed, and ultimately colonized for the purposes of real effort. 

It is thus the contradiction involved in the irruption ofDasien, of its construction of dis-truction, de-construction, that allows for the discernment of reality and what we should call the divergent thesis. This last can announce the large misunderstanding involved in the appropriation of Francios Laruelles non-philosophy, and speaks to what he calls ‘Christ’. 
The risk of Heidegger is that which is confirmed in the fact that I may have anything true to say of Heidegger in this moment. The risk of Heidegger exactly was no risk; because he risked everything. The move towards nationalist socialism which appeared to be a rising through German idea list philosophy is the ironic confirmation of spirit destitute for real determination that we now call capitalism. Those are the terms that designate what reality may be the situation will always remain the same: Spirit does not rise and fall within the coordination of an essentialist doctrine of manifested discourses. On the contrary; we might be able to speak of the his store cool manner of being human in the world as involving two oscillations, to paths, that at times coalesce in a certain manner to coordinate being and historicalevent, , and at other times diverge such that the coordination is no longer salute and the unitary meaning of discourse crumbles into multifocality. 

The Question: Of Darkness. 

The Question of Derrida’s Heidegger is ironically (as they even say) the question itself, which should not be generalized into a ‘common human sort of being’; that question is a response within the consistency that Derrida exposes as failing (decadence). Rather; the question voiced to its particularity that has been obscured  (darkened) by the ‘common’ is exactly coincidental with this moment of the post: “How is it possible that i knew Derrida’s and Hiedegger’s meaning before i had even read it ?”

This thus is an example of Bruno Latour’s opening (An Enquirey into Modes of Existence), that which has been allowed to be voiced.

For if you have been following from the last post, then you will see the obvious anticipation there of this next part of “Of Spirit” which i had never read or heard about until this moment:

There is an Ent­machtung (disempowerment) of spirit. It corresponds to this darkening of the world. It renders spirit destitute by depriving it of its power or its force (Macht), of its dynasty. I shall translate Entmachtung by “destitution” from now on, because spirit thereby loses a power which is not “natural.” Such a loss has noth­ing to do with animal benumbedness (dizziness; of having ambiguous ground for being). It is exactly at the moment when he is beginning to elucidate this destitution of spirit that Heidegger declares, in the passage cited just no that “animals have no world” (if humans are not spiritual entities, but not not spiritual)…

Of Spirit and Repetition.

Heidegger denounces, then, a “spiritual decadence” (geis­ tigen Verfall). Peoples are in the process of losing their last “spiritual forces” through this. This last expression returns often. The Verfall of spirit cannot allow itself to be thought other than in its relation to the destiny of being. If, in ques­ tioning, the experience of spirit appears proportional to “danger,” the German people, “our people,” this “metaphys­ ical people” (das metaphysische Volk) par excellence, is at once the most spiritual (Heidegger speci es this clearly later on in speaking of language), and the most exposed to danger. For it is caught in a vice (p. 29 [36]), in the middle (in der Mitte) between its European neighbors, Russia and Amer­ ica.S On it devolves the “great decision” (die grosse Entscheidung) which will engage the destiny of Europe, the deployment of “new spiritual forces from this middle place” (neuer geschichtlich geistiger Krafte aus der Mitte). Empha­ sis, emphase: the word “spiritual” is again italicized both to mark that the fundamental determination of the relation to being occurs there, and to ward o the possibility of a poli­ tics other than of spirit. A new commencement is called for. It is called for by the question: “Wie steht es um das Seint” What about Being? And this commencement, which is rst a recommencement, consists in repeating ( ederholen) our historially spiritual existence (Anfang unseres geschicht­ lich-geistigen Daseins).

from “of spirit”. Derrida. 


The situation is never lost on those who ‘question’.  A mistake Derrida outlines earlier in this book is a demand for universal compliance, but as well along this line, the concordance of political reflection, shown here by ‘German’. 

The ‘discordance’ then does not reflect into thus ‘world’ (as D and H arguments) but moreso thru the retreat of world from reality; the mark and instigation of this being WW2 and its response of post-modernity. No longer does world connote a ‘people’, eg. ‘Metaphysical people’; a reversal of locality has occurred. Reality now is filled with the metaphysical people in the midst of the confusion of spiritual failure.

So, in this regard, such a notice is not having to do with everyone; this is not or no longer an issue of a ‘common human being’. Rather,  And specifically those of a certain ‘temperment’, those of a certain ‘view’ (the view from here is lovely).  

The historical repetition occurrs after the ‘expiration’, after the ‘decadence’, after failure, but only within the view that would recognize this motion as such. Otherwise, it is merely ‘real’, merely ‘everyone else’ enacting novel solutions to unique or relative problems in front of them.

So; if we can agree even slightly with Heidegger and Derrida, this issue of world being a spiritual concern, But not that of a subjectivity of capital identities, then we might begin to comprehend what The moment of decisive significance means. 

For now it is the end of this spirituality that defines all relation of world.

The crucial mistake is this extension: The concordance of world depends on the faith whereby world and reality coincide. This is then the reflection of (Derrida’s) Goepolitical world that arrives now (and shortly passed) the ‘end of days’ and the insistance of faith, the refusal to relinguish the truth faith provides, fuels and is fueled by fear, anger an ressentment (nietszche). 

One arm of the goal, then, is to expose what occurs, and to give humanity the view by which to relinquish the desien, the confusion allowed by the imposition of its stretegem of religious sense. 

Non-Philosophy and Aphilosophy: Departure. An Exercise of Metalepsis; Spinoza and the term part 2; Laruelle and the Quadripartite.

If we are steadfast in our undertaking we will not labor our attitude of righteousness. Yet, we likewise must not fall back into the comfort of the easy way. The challenge is to indeed be challenged, and not to again be presented with another variation of puzzle, for by now the puzzles are seen to be transient extensions of our own process. Where they are not seen as transient, there what is critical is merely somewhat important, or at least the importance that makes for another puzzle. Let the big minds remain big, their importance emphasizing how important they are -how great their problems are! The purpose of critical thinking is to reach beyond what we believe, to question that which we are represented by, to not flinch when our status as an individual is threatened, go headlong into that heart of darkness, willing to give all unto the unknown.

Do I ask too much? Too often, I think so. The beginning of the Constructive Undoing admitted that barely anyone if no one will be up to the task of challenging reality, the nobility of individuality, that common of the hoard. Maybe it will take another two thousand years, but maybe only 150, maybe only 30. It is not for me to say. Maybe it will take no time at all. But how we love to have so little time.

The nonsense that appears to have been represented here and in the previous essays (Extreme Dialectic, in particular) either invites or it mocks. I am sure most everyone will have felt mocked; and many will suffice it to think that it has already been said and disproven. They have the next problem to solve. It is easy thus to tell one who has been mocked: they put up a defense, and assert their problematic identity. Indeed, I am talking about them but I am not talking to them. I am talking to you, you who have been thus invited. We thus depart.

Though this departure may be a bit sudden and crass manner, metalepsis is just this feature of communication that departs to leave parted and not to rejoin but to offer. Sudden, crass as a hit to our sensibility but delightfully ironic, the individual is challenged where the distance that typically intervenes for reading, between the author and reader, suddenly loses its quality; the boundary that flies up is noticed as the fault that it is, and fades. The words no longer are seen as coming from some ‘other’ human being, offending us, but are come upon as arising to your experience. What was unknowingly held as precious has been obtruded upon. Your will has been superseded.

Some may wish to classify this perceptive move a type of poetic mechanics, and perhaps, in the end, this is what ultimately we are involved with, a bringing about the function of poetry but without all the subjective interpretation, that is, without the need to bring what may be poetical (aside from the lyric) or metaphorical into the conventional definite; a specific intention apart from the material science. If I have found something to show you, and I want you to know of it, do I need to tell you of all the details about it when you are here? I can paint you a picture, even if it is with words, and you can see it how I see it. Can you not know what it is when I show it to you and smile with you in that coupling of mutual recognition? But when I show you, will you know it like I know it? How do you know? But I know. Barring all the conventional possibilities, the only problem that remains is then how to speak of it.

It is not necessarily a sales commercial or an advertisement like on the TV and magazines that invite you. Too much, perhaps, now do we take the you at a distance, so keen and suspecting we are, so witty and defensive. It is not ‘me’ it is speaking to, or if it is me, it is because I just happen for that need; I have been called, but not called upon. I have needed before, but such a call is beyond suspect; everything else becomes suspect. I have not heard myself in you. Not in collapse of reality but a restating of reality.

More may want to call this unto a type of spiritual-ness, and perhaps it is a type of spirit that arises, but the one who hears that ‘spiritual’-ness has done so only ‘in the spirit’ of spirit, so to speak. Who then will fall back into what they already know, and at this, for the sake of keeping us independent, individuals, common only in our strife? And not question it? Spirituality and thingFs of the spirit are so routinely spoken to be transformed into a type of feeling that one attempts to achieve, it is no wonder intoxicants are the way of the world; it is no wonder we behave so selfishly. No one really wants to work for it, but we are lead to believe that one must do just that: work to achieve a spiritual feeling to life. Perhaps, in such a discussion, we should speak of two kinds of work. This is not to say that the spirit may not be moved in that way, of a spiritual feeling; it is only to say that too often what is called ‘of the spirit’ is merely a feature of being human that allows for a plausible denial of the truth of human existence. Of the spirit should not push us back into our individual strife to hope, and we should not be forced to define ourselves in any manner. Call it ‘synchronicity’ ? But how much, even in our situating an experience in that way by that term, do we passively settle back into some unknown that only included us for a moment, to be defined. Or if we take it to heart, what of this heart isolates us? Deja vu? How do we still observe this moment? And hope? Even if we have a sort of spiritual center that takes such moments in stride as a part of the greater spiritual universe, how often do we still speak of gods and goddesses, elements, energies that define us for the world against which we can thereby be righteous and proper, maybe even the teacher of those seeking fulfillment? Again, it is not so much that such moments lack significance, but rather how we situate the significance in a difficult dialectic. Here then we might have gotten a clue.

Far too easy do most live. Yet, the other type of easiness, so usually missed, is then put into a derogatory difficulty or category of apathy or laziness, a defensive assertion perpetrated by those who have no clue. Everyone wants to be extreme except in the very activity by which they are even able to be extreme. We stop when the extreme just begins to get difficult. Everyone wants to work hard but everything in moderation. No one really wants to work, but they do want to call it work, to say they worked hard, especially when they are just playing around; when one really has to work, there is no calling it anything but doing – at least, the work that accomplishes anything. So we have those complacent who calculate risk and work at it so that everyone knows, and those who actually do risk, as their work is nothing more then they must do, that most everyone cannot help but being offended by because they do not say “I worked so hard”, even though it was the hardest work anyone could ever do.

“He who works, gets the bread.” But as we already know, this is not usually the case. Often it is he who does nothing, or he who takes the easy way, or he who scams another who gets the bread. Basically, he who loves deception and its conventional method typically gets the bread; the rest of us blindly uphold the goodness of humanity and maybe we get some bread and maybe we don’t – so is there really a difference? It seems just as well that we join them because we cant beat them.

In the world of the spirit, the spirit that is not spirit, though, Master Kierkegaard tells us, he who works gets the bread every time. So why is it that we work so hard for the spirit and only sometimes get the bread? Well; what bread are you after? Probably you are not merely wanting bread, but a specific kind of bread, or you already have an idea of what the bread is or supposed to be. This latter is what causes all the trouble, for usually we are not looking for the spirit, but merely what everyone seems to be meaning when they speak of the spirit. But not only this; because we are taking on faith what this spirit is from what everyone seems to be saying about it, we inevitably figure if we do what they do then perhaps we will get some bread. So we prod them for their method, practice it, yet still it comes at times and other times not. Then we work still harder for it, and the results are the same. Soon we just compensate for the inconsistency, the apparent failure, and the spirit becomes the method, a real practice of life. Like working out some spiritual muscle, we figure over time we will gain, most likely in retrospect, something along the lines of spiritual food. What we have actually done is given into the con game of those who would scam us so we can get the bread for ourselves – but the joke is that the method doesn’t work for them either – to get the true spiritual food: the bread of life – so we gain what we can and resort to calling it spiritual; we degrade (downgrade) the spirit into the mundane. For the truth is, he who works, gets the bread, every time. And what it means to work has been falsified: it should rather be said of it, “he for whom functions the spirit, gets the spiritual food”. If I am practicing a method, I have not allowed the spirit to function, but have only allowed the idea of spirit to behave as a thing to be had. One cannot be so timid; one must ‘go big’, as they say, and going big is to risk all that would create me from the methods of spirit, which is to say, the methods of men who have great ideas of how to achieve the spirit.

For those who do risk, we cannot balk at anything, even our own destruction. We are not satisfied with spiritual platitudes. You who are here now for this have just risked it all without even knowing it. The object has been compromised, and the subject has been blurred. The words become occasions for experience. Now, we just might be communicating. If not, well, you can keep reading too.

We continue beyond the tape – to hell with the safety protocols, the standing back – so that the aphilosophical discussion of non-philosophy may come about for their truth. It is a vacillation that occurs of being one then the other, of opening rather than fixating.

*

From here, we can begin to see how the usual configuration of duality, the subject and object, and or the one and the other, the one and the many, is disrupted and a more basic duality precipitates out of a necessary matrix of meaning; I have called this a situation of ‘conventional’ and ‘ironic’. This motion is similar to how Francois Laruelle’s non-philosophical quadripartite actually comes into play for aphilosophy. This can be formulated in the following manner: (1) subject-object basic duality; (2) reduction of duality to knowledge, which yields a ‘subsequent’ duality, the ‘subject-object’ reality in contrast to the reality determined in knowledge: the elimination of the objective; (3) the elimination of the subjective; (4) the radical and non-philosophical or the aphilosophical: the result of existence removed of the subject and object yet retaining effective human presence on the scene. The fourth move is an extension of the third but it should not be seen, as Laruelle seems to see, to be necessary; indeed, the secondary duality emerges in this restated duality as significant rather than radical. Hence, the first move is a non-philosophical repetition of convention, the second an aphilosophical reiteration of it.

Laruelle’s non-philosophical contribution can be seen as the last, or the ‘most minimal’ type of conventional overdetermination that can be permitted by convention, thus he determines his, what could be called, ‘passive-activism’, or maybe ‘active-passive-not-to-be-confused-with-passivity’, his radical unilateral duality, as the ‘end’ of philosophy. His terming of ‘radical’ this and that further shows this effort most poignantly; that it is an attempt to reconcile ironic and conventional realities but without acknowledging irony.

To appeal to the conventional methodology so as not to offend the conventional reality; most everyone is looking for or enjoys an Idea of a ‘more real’ reality, and Laruelle offers just that. Instead of the philosophical decision, which is argued, that informs philosophy, philosophical reality, or what I call conventional reality, that founded upon a dyadic structure, this base a methodological cision, Laruelle offers a ‘joining’, so to speak, a radical unity that he situates through destabilizing terms, succeeded through his much labors of hyphenation (See my Direct Tangent 6.9). By his situating ‘radical’ as the basis of his proposed coming to terms with what he ventures is Real, that is, of a more fundamental or more true reality, he evidences his position in conventional reality, having missed the ironic for the ‘vision-in-one’. Where the quadripartite misses the mark is by that which is polemical to the first, or usual subject-object duality, which thereby indicating a tripartite thus moves to a fourth. These then are upheld in an asserted more true reality that is described by him through a giving and then taking away, a, as I have said, disruption of usual conventional definition, as this is all proposed as a method of thinking or coming upon reality so as to be able to teach or otherwise make one aware of the more real Real, the true Reality. Irony is the complete and not repeated cision (aphilosophy reiterates the decision) of philosophy that conventional philosophy as well as non-philosophy refuses to respect. Irony is exactly the iteration of what is not conventionally real; it is the instatement of the Truth of unequal citizens in the world, where each is empowered to their own existence, as opposed to the universal Law of equality where each is disempowered to another’s reality. Where non-philosophy fails, as method, is in the teaching of inequality through a method implicit in equality: a ‘democracy of strangers’. Perhaps aphilosophy is more analogous to a republic.

Aphilosophy accepts the existential maxim of basic duality that resolves non-philosophically in unilateral duality: two truths at play that do not resolve in the other, but the one accounts for the other where the one excludes the other. Aphilosophy reiterates the conventional history; it speaks the same under a different rubric. The irony of a critique of non-philosophy should not be missed; there is no Real opposed to reality, but what is Real is indeed reality as they are different. Having missed it within the method of non-philosophy, the reader should not believe that non-philosophy ends anything, but rather announces aphilosophy – unless the ending and the announcement indicate the ‘poles’ of the unilateral duality. The ‘Future Christ’ of non-philosophy, itself a vision or conclusion of philosophy as utopia, the ‘man-in-man’, has all too conventionally taken the risk of offering the view of the ‘remainder of the term’ (see my essay “Aphilosophy, Convention, Faith and God”) yet from the quite secure position that is set in the last vestiges of the conventional boarderlands. To use an adage: Laruelle has not thrown away the ladder, but has stepped to the second from the top rung and from there is looking out beyond; but, of course, he should then only be able to see the ‘last’ true (subject-) object: the Future Christ. The irony comes when one understands that the proposed method is an effort of faith, of hope in the promise of humanity coming to terms with itself in existence; this is evidenced, as I have repeatedly said, in Laruelle’s statement or rhetorical question: “should humanity be saved”, for only a conventional methodologist would frame any meaning in such a manner, but likewise, it is evidenced by those non-philosophers who believe in the proposal of method as they attempt to stick to the method and end up speaking a poetry that they see as substantial and not metaphorical. The irony sets in when one sees that non-philosophy has merely used the wrong terms to situate the point of contention, but has indeed situated it due to its complete description of the issue and its proposed method; non-philosophy thus necessitates the ironic move that cannot contain nor is capable of presenting a method beyond its necessary re-presentation in conventional reality.

The Future Christ is thus the situation of meaning that stays in line with Spinoza speaking about God, miracles and nature as if he was simply addressing universal static situations of historical true objects. In contrast; when Spinoza is seen to be addressing a basic feature of the existing human being, then we can also see that Laruelle’s Future Christ is a term that gains reference from conventional reality, a particular scheme of meaning, an intrinsic mythology(we will discuss intrinsic and extrinsic mythology later), and that such a Christ is really an inevitable future manifestation or organization of humanity that is only Christ-like from the perspective of the conventional orientation upon the true object, progressive temporality, and that such a perspective is inherently unsuited to view the truth that stems from the point of contention, which is ironic, to say the least. 

 *

I can never say enough of my belief, but I can say that when I have said enough I will no longer have any beliefs except so much as I might need to still refer my daily decisions. Am I Christ, the Future? I don’t think so, but some might take it to mean an analogy, so they could be that Future Christ – oh – but only in a figurative way, here, let me describe to you the many intellectualized facets of non-philosophy. Ridiculous. Life goes on; human life goes on. We should not get too caught up in our Christlinesses of metaphor. Once you know you will never forget and you will begin to do only that which you do, though you may speak of it. But then, then again; how many will speak of it as if they do more than just do?

Issues and Existence.

I subscribe to a blog called “Bigstoryguide” where he author is involved with a running commentary as he goes through the Bible. Yes, the whole Bible. His blog he calls ‘Jesus’s death to life project’. I think he just got to the New Testament.

I am not a Christian; I am not religious nor prescribe to any particular religious doctrine. I would say if there is a god then he-it-they guide and/or ‘cooperates’, not so much with me, but, more so say, ‘upon’ or ‘through’ me. I’m not much for claiming god as my homie or leader of my gang or nothing, but neither, as what could appear contrary but complimentary to religion, would i say i practice or believe any sort of spirituality; if i am spiritual it is because i am motivated to convey (in practice and speech, as writing or talking is a practice also) what I understand and understand how i might be able to convey it. God or gods, religion and spirituality are just interesting to me, and seem to suggest many significant issues with reality, life and the world, as well as their solutions. If I say I am religious or spiritual, believe in God, gods, spirit, universal energy, etc… It is in the ‘spirit’ of colloquialism for the purpose of the attempt to communicate and/or to help. In a way, one could say, it is not so much what I say I believe, but what is true of what I say.

*

So this blogger posted a nice piece that I use as an occasion to comment. Here is his post, with the link after:

One night during the Spanish Inquisition in Seville, a cell door swings open and The Grand Inquisitor steps into the doorway. Pausing on the threshold, he lifts his lamp into the small dungeon to cast light on the prisoner’s face. The light yreveals what he already knows. The prisoner is Jesus.

There will be no trial. In fact, The Grand Inquisitor has already made his decision. He will burn Jesus at the stake in the morning.

The verdict: What Jesus offers human beings is not enough. Although He offers Himself as the bread of life, it simply is not enough.

Thou has promised to them the bread of life, the bread of heaven; but I ask Thee again, can that bread ever equal in the sight of the weak and the vicious, the ever ungrateful human race, their daily bread on earth?

(“The Grand Inquisitor” from The Brothers Karamozov by Feodor Dostoevsky http://www.gutenberg.org/files/8578/8578-h/8578-h.htm)

John 6. Non-fictional.

A crowd of people searched and found Jesus – excited about the way He had miraculously provided bread for them. However, Jesus didn’t want to talk with them about miraculous provisions of food.

Instead, He offered Himself to them. He offered Himself as “real food” and “real drink.” Their verdict?

“This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

From this time many of His disciples turned back and no longer followed Him.

http://bigstoryguide.wordpress.com/2013/06/21/bread-of-life-no-thank-you/comment-page-1/#comment-132

I don’t think the blogger intends it, but the situation he presents here in juxtaposing the fiction and the, supposedly, non-fiction, sums up what can be called our current ‘existential situation’.

Again, as I have said in previous posts, the issue is not so much about what may be true of these stories, but how to speak of it, about its significance. The religio-mythological writ coordination of meaning, such as the (assumed) intent of the Bigstoryguide blogger, is much too dogmatic for me, too much like “…and the moral of the story is…better eat yer veggies!” As if one can merely choose to believe; as if if I just explain it to you well enough, then you will of course choose the obvious better choice. My question is: Why wouldn’t you? I mean, if all you got to do is believe and everything will be ok, why would anyone choose not to believe it? I, for one, can honestly say I have not chosen anything about what I believe, except maybe that I believe I will leave for work tomorrow 20 minutes early instead of 30. So it is that we have our existential situation. (By the way, in case you didn’t know, Dostoevsky is considered an existentialist writer, though he wrote before the term was coined.)

{ Side: Somewhat recently I saw a book, a humor book, that was called something to the effect like, ‘The Idiots Guide to Choosing a Religion’. It was great; truly funny. Similar tongue-and-cheek to a book from the 1980’s called, again, I think, “The Book of Money”, or maybe “The Money Bible”, From what I remember of it (the latter book), someone wrote this book using ‘biblical-speak’, with titled books that mimicked the actual books of the Bible, numbered chapters and versus; stories similar to the Bible stories’ content, but its was all about money. I wish I would have gotten it when I saw it. It was classic. The best chapter, which was in the book with the name and style that mimicked the book of Psalms, and was called “Money”, went something like this:

1. Money money money; oh money. Money money money money money money thou money. 2. Money money, money money. My money money money: money money money money. 3. Money. Money money money ….

Well, you get the jist. Absolutely hilarious. And the really great thing about it, the thing that struck me about it, was I wasn’t totally sure that it was meant to be a joke. As I said; Classic.

The ‘Religion’ book, though, is like a reference book, and it has every religion, sect, and cult that you can think of from the ages till now, all listed as to their qualities. Fundamental beliefs; type of pantheon, from one God, to paganism, to polytheism, to natural philosophy; benefits, such as, having an afterlife, or being forgiven, to you get to have you own universe, and ‘thumbs-down’, like, believes there is a hell, or must be willing to kill yourself, or have to wear certain clothes; practices; etcetera. Each religion and/or spiritual belief system has its own listing and even is rated, like, in a five star scale, against others. At least, again, this was my impression of it; the actual details may be slightly different. And again; I’m not totally sure that it is a joke, but I’m pretty sure it was written in good fun.

The reason I mention it is because it comes out of the idea that people can choose what they believe, like we can actually go shopping for a religion that best fits our beliefs, as if i can find one that meets most of my criteria and the rest ill just choose to believe; or, I can even choose what I want of believe because I’m not totally sure what I believe, or what it means. Well, I’m sure we can do this, but what does that really say of what we believe ? }

*

The issue I am going to deal with now is posed in the excerpt. Particularly how John puts it, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

Again, if I wasn’t clear, I am not advocating Christianity, or that one needs to ‘accept’ Jesus as their personal savior. But likewise, I am not taking a dig at Christian blogger dude; he likewise could no more choose not to be a Christian (I only assume he is a Christian), than he could choose to be, say, an alligator, though it is just as well that most everyone believes that there is a choice to be had. I suppose the significant idea is found in asking someone to believe she can choose to believe that she has no choice. Or even better, asking someone to not believe in what they believe. That person might then respond by saying that their belief (that is in question) has developed through a consideration of circumstances, upon choices made, and that they cannot choose to not believe what they believe because their belief is sound, and they would not want to change their belief. So then I would have to say that they have no choice in what they believe. The rebuttal then would affirm that for their present belief they have no choice because the choices made in the past have brought them to their current condition of belief, which is to say that our present situation is determined by our past choices, which is thus sound (or not sound, as the case may be with having an issue (read on; see below) but the point then for the response is that the belief that they have an issue, is sound) Well, I say, what prevented the past situations of belief from being chosen out of; at what point in time did you have a choice upon what you believe? And back: And why would I want to believe that I had or have no choice? And me again: in what way has your wants determined what you choose? So can you choose to not want what you want? The argument could go on and on, through many avenues and considerations, quite like Plato’s dialogues, but the pivotal response would inevitably arrive: Why would I want to choose out of that which has soundly brought me to my place of truth? And, why would I want to choose not to want what I want anyways?

This is the issue, isn’t it. Issues.

*

Here is another way of looking at it.

The question I have pondered for a long time is: why wouldn’t I choose the ‘easy’ way; I mean, why wouldn’t I choose what is healthy for me, or ‘better’ for me? Why would I choose to make things difficult on myself? Am i not intelligent and sane? Now, I don’t mean this in the sense like studying and going to school to be an engineer might be difficult. Rather, I mean why would I choose to party real hard, too hard maybe, so I am incapable of studying well enough so I could get the career of my dreams? Well, the typical thinking goes to psychology: I am just fuckt up like that, like, something is wrong with me, like I have some issues embedded in my psyche or my mind that makes or compels me to make decisions that are not to my benefit despite myself.

I propose for this situation that the individual in question could not choose because she had no choice, and Christianity, the institution, and all Religion and spirituality in general, as well as psychology, the ‘science of mind/ behavior’, so to speak, develops not only in response but out of this apparent inability. I submit that the individual was doing all she could to do what was in her best interest, that in fact, she was doing what was in her best interest the whole time ( ill address the ‘best interest’ part later). Most if not many would say, that is because she does have issues. Ok; say I believe that I have issues. I reflect upon those times, or I resent those times because I come across thoughts that I had, or now have in me that were telling me that I should make the other choice, the one that at the time I knew was the right choice but did not make. I have an issue, and then I have an issue because of the issue, so I decide to get get help with my issues. I goto therapy. Over time I come to terms with my issues and get better – or maybe I don’t.

Never mind that many would argue that one does not ‘believe’ he has issues, he merely has issues; well, who is talking about what one believes? What issues are there if one does not believe that there are issues? The issues everyone else sees, or believes they see? The issue one has in-itself, or the issue that one believes everyone else does not have? But here, this is not a matter of believing, it is a matter of what is true.

The significant question has got to be: Why could I not just choose to leave my issues behind when I realized that I had them? Why would I sit in them when I know they have caused and are causing me all sorts of problems? The answer has got to be concerning belief, and not so much of what is reality and what I chose as a subject of reality; it can not be so much about what may be true of reality as much as one is involved with it. Perhaps it can be said, it does have more to do with what I am not choosing, but not so much as my issues have not been chosen in so much as they were thrown upon me: it is because my issues are informing me exactly as to who I am, and I cannot dismiss myself from my identity, nor do i want to. And, if i want to, I cannot. Hence the problem.

So I have to ask, against what am I having the cognition that I have issues? Exactly against the idea that allows me to know that I have issues. It is not some issue in-itself, as if there is some natural, ‘non-issue’ way, and due to this, I have some issue that is making me screwed up in my choices. Perhaps a person looks out into the world and sees that his life is not a picture that he enjoys, or perhaps he just feels wrong in his own skin. Again, the question must be, how could he be any different? Against or within this question lay the pertinent answer: in the past as different choices, or the future as a result of making different choices. Indeed; if such answers ( and so the question) were not salient, would there be an issue? And what is the past and future? Only an idea against which can have ideas about how one might have issues or not. ‘Now’ is not viable; in fact people will argue against my having an issue even while they will admit it. Likewise, those pictures and feelings one has of oneself and ones life can only exist in that they take form as ‘something that I am not’. I’m sure many are thinking that this is a most ridiculous notion, merely a conceptual game – but again, a ‘game’ as opposed to what? To what is Real? I say that it is just this game that we are all playing. In truth, such issues are entirely of one’s self, not put upon him by some separate force, but exactly the force that is that person entirely and absolutely, which has no true basis as a construction of outside forces. To bring in and reiterate what I have said before; in so much as I am an individual that has real issues thrust upon me, so much do I have faith, as well, am a subject of faith, and thereby do I look to solve my issues through faith, but ironically that faith that expresses my inability to choose to exit from them.

The thing is, so much as i may have issues, when I am able to fully concede to my issue, and thus fully accept it as me, it goes away. In as much as I deny or ignore it, it remains, and if I accept it, but not that it is me, likewise it remains. This is the presumed mode or operation of modern ‘psychoanalytic’ and/or ‘encounter’ therapy; when someone realizes whatever it is that has prevented them from ‘real-izing’ the issue (which is, really, a break from their usually reality), it is a ‘breakthrough’, like they have ‘broken through’ the facade of ‘their’ reality. And also, in this very same way, this is the presumed mode of the Christian problem, expressed in the above excerpts, that is solved through ‘belief’. In truth, this is to say of either solution, which actually is the same solution, either the issue still remains, but is accepted of oneself, or the issue is gone and so needs no acceptance; either way, the effect of the issue having power over or in ones life, is proposed as belief of the problem ‘no longer an issue’.

This is so much to outline the situation of human existence.

*

The main problem that the excerpts shed light upon is that for most people, such a ‘breakthrough’ never occurs. (At some point I will address this issue). So far as Christ might relate to the human condition, people are unable to sufficiently understand, or believe, so to bring about a dismissal or relieving of the issue. Beyond the dogmatics of Christian religion, Christ is the figure or actual-symbol of the message that a person merely needs to fully accept, understand or otherwise come to terms with her or his situation as an existing being. In fact, one cannot merely ‘believe’, as if a choice can be made; one must actually ‘give up’ the ideal relation that establishes oneself in, as I have spoken about it, reality. Yet, within the belief of Christianity, the functioning thereof, Jesus is that element of oneself – a precipitate of sorts, of oneself ‘un-revealed’, so to speak, unto his inability – that holds the person back from making the breakthrough, which is to say, ironically, Jesus ‘fills’ in that place, aspect or otherwise resisting area of the individual that prevents one from ‘accepting the teaching’. Jesus is the bread, is the link between the ‘not being able’ and the sought after ‘wanting for’. His presence in position of interlocutor for the discrepancy is that part of oneself that is denied for the sake of having belief being effective as a belief of choice; in other words, the Christianized Jesus is choice objectified, is that boundary, that chasm, by which one may find oneself in the substantive echo, the ‘issue’ of not being able to believe well enough, such that one may then choose to believe what suits her the belief that belief is significant. Such it is that only with the presentation of Jesus do we have the situation of a “hard teaching” that no one can accept, except that one may then, for Christianity, choose to believe.

For Psychology, as it is for Christianity, one need only choose to believe. If I can choose to believe that a ‘discussion’ about the terms of my issues will allow my issue to go away, then similarly I can choose to believe in Christ, since I need only to address my issues behind not believing. But one need not choose; choosing is the problem. So it is that the problem of the apparent inability is taken as indicating course, and a method for discerning exactly where the inability resides within a psyche or mind or soul of a now real individual (one who cannot but have the inability) is drawn out through a method of finding truth; the truth is thus the way as well as the life; it is the only way to find truth, as it concerns the human life, the only life that can be for all humanity in reality. The method becomes the true method to find truth (of oneself). No more then must we choose because our inability to choose ‘the better’, the ‘not having an issue’, is found in the choice that is the method: we need not and can not choose our way out of the situation of reality that is the issue, we instead goto therapy and believe. The therapist works to draw out the issue, as a leech for the disease of the blood, by listening to the individual speak and directing the individual to possibilities within what the individual has said, possibilities that have arisen as the science of psyche has developed out of and due to the analysis of the inability to step out of the issue. At some point, hopefully, the individual ‘speaks the issue’ so to speak, and or comes upon the issue in relation to a meaning of what was being said about it, around it, or because of it. The issue thus ‘breaks through’ the ‘wall’ of the psyche that was created by the psyche itself to protect itself in the procurement of a proper reality from the issue, but it thereby effects or establishes a reality that is ‘off’. Thus the issue is responsible for reality, as reality is the issue. Like the tract responsible for ambergris, the psyche of psychology develops along with the issue such that the matter of expulsion of the issue becomes a disgustingly beautiful thing to behold, but likewise, we can be sure the functioning of the psyche will produce another issue in its procurement of reality. The truth of this method, and or the method for finding a method that works, is hardly chosen, it is taken in faith that it is true, and that its methods are real, at least. Hence the conventional bias that sublimates and or denies its basis of operation for choice and belief.

The “breakthrough” of Psychology is the “bread” of Jesus of Christianity extrapolated in time’s discourse for the incessant and persistent inability or refusal of humanity to come to terms with its own existence. It was the same in the supposed time when the Gospels were written, as it was for Dostoevsky’s time, as it continues to be for our time. Nothing has gotten better, no one has gotten closer for all the ‘progress’ we might purport. I submit, just as many believed then as now as with those doing therapy now – so it seems.

*

The mid-20th century notion of Existentialism, as coined by the thinker Jean-Paul Sartre, is the expression in its explaining of the condition of not being able to relinquish such an identity. The philosopher Soren Kierkegaard, whom Sartre called the first existentialist, was the first (it seems) Western, or maybe also ‘modern’ thinker to come upon the point of contention in the way I am presenting it. They tell of the motion of existence, possible ways of situating existence in reality, which is to say, discourse, and the process whereby human beings come to terms with such an understanding. The proposal can be seen as ironic; people either are in bad faith, or they find themselves in a situation of ‘bad faith’; this is the process of conventional faith on one hand, and faith in doubt on the other. With reference to John (above, and please keep in mind that I am not advocating believing any type of dogmatics), when a person finds themselves in a situation of existence, they then realize the paradox of the “hard teaching”, and they become unsettled. They come to have ‘angst’ or become ‘anxious’ because the certainty of reality is failing, and this person either falls back into discourse of the real, or they fall onward in truth. If the latter, such angst leads to ‘despair’, and despair then is the harbinger of the ‘breakthrough’. Ironically, then the person finds that what they saw or knew of reality is no longer real.

And again, and to reiterate; the problem is precisely that understanding this process does nothing to bring it about; actually, understanding this process works to prevent it from occurring; for our examples, understanding how and why therapy operates, and that Christianly speaking, that our sinful nature can be solved through Christ; both resolve in a capacity for belief. The truth of the matter at hand is ‘hard to accept’, I would say ‘offensive’, so this state of innate human offense is solved conventionally by belief; this is summation of the presentation of conventional history. Understanding the issue only functions to bring it back around so it remains, and understanding this further tends to keep it cycling. This is the same problem of reality, what I have called “conventional methodology”. The means and manner by which reality is established and maintained is due to the overwhelming predominance of human beings who cannot let go of their ‘real identity’, even when it is plagued with issues that hinder ones ability to function. The recourse to this plague, this dis-ease of what is real, is to reify that the problem can only be found in what is real, namely, methods.

This is why and how the message of Christ became the institution of Christianity that allowed for Western Psychology. One merely needs then to believe; one needs only to repent; one needs to pray; one needs to confront their issues; one merely needs to get real with oneself; the real answer is always one needs to do something differently. Thus Christianity (of the West), sewed its own predominance; Catholicism let to Protestantism, because the Catholic way was not doing the trick. Protestantism lead to modern ‘philology’, as if we just need to study more and find the true meaning; this lead to the current Western philosophy, and this brought psychology. Round the time of the rebuking of supernaturalistic metaphysics, maybe circa 1750, and into the 19th century, we see a split in method. Protestantism developed all sorts of sects; Transcendentalism arose, as well as all sorts of Spiritualism, culminating in a profound polemic of Atheism and Magic, this last most significantly of the scholarly sort that seeks the truth through study, Alistar Crowley. Though this is admittedly quite a rough description of developments, all seek to reconcile that which is most insistently discrepant: the problematic real individual person.
It also is significant that the concepts of individualism, freedom and capitalism all came about at a time when the Christian sway was evidencing a profound failure: A state founded on the idea of the free and equal individual under the law, and the law as merely a device of negotiating individuals, individuals with pronounced and apparently unsolvable issues.