Linguistic Overdetermination and the Two Routes

I agree with this paper. I think it is useful both theoretically and practically.

However, I feel that it is becoming necessary to break up the absolutism that is reflected in certain types of application of theory toward practicality.

In my undergraduate anthropology, the idea that language manifests reality was ingrained into us. The example that I remember the most was a little hypothetical story of when the Spanish ships appeared off the coast of the soon to be Americas, The people native to these continents did not see ships. We’re not sure what they saw, but they did not see Spanish ships simply because they did not have the language to be able to conceptualize what ships could be.

This is the same trope that this author uses in his essay.

When attempting to get to the truth of the matter that we are dealing with, we have to begin to allow Theory to reflect upon itself. Not a kind of hermeneutics, but indeed use the thing that the theory is proposing or relying upon in the context of understanding the proposal itself. We cannot do that if we are relying upon such theoretical troops that tell us that reality is based on linguistic presentation; indeed the theoretical troops are identifying something that is actually occurring, but we must also see that this theoretical trope is involved with the trope that it is presenting as well. For, if that indeed is the case, then we would have no manner to progress in knowledge, simply because if there were anything new that we could not understand, we would be referring it back to our conceptual linguistic base. There is no description about how we would ever get by or beyond or present conceptual linguistic paradigm..

So it is that I say that, in the example that this author gives, it is not that certain African people cannot see blue. It is simply that they are using different words to describe the object that is blue. To say that this particular culture does not see blue is to refer them to A theoretical linguistic paradigmparadigm that is — not native to, or not just not their experience, but indeed human being in general— ultimately not theirs, but someone else’s.

This is the issue of colonization itself. Never is the colonist require to justify why their theoretical constructions must apply across the board to all human beings. Simply by the fact that he is able to conceive of things that explain things which, through his present conceptual linguistic paradigm, appears to explain things that other people are not conceptualizing in thier understanding, the colonist feels ethically obligated to enforce that category upon that human being that they understand as “ignorant”, or in historical context uncivilized or primitive.

The key here is to suspend reductive method. It is not to say that one is wrong and one is right. It is not to say that this person is not an educated or ignorant, or that the colonist is not or should not be imposing their categories and other people. That just gets us back into the colonist mindset. And this requires us to use a different term since what we are doing is ethically on just buy our own standards. (this is how reality functions currently: when a certain conceptualization offends us, we just use different words to ethically mitigate the situation instead of confronting the offense itself).

Yes, in reality we have to deal with these contradictions inherent in the human activity. But it is indeed an actually true human activity that is arising despite our ethical constructs.

In order to understand what is truly happening, what is true of the situation, and not merely real, we need to understand and allow for the fact that this African person who cannot see blue is indeed seeing blue, but that not only their words but our words as well, as well as every other languages words, or floating a top and objective sea of truth, so to speak as a creative way of explaining what is actually happening.

Truth is a Dirty Word

How do you bristle when you here about Truth?

Ponder …

It is not Becuase you are so intelligent or philosophically apt.


It is because the notion of Truth informs the core of an offense which holds up your system of sense and ability.

A logic of ideas supported by a fundamental and basic offense is called, in one instance, ideology, and in another, religion.

Ponder, great souls and great minds, how intelligence, ethics, and indeed the whole world itself, is contained by a knowledge that is nothing less than a religious theology. Less a system in which individuals of various cultures persist, than a manner which is the universe itself arising to be known.

…and further commentary.

Last year, I published a review of Sbriglia and Žižek’s Subject Lessons anthology, a review that can be found HERE. Sbriglia’s response has just been…

Russell Sbriglia responds

Thanks Doctor Zamalek.

Here is my small comment.

Note: I have not read the book but I am buying it presently. 

My comment is strictly on the contents and links of this repost.

It appears that there is a division that is made by the comments of this book That contrasts authors and arguments in a way that on one hand, I understand, and thus engage with as a sort of philosophical endeavor, Yet on the other hand, reject.

As we will find in my work, which I undertake from a counselors philosophical perspective, and not a philosopher per se, I enact a partition which groups components of the universe in a manner whereby nothing is excluded. Which is to say, the only thing that is excluded is nothing, which is always a moot point in its essence.

If nothing is not a moot point, then we are no longer talking about nothing but we are either talking about the material which constitutes nothing, or we are talking about the object of nothing. Beyond those two categories there is no other way to truthfully grasp what we might be referring to when we use the word and thereby understand the word “nothing”.

But that is a the point that is addressed by method and not by confronting the point itself.

The Conventional Philosophical Method

There is material and there are objects. There are ideas and there is reality. And then there is truth. If we are to be honest with what is happening, nothing significant arises outside of these considerations. In the context of my work, this is to say that everything else that we might talk about is real. The conventional method concerns what is real in contrast to what is true.

The Question of Truth

The various proposals that arise through the subtle contours of phrased definition, are subsumed in a kind of assumed methodology. This methodology perpetually avoids itself as an object of critique. This is to say that what we understand as philosophy in a general way is never confronted; in fact, the method is so assumed as integral to knowledge of reality, every philosophical argumentative subtlety given under the auspices of academic and intellectual production is able to be located and described to a commonality, as evidenced by this paragraph.

Hence, that which is transcendent the philosophical proposal is inherently excluded from its own kind of analysis by virtue of the fact of its availability as knowledge.

Yet also, that which is transcendent is able to be appropriated by knowledge, but this time, in fact again, necessarily excluded from the previous epistemological iteration.

