Rp and comment Lions and Tigers and—a Jackass? Oh my !

The donkey told the tiger, “The grass is blue.” The tiger replied, “No, the grass is green .” The discussion became heated, and the two decided to …

Lions and Tigers and—a Jackass?

I would agree with the end synopsis part: the difference between post modern and modern, and the real emotional content. With the caveat : Only in as much as one is informed of those categories by the Modern Method for the discerning of things.

This is to say that the Lion is the Latent Modern presumption of method, the Tiger is the modern orientation upon things, and the donkey is the postmodern orientation. The Lion is the route of individualism and identity whereby agency is assumed but non-active. Or only activated through the tiger-donkey polemic that has recourse to a transcendent Lion (the Modern Real Subject).

The story’s true meaning is that one is always bringing their complaint to the Lion (god). And this opening or recourse in (Modern) consciousness allows for the modern agent’s ‘belief’ in their own ideal of a self-made world. It is this world that is, at once, referring to truth and reality, and without recognizing what is at play, one always held at length in the activity of interaction of subjects for the purpose of sustaining the modern method’s function to present a world.

It is fruitless and deserving of punishment to attempt to have a discussion toward proving a point to those who are not able to reflect upon the truth of the situation. Hence, the real material sustenance of problem.

This is a parable about the the Modern Epistemological Condition.

👽 x

Reality is Not All That We Make It Up To Be

Thursday night’s first hearing will feature firsthand witnesses to the violence at the U.S. Capitol as well as video clips of testimony from top Trump aides.
— Read on www.huffpost.com/entry/jan-6-committee-first-hearing-capitol-riot_n_62a10863e4b06169ca862faf

—— We get to make our own realities.

This is the basis through which all current political worlds can be found to be reducible to the explanatory of mental health.

That is a very common phrase that has become so ubiquitous to our modern reality, we forget it is a post-modern ideal. From a counseling and mental health standpoint yes, we make our own realities through making meaning.

However, a very simple and basic truth of it is, sure, we get to make our own worlds, but at some point the truth of the universe, big-R, REALITY is coming in and you are going to have to deal with it.

The way that mental health becomes explanatory is happens next.

Those who stick to the total idealism of semantic reality-making get defensive, and double down on the world they have made. This leads to one or both of two things:

  1. Mental break down, or what we like to call an existential crisis. This is where ultimately the person is faced with the truth of their situation and has to deal with it.
  2. Violence.

This is mental health, not an existential issue. An existential issue has to with with item #1. The true issue has to do with both items.

That is to say, how do we ethically reconcile our want to enact violence for the righteousness our ethical worlds?

Rp and comment on Ontological Mathematics & Theory of Everything 3b: The Meaning of Tautology

What language carries meaning, and how is it defined? Are tautologies meaningless, or meaningful? How does a tautologous system compare to an …

Ontological Mathematics & Theory of Everything 3b: The Meaning of Tautology

/—
What a nice education!

My work is primarily about the epistemological condition of the two routes, and how that applies to activity in the world.

Though I never really thought about it in the way that this guy is putting forth, and I’m not haven’t been very familiar with Godel. however, his discussion about tautology and axiomatic Systems really support what I’m talking about when I talk about orientation.

Enjoy!

And. Happy resurrection day!

Rp: AI. Universe. Logos.

Researchers have successfully created a model of the Universe using artificial intelligence, reports a new study. Researchers seek to understand ……

AI. Universe. Logos.


and as the subsequent poetic reflection might indicate:
two routes.

because
isn’t it kind of funny how a notion of “the” universe persists?

as well,
that we find evidence of it when we look. and more evidence. And more evidence…

I wonder what will happen when all the evidence is in?

Just gotta check in : Zizek on Ukraine (Translated)

Farmers Letters: Zizek on Ukraine (Translated)
— Read on farmersletters.blogspot.com/2022/02/zizek-on-ukraine-translated.html

—— “form… is never just a form, it is part of the content…”

The Two Routes translation:

The content material always concerns the form, and the substance is that which arises, in once instance, as contradiction, yet in another instance as irony. The real attempt to bring the contradicting irony to materialize is the political instance, the “either/or” epistemological absolute that lay at the heart of ideological constituency, the Imagined content within the Symbol of the Real.

Rp and Comment on if Can consciousness be simulated?

David Chalmers in his book: Reality+: Virtual Worlds and the Problems of Philosophy, eventually gets around to addressing the 800-pound gorilla in …

Can consciousness be simulated?

—-
The Two Routes version of the problem:

Reality can only be encountered and negotiated. If reality arises beyond that scope, it merely verifies the truth of the initial statement of reality as what is happening.

consciousness arises as it does, having properties that appear in whatever manner that we deal with in what ever way we do, just as everything else also deals in the same way; that is, in the manner that it does.

However, this does not argue that it has no value, cannot be known as a means to get something else done, or is a moot point.

The Real question hudden within the question of consciousness has to do with what we can use it for.

Encasing the Real question is that true question, the question that spoils the party, and grabs people up to attend a different party. Most people at the party, though, will think that the party’s over and think that they have to go home. But in actuality there is another party that they’ve just missed. 

Because the whole discourse on consciousness is nothing different than having a discourse about television sets, atoms, computers, parties, or shirts, or even fashion or hearing aids. As we may want to know what a hearing aid is in its reality, what we are really asking is how we can use it to establish ourselves in the world as a known being; we are equating thus being with doing.

Im not going into all of the extended possibilities here, though.

This is also to say that such discussions about what consciousness is whether or not technology one day will be able to embody consciousness, is really interesting. Things that arise in reality are interesting; this is true.

This is why we can say that no one really cares about what it’s true because it’s not very interesting. And in general, if I’m in any sort of career that Hass to do with thinking about philosophical subjects, I’m probably not gonna be very interested in finding out the truth of what I’m doing and report on it. The simple reason is, once I begin to report upon what I’m doing, I’m probably not gonna end up making very much money from it or be able to pay my rent and have social credit. Because what I may be doing, is doing that is not only very interesting, but is very important.

In as much as I would have to talk about the interest that is involved in what I’m doing, I lose interest, credit, and this has to be very important and interesting because I wouldn’t be doing it unless it was.

Rout.

The key situation involved in the two routes has to do with a recognition of what is actually occurring. And this has to do with knowledge. It doesn’t really have to do with what I do when I go out with my friends at night. Or what I do to make a living. It has to do with the truth of the situation. Whether or not I get intoxicated from drinking beers and have fun with my friends is not as interesting about all the details about the truth that I went out last night and drank some beers and had fun.

So it is, the catch with reckoning epistemology to find out actually what is happening truthfully in our academic efforts, is that I’m not making an argument to say that there’s something wrong with the reality of the situation. I definitely Am not suggesting that we don’t deal with reality every day, or that we shouldn’t have to, or that we don’t have to because there’s another way to be.

Offense.

What really grates on peoples nerves is that if I say that there’s nothing wrong with the reality of the situation, it often tells people that I’m making an argument about what is true or false, and then they will tell me a bunch of things that’s really wrong with reality. Such as gangster dictators invading a country that they have no business in. 

😁. Of course they will. And inasmuch as their interests are very important they indicate that they are oriented in reality to find the truth of being.

Upon reckoning what is actually happening, though, our relationship with technology changes, And the question posed here, in the link, is changed at its root.

That’s all for now.

xxx

Rp The Functioning Dictatorship

harmoniaphilosophica.com/2011/01/11/the-dictatorship-of-the-science-of-2jszrulazj6wq-15/

“When you are desperate, you will take any advice from someone who says they can help. When you begin to think, though, desperation often stays away, and help arrives in a different form.

However, most people do not want to think, and what they understand as thinking is more like living unconsciously. Thier ideas formed and opinions swayed as the tide of fashion and populism, and what is dictated to them as help often has some effect or appearance of helping. They are kept in a state of existential desperation for the purpose of simple solutions and momentary fixes that lean on dependency. This we call ‘reality’.

Hence, one of the main issues of our time is this contradiction of lived experience.

For, there is no getting people to think simply by telling them that they are ignorant; they routinely will simply tell you that you are wrong, and even resort to violence – whether personal or state-sanctioned – to have the right to their “ignorance”.

We have to approach it a different way then… ”

Cyd Nate.

The Culture of Cultures: An example of how the explanatory term of mental health begins to account for all human endeavor

Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World’s Most Dangerous Man: 9781982141462: Trump Ph.D., Mary L.: Books
— Read on www.amazon.com/Too-Much-Never-Enough-Dangerous/dp/1982141468/ref=nodl_

—– Just an example; perhaps motivated by a little Justice as well. 😙

Nonetheless; this is an example of how the cult of individualism is being accounted for sufficiently to only allow for two responses. 

Accept it. The rationale behind mental health and its capacity of overwhelming explanatory power leaves even the most ardent skeptic to accept at least some of its truth, and work with it.

Deny it. Explanatory power of the trope of mental health can only be denied. This is to say, it’s explanatory power hits home. This effect on people, which is to say, due to parts of its power for making sense, brings about a response of rejection.

Similar to when someone notices something about us that we are trying to protect, and we feel embarrassment, so it is that the explanatory power of mental health reaches into our very nature, indeed, describes the cult of individualism to the extent that those who adhere to it as an ontological truth have nothing to do but to reject it and indeed fight against it. In the end, unfortunate and ironic, all they have left is recourse to violence.

This is a focal issue of Modernity: The issue of The Two Routes. 

This question is salient: How do I find my individual self without the multiplicity of beings to show me the way to where I am?

Team, Agency, Idealism and Philosophy

“When one speaks about a thing, she does so vicariously.”

—- Cedric Nathaniel.

Team Work

I think I’m just naturally rebellious. I’m not at heart a joiner.

I can, though, be a team player. In fact, I love where I work primarily because we have such a great team. However, I feel that a team is a group of people who all have a common goal, even while they may not have a common general philosophy behind what we do as a team toward that goal. We definitely do not share a similar ideology or belief about what it is we are involved with or what it means. Quite remarkably, we share a common purpose as a motion of what we are doing. We work well as a team because we share the common bond of what we do together.

I’d have to say that a team is the name for a motion of a group of people who feel a sense of camaraderie around a purpose. Even if that purpose is philosophically indistinct.

My Issue with Society, or the Ideal of the Social

I am, somehow, involved with society and social things, even as I would say I’m not a very social person. My therapeutic work as a counselor has something to do with society, as a sort of underpinning, only spoken in certain context specific to the client, primarily concerned with the person or people in front of me and not theories or ideologies.

Yet, my philosophical work is not social, neither is it about a person, the person, or people. I have to use these words and indeed I talk about them and they are involved with my work; however, I feel if I use these words or invest myself too much into the objects that these words are supposed to be indicating as a substrate (subjects), I cannot help but to feel naturally resistant.

That is the critical posture despite belief.

I feel that being human, being part of society, dealing with people and the world, it’s just some thing that happens. It is a kind of given that has nothing to do with whether or not I’m using words about them or making theories, asserting my agency about how they might fit together, what they are, or what we’re supposed to do about them.

Does God Exist?

Reference my approach on the issue of God‘s existence.

Recently, I was come upon by a person and a discussion with them that comes every once in a while, but routinely.

The question that will come out is, “Do you believe in God?” Or similarly, “Do you believe that God exists?”

My answer was met with a blank stare and look of confusion from the other person.

My answer: “ The existence of God has nothing to do with any effort I make. God‘s existence has nothing to do with my belief. Belief, I feel, is overdetermined. I use the word ‘belief’ very intentionally, in the sense that “I believe I might play guitar today”, or, “I believe that this coffee is too cold”. I do not use the word ‘belief’ as indicating anything that has to do with the truth of some thing, some supposed or proposed object of the question. For example, I do not believe that the chair exists. But likewise, any discussion about the theory of existence does not require my belief. Rather, I would believe something within the discussion with reference to the discussion that already exists or is existing by virtue of the fact that we’re having the discussion.

So it is: I do not believe that God exists.

But if I say that to a person that’s asking me whether I believe that God exists or whether or not I believe in God —which I see is basically the same question despite philosophical dissections — what will happen is that the person will routinely misunderstand what I’m saying. I

So, in my effort to try to be clear to this person about what I’m saying, I simply tell them that I have no belief about god whatsoever, simply by virtue of the fact that God‘s existence has nothing to do with whether or not I believe in it (him,her). And I might add, in the same way as your existence has nothing to do with whether or not I believe that you exist.

Prior Categories

If we understand anything about what people have said philosophically over the years, it is a plain fact that I have to somehow deal with the categories that are already there. It has nothing to do with whether or not I believe they exist; it has more to do with whether or not I feel that those categories are accurately representing the situation in which I find myself.

Note: The categories have to do with the situation in which I find myself.

This is different than what I see is most philosophers discussing. Most philosophers, most essays books treaties arguments speak of categories as if they exist independent of other things. And so the discussion or the argument revolves around a very subjective, phenomenal existence: the phenomenal agent is able and is justified in distinguishing things in themselves apart from other things. This despite what argument they might be making or what category to which they apply themselves.

So it is that in dealing with this situation, I find difficulty at every turn calling myself a philosopher. My assertion mostly fails at every juncture. I understand intuitively what I mean, but as I go to engage philosophically with what society or the larger group of people who are supposedly involved with Philosophy understand as Philosophy, I find myself at an impasse. I find myself unable to move. I feel it in a very regular way, as I put it, probably because I’m not a joiner. Idealism is not really my thing.

The Epistemist

I have to find someway to identify what it is that I’m involved with. I find most of the given philosophical categories are so well assumed, that I am excluded, in the Kantian scheme, a priori and synthetically.

I am involved with knowledge. No matter what else is going on, everything has to pass through knowledge. It doesn’t matter so much whether that is a phenomenon; indeed I would have to say it is indeed a phenomenon, but then also we’ve already found out everything there is about the logic of phenomenal existence as a category. If you would say we haven’t then I would say you are either just beginning or missed something. Then perhaps we should have an discussion. I’m not sure…

Nonetheless, epistemology would be the usual way that I might identify myself. But I also find that if I start saying ‘epistemology’ there is a whole set of presumed and assumed history about what I’m talking about and what I’m doing.

I am going to try and use a new term:

The Epistemist

This has to do with everything that can possibly exist, be talked about, be known, and must arise in knowledge and discourse truly. 

As well, because I think when we start to talk about “philosophy of…” some thing interesting, we have necessarily fallen into a discourse and understanding that already exists, and thereby excludes what we’re really talking about as a subject of knowledge. So, what an Epistemist deals with is truth Philosophy.

It does not propose a philosophy of truth, because it is already dealing with everything that can be exist by virtue of the fact of addressing knowledge truly.

What Do We Have?

A philosophical method.

I have an issue with conventional philosophy: the method it assumes to make its statement that the problem of the criterion is generally figured to be the main problem of epistemology, is a real philosophical issue. So, because we can indicate the method as redundantly involved with the problem it poses, I must disagree to the basic premise that is going unsaid. Namely, that there is a knowable center of knowing from which knowledge can be said to be knowledge.

However, my extended discussion is not this post. I really mean to show how this conventional philosophical method extends and plays out all across every aspect of knowledge that figures itself to be philosophical.

And here is an example:

The Problem of the Criterion: A Christian’s Thoughts – The Council — Read on spirited-tech.com/2021/06/02/the-problem-of-the-criterion-a-christians-thoughts/

The issue that I’m pointing out is that there really is no distinction between what could be a philosophy of Christianity any proposed Philosophy and argumentation about it.

This is the problem is the criterion: There is no criterion. Which is to say, the criterion is the proposal itself, what I call “redundant”.

And in comparison, we might even suggest that Christianity is being more honest in where it gets its idea for its proposal, because at least these Christian apologists say that there is an intuitive understanding of God that is informing our ability to make statements and arguments. In a strange way, I think this is more honest than what more academic philosophers would say about ideology or politics or any other topic. Even the Michel Foucault users – and I like Foucault – are unable to admit such a simple idealism at route to their discussion.

So it is that I say when we talk about what is actually occurring, what knowledge actually is, what epistemologically must be the case, I feel that these philosophical ideals really fall drastically short.

And if you’re interested you can look past into my blog, and maybe even read some of my published material.

Object Relations

"A Word of Substance"

Random thoughts

Random musings about everything.

Pointless Overthinking

Understanding ourselves and the world we live in.

Taxshila Teachers

Learning is knowledge transfer to brain regions known as learnography.

Resiliency Mental Health

Dr. Amy Marschall, Licensed Psychologist

A New Vision for Mental Health

New and interesting things are happening in mental healthcare – find out about them here and help shape a new vision for mental health

Mental Health 101

Author/Writer @ Thought Catalog, LiberoMagazine, Invisible illness&TotallyADD peer supporter trainee I blog to bring awareness to mental health issues

Secrets of Mental Health

The Choice is Yours!

rethinkingscripture.wordpress.com/

Facing The Challenges of Mental Health

Spo-Reflections

To live is to battle with trolls in the vaults of heart and brain. To write; this is to sit in judgment over one's Self. Henrik Ibsen

Mind. Beauty. Simplicity

living with less gave me more to live for

Olivia Lucie Blake

Musings of a Millennial. Life, The World and Everything In Between.

Damon Ashworth Psychology

Clinical Psychologist

Mental Health @ Home

A safe place to talk openly about mental health & illness

The Absurd

piles of dog-eared books, fountain pens, poetry, romance and despair, existential crisis, anarchy, rebellion

THE HIDDEN SOUL

Want some motivation,this is the place

Bio-Blogger

Bio-Blogger is an excellent source for collaborations and to explore your businesses & talents.

Wibble

Just another glitch in the matrix

Filosofa's Word

Cogito Ergo Sum

Climate of Sophistry

Climate science is sophistry...i.e., BS.

Tallbloke's Talkshop

Cutting edge science you can dice with

a joyful life

happiness joy love kindness peace

The Twisting Tail

the world turns on a word

Mytika Speak

Where Logic and Feeling Unite

Notes from Camelid Country

A travel blog from Bolivia to Belgium via Berlin

Heroes Not Zombies

becoming not being.......

Emotional Shadows

where all emotions are cared for!

Soulsoothinsounds's Blog

For those awakening divine humans

Peacock Poetry

by Sam Allen

Union Homestead

An urban homesteading family move to the country; still a story of trial and error...a lot of error!

The adopted ones blog

Two adoptees - one vocal the other not so much...

Conversations on finding and loving who I am

Let's have an open conversation about life.

ThoughtsnLifeBlog

Change your thoughts change your life

Tips from Sharvi

Tips to make your daily life easier!

mulyale mutisya

what the eyes have seen, ears have heard, being has experienced and what the Spirit has felt.

TheCommonAtheist

One minute info blogs escaping the faith trap

beetleypete

The musings of a Londoner, now living in Norfolk

radhikasreflection

Everyday musings ....Life as I see it.......my space, my reflections and thoughts !!

THE SPECTACLED BEAN

Tales, Thoughts + Tribulations of a Free Spirit in Suburbia