Doubt and the Path Toward Substance (the simplicity of substance, part 2)

I think most of my life I was trying to be someone that I wasn’t and I was trying to do some thing that was against my true nature. I think I found in philosophy a kind of justification for this “being at odds” with myself as a way of being in the world. Honestly, I found much sympathy with the western, mainly continental, European philosophers of the last, say, two or 300 years. It literally is though I was living the life that these people, these so many philosophical authors, had experienced themselves. It kind of made and makes me in hindsight feel good inside, as if I’m not so alone because I can identify with these big names of history; somehow it validated myself and my experience.

I recall how Nietzsche says somewhere that he identifies with and has empathy  for the authors and the people of the past, but the people of the present he can hardly tolerate. As long as I can remember, I felt exactly that way.

I think I felt in so identifying with what all these authors were talking about and what they were saying  that somehow I could carve a place out of the thick, dense world for myself, and be celebrated for the victory. Little did I know that one must come back out of the forest to get home.

If I could just apply enough force –i would imagine — if I could just apply enough power, chop everything up enough, the power that I gained through identifying with these dense and poignant theories and discourse of philosophy, then I would be justified in reality. Everyone would love me so much because I could wield these theoretical weapons at anything that came at me and I would end up some philosophical and aesthetic giant. Nietzsche and all of them would be channeled through me, the angst and despair that I was feeling against this terrible modern industrial world, and everyone would listen to me because I so thoroughly and passionately felt that me and these other philosophers- and everyone, really, were brothers in spirit, and that the spirit would compel me into being great among men!

But as time went on I started to realize that while these philosophers may have penned, sorted out and developed these great philosophical ideas, the ideas were mostly dead in everyone who is trying to do the same thing that I was trying to do with them: Indeed these authors were perpetuating the very situation that they were trying to overcome in their descriptions. Through various lineages of philosophies of perhaps the past two or 300 years, The attempt to overcome the condition was inscribed such that nothing was ever overcome, which is to say, the only thing that was overcome was indeed nothing, and yet still to this day not even that is overcome.

There’s a strange irony; what these philosophers were talking about so far as who I am what I am in the world, I was totally missing in the attempt to use their ideas to justify myself. Basically I was trying to force myself into the embodiment of their ideas instead of being true to the embodiment that is here already. As though because I understand what they’re saying so thoroughly, who and what I am must necessarily be framed by what they said, albeit, through the force of power that I wield by what they say to argue myself in this world.

But the simple fact is that I was getting nowhere but sinking more and more into The swamp and drudgery of modern life, torturing myself as a kind of sacrifice toward the good of the world.

 I think at this point and in a way of speaking I had two alternatives: 1) continue in the faith that I had in the idea to compel me to be able to power myself into the façade of modern ideology and it’s nihilism, or 2) doubt, again, that what I Thought so thoroughly and surely as true and significant to the creature that I am in the world, was indeed so true and significant.

I think when I came to that cross roads, I realized that the only sure thing that I could rely on, The only thing which indeed must be absolutely true, is that I doubt. I had to take another deadly risk.

So really I reveal that I am more Kierkagaardian then I am Cartesian, and I am more concerned with substance than I am with material.

Once I remembered what had really gotten me through all the BS, everything changed.

No longer do I feel alienated. No longer do I attempt to identify myself with something that is not my self. No longer am I trying to do anything authentically.

The way I’ve come to terms with this so far as what I actually do in the world is to have realized that most people are not as fortunate as I am. For all the fucked up shit that my life has been and that I put myself through all these years, I look around and I see people that Live life in a similar fashion, thinking and orienting themselves upon the world similar to the way that I did for decades, And them without the benefit of having a philosophical comfort in the figures of the past.

No longer do I feel entirely comfortable sitting in myself hashing out wonderful systems of thoughts and how philosophically and ontologically this and that must be the case while I look across the world and impose that kind of idealism upon everyone I see.

I realize that I was not seeing anyone for who and what they are, not the world for what it indeed is, but was rather caught in my own modern subjectivity, arguing all these various philosophies to substantiate and insert myself were really there was only ideas.

Now I am able to use these ideas in the service of others because I am not bound by these traditions of ideology or philosophy. Or rather, I am only half bound where most people are entirely subjugated.

✊🏾



Ok.

Back to the show.

This does not mean I have stopped doing philosophy. But, i guess it means that I am more concerned with the interface of philosophy with the actual world.

As readers might see through this blog and books, philosophy in-itself is no longer sufficient to uphold a place for me. Philosophy in-itself is now a thing to use, a being which does its use itself.

🪐

Lately I have been harboring on the psychoanalyst Jaques Lacan.

Maybe in my next post I’ll get back to what the original point was. 

Maybe not

The Simplicity of Substance and the Lengthy Post

I have been re-approaching philosophical ideas that have long held a deep significance for me. Because my life has been basically informed by an incessant and consistent questioning of what I am coming up on, I am finding that I am merely continuing to be what I am, which is, for a term, in motion.

I think this last round of doubting comes about because I am realizing that I am more concerned with actual people than I am with my ability to think great thoughts.

Now, what is strange about this is I am intensely antisocial in general while at the same time at ease with being social in a certain context or a certain framework. I generally hate people (groups) but I love and am very concerned with people (individuals). 🌏

*

This is very Zizekian, from the Zizekian standpoint of media/ideological primacy:

“I do not love the world….I pick and choose who and what I love.”

So far as “the world” might be an ideological fantasy established through magical symbols, Zizek, the critical theorist/media critic-turn-philosopher states unequivocally that “love is evil.”

What he means by this is that we are persuaded by an existential anxiety which pervades the maintenance of the fantasy– that is, due to our investment in the truth-value of the fantasy (the value is gained because it prevents us from having to encounter that which we are most of afraid of: the dissolution of the fantasy, or death) — to love the world, to extend an ideological hand out into the grandiose narcissist world because the idealism inherent of the fantasy is we are ‘in this together’, so to speak, individually yet identically.

The modern individual is ethically bound to, at least, trying to love the world. But in the whole, he doesn’t have a clue how to actually love his sisters and brothers around him. The imaginary world establishes intuitive subjective barriers which serve to maintain the ideological modern identity at all costs against his neighbors, while extending out ideals to the “universe” or “the world” where we all must try to get along.

So; yet in truth he denies what is really occurring; which is, we are all being selfish and choosing certain universal things and people to love, and not really loving the world.

It is this tension of modern subjectivity we deny through the institutionally normalized and sanctioned “state of” anxiety which then in relief shows our ultimately ‘sinful’ nature: “In despair to will to be oneself” (as Kierkegaard puts it) is the condition of the modern man concept of love which avoids its true nature: hence, it is evil because it is an ideologically sanctioned “global” love that misses the intimacy that we generally misconstrue in the notion of agape, or man’s love for God. Since, God in this modern sense, is indeed a “usurper” god which takes the place of brotherly love to which agape would otherwise return to reflect in God itself, that is, in the world.

Zizek is, of course, referring to the modern ideal of love by which humanity defers itself and by which humanity is regulated to its conceptual ability.

Beyond the ideological love, by reflection, any love of a transcendent world is a narcissism, a pathological version of the human being. While within the fantasy, the narcissism is justified through the fantasy erected by trauma and told or narrated as “just human” , the “all too human” who takes on little responsibility for his actions, while erecting layers of intellectual and ideological facades in grandiose defense of them. Hence, the love that is evil is indeed, on one hand, a carnal love based in the libidinal control of the ego which then moves to impose or identify itself with the super-ego material norms: the subjective ideological identity.

Yet on the other, love is evil from the transcendent standpoint because the love I would have for the world that is my sisters and brothers, that is, not put off to a mere grand idea, is an evil and absurd activity.

So ironically, items that I pick and choose to love are in or of the reality that I cannot but be involved with– this is an evil manner of doing things. Hence, I do not love the world from Zizek’s standpoint of an ideological (media critique) analysis.

But indeed. I should not love the world in this way, so I don’t. Instead, I pick and choose to thus remain consistent and cohered to that which is the fantastic manner by which I must apprehend the ideological world.

The true love I profess is not modern, thus from the modern ideological standpoint, it is evil.

I won’t go on.

(Please don’t) 👨🏽‍🚀

*

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.