The total epistemological description of this constitutes what is true of knowledge itself, that is, despite that typical philosophical method that perpetually avoids its own contradiction and constructs ideological labels to battle against its failure.

Flat Ontology is an idea that arises in some contemporary realist philosophical circles.

These circles amount to an example of how what is true and what is real is regularly obfuscated in the course of the real conventional method.

By the description inherent the necessary presentation of such semantics reveals a true description of what is actually happening in the universe despite, as well as inclusive of, the real arguments.

Reposting Russell Sbriglia responds…

Last year, I published a review of Sbriglia and Žižek’s Subject Lessons anthology, a review that can be found HERE. Sbriglia’s response has just been…

Russell Sbriglia responds

Thanks Doctor Zamalek.

And, of course, my comment, but in the next post.

Zero is New Olds

A second part of reporting my thoughts upon reading “Zero: the biography of a dangerous idea” by C. Seidel.

From Zero. (2000). Used without permission.

Recall that my work centers upon orientation upon objects as the significant philosophical issue of our time.

The excerpt pictures above gives a manner by which to apprehend the coupling of history and idea that informs subsequent reality.

“It is hard to imagine something with no width and no height — with no substance at all — being a square.”


The statement is not axiomatic. It is not a truism either. Rather, it is a cosmological statement, A statement that reflects a view upon the world that is taken to be accurate of the actual universe.

This is to say, if I can find an instance which takes a count of the mathematical conundrum that is presented, and yet defies the conclusion that appears automatically common and sensible, then we can say that the statement is reflecting a belief rather than an actual instance of a true universe.

I propose that it is not hard to imagine something with no width and no height that is also a square: It is an idea of the square.

Likewise: the area of a rectangle with a zero height or zero width is the idea of the whole universe.

These two instances, these examples I just give are exactly the opposite of what is implicitly proposed as assumed of the mathematics drawn upon for this book.

There is an assumed coordination between the physical reality of the universe and our ability to analytically and logically come to formulations about it, but along a particular orientation as to our relationship with the world.

In the exercise just in this particular post, we can notice that there is a gap, I kind of invisible space that twists the view that we have for that we gain. We miss that there is a difference between the idea of the rectangle and an actual rectangle, and we superimpose these upon one another. But the superposition does not align, and we glaze over that, we forget about it, we set it aside for the sake of our belief. This is to say that “our idea” is not actually “our“ idea. It is an idea that arises within a particular faith in what is being given to our knowledge. And we could even go so far as to suggest that the infamous poststructuralist analysis of the situation indeed finds subjective repression. Ideology posed as absolute knowledge.

This is very similar to what the sociologist Bruno Latour calls a pass in his book An Inquiry into Modes of Existence.

Reposting Transcript of Interview with Isidore on A BIOGRAPHY OF ORDINARY MAN

TB: Hello, I’m taking a break from my video reading of François Laruelle’s A BIOGRAPHY OF ORDINARY MAN to reply to questions from Isidore. Isidore: …

Transcript of Interview with Isidore on A BIOGRAPHY OF ORDINARY MAN

—- Blake is quite informed and is a Cornucopia of knowledge and experience about Continental philosophies and philosophers.

However, my comment goes more to the difference that is indicated through the Continental tradition, in contrast to the differences in authorial content. If there is an example of what The Two Routes sheds light upon, it is the difference between Blake’s and my own purchases upon the material.

I see Blake’s reading and approach as topical and thus really quite in the material vein, though I am not sure he would identify himself as a materialist. But he does call himself a pluralist, which I associate generally with a material view, or orientation, upon things.

The other route is indeed what is indicated but never revealed aspect of real material, that is, what is true of the material, or, it’s substance. I see Laruelle as implicitly involved with such substance, and at that, aside from the more religious materialistic versions derived by real interpretive readings of him.

Science, Physical Health and mental health: Climate change

One of the problems surrounding Mental health is the weighing of solutions upon the primacy of empirical science and physical health.

A good example of how this is an improper manner to approach solutions is the issue of climate change.

Take the example that this post exhibits. We have known for years and years that these sorts of issues are going to happen. And yet our ability to take action based only upon the empirical ideal is not effective to bring a solution change.

Thinking and proof are not sufficient to constitute the truth of the matter. Something else is going on. The reality is that climate is changing, but the reality of our knowing and thinking about it and doing anything about it does not accord with the truth of it, so far as what is considered a sensible response is not taken.

This is why we need consider that the truth about this situation is not being understood. The truth is what is happening is something else than the reality.


How we approach mental health is similar to what we are seeing of our environment. Mental health suffers when we base healthy interventions weighted too heavily on empiricism and without considering and applying solutions out of what else is happening in the situation.

(Note: Subjectivity and it’s accorded phenomenological analysis is empirical.)

Now, keep in mind, I’m not necessarily saying that the people who have not agreed with climate change or what it means are wrong. I’m not putting up that kind of polemic to say that, oh, a smart people over here know the truth, where as the ignorant people over there are false.

That’s not what I’m saying.

I’m saying that given as a category there is this creature called the human being, and that most human beings, as they are concerned with in the industrialized globe, defer to empirical science to assess what judgments they should make. I’m saying that this manner of understanding the truth of the situation it’s not effective when we think about mental health problems.

But more so, similarly to the global environment, this empirical approach to try and convince people of through evidence and guilt tripping and appealing to some “common human intelligence” is insufficient to bring about the change needed, or at least the change that is advocated for addressing climