This paper is a response to May-Lynne El-Debs paper “Introduction to Philosophy”. The link is in the next post.
I invite you to engage with the discussion about how a subject of mental health comes to know itself in reality.
Or, engage right here in the comments.
This essay is an exploration into the limits of materialist philosophy.
Only by a certain orientation upon knowledge does oppositional categories have significant affect.
I was reading a paper, part of the paper anyways, where the author talks about John Locke saying his work not involved with science.
Just got me thinking. Georg Hegel, and many more philosophers for sure we’re trying to find some sort of “science“ of …what? Now that were in the moment that were in, I’m not sure we really are identifying what science actually is.
Indeed, even scientists would give us a definition that if we were to look into what it really means, or what it’s really identifying, we would find that it is like saying that that object over there is a chair. Any mediocre Philosopher knows that as soon as we attempt to investigate an object from the standpoint of the phenomenology of the subject, we find that there’s nothing really there that the word identifies. I’m short, that language or words of language are arbitrary.
Science as Truth
I am the first person to suggest that words are not arbitrary. Even while I hang on to the logic of the philosophy which understands words and sounds and symbols is not necessarily being linked to the object that they suppose.
I feel this is a more significant venture for philosophy: that words identify things that truly arise in the universe. That the knowledge of things in such a way is indeed a science, or indeed can be eventually found out and known truthfully in a system of science.
Now, of course, the only logical means to understand that last phrase that I gave is to understand that I am not in a project that has to do with the present moment, so far as modern science. But rather, indeed science is some thing that human beings are involved with teleologically, that is to say, universally. So it is that I say that my work has to do with disrupting correlated terms, which is to say, terms that arise in a polemic which seem like they’re true, but Are really only given into a particular kind of knowledge. I called this particular kind of knowledge modern.
This is interesting because if I’m going to propose that my work has something to do with science then I must realize that there is a current working epistemological paradigm that functions, indeed as it promotes a faith in, it’s mode of corrections, it’s patterned system of lacunae, and that if I am going to propose that my work is scientific, then I must indeed deal with the present misunderstanding that is common empirical science as a thing that arises truly in the universe as well.
In this way, then, we can begin to understand a progress of the human species, of the human being, that betrays the common ideological heritage. We can begin to see that a science arises through a different kind of understanding of what has been happening in the growth of the human creature through time, and indeed that’s come upon a different understanding of what time actually is. After all this: we can find a scientific truth of the universe that human beings can know and apply.
This is also to say that we must contend with idiocy. We must contend with the idiocy of the conservative liberal “science” -oriented modern epistemological technology, and those correlations that constitute its basis, those who have a different opinion, that knowledge which arises as “conspiracy“, The conveyors of post truth, and otherwise ignorant people, warmongers of 19th century disposition, etc..
A little while ago the philosopher Alain Badiou suggested that the radical political move would be to not vote. Basically, to drop out of involving oneself with politics. That this indeed would be the radical political move. And of course, all those for Social Justice really had to take what he was saying and apply it ironically, metaphorically, as if he really wasn’t saying what he was saying.
For, for those oriented in the social justice of empirical modern reality, one must make choices into political action..
Disjointed and disconnected as it is from any true universe — when we begin to comprehend that I am not involved in the constituting of the other, then we can truly begin to understand what subjectivity is and how it indeed arises as a true thing in the universe.
We find that we just must do what we do, and in that doing we arise as a truly radical political entity. The choice into political agency is based in a decision that cannot be made.
I’m not making a political statement here, really. .
Science as the Object of the Subject.
Maybe that’s what I’m saying. Science is always epistemological. Epistemology grants the significant understanding of the true universe.
We are so motivated and conditioned by the given modern phenomenology that we become fearful and skeptical when the word “truth” arises. So far as mental health, this kind of fear is “the final frontier“, and it is usually a fear that resides so deeply and so substantially that people just consider it normal. Indeed, it is so foundational, it constitutes the basis of modern identity, such that most people would be content in the contradictions that uphold their identity, to have some personal and private spirituality and religious belief, that most mental health issues are never encountered. That is the way of the modern capitalistic world; we cannot impose mental health upon all of humanity and its social systems, if simply because we have no way of affectively addressing it. Hence, I see ethics as having to do more with logistics, and less of what meaning and decisions we see ourselves needing to make.
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 …
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.
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:
- 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.
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?
What language carries meaning, and how is it defined? Are tautologies meaningless, or meaningful? How does a tautologous system compare to an …
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.
And. Happy resurrection day!
Researchers have successfully created a model of the Universe using artificial intelligence, reports a new study. Researchers seek to understand ……
and as the subsequent poetic reflection might indicate:
isn’t it kind of funny how a notion of “the” universe persists?
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?
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.
David Chalmers in his book: Reality+: Virtual Worlds and the Problems of Philosophy, eventually gets around to addressing the 800-pound gorilla in …
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.
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.￼
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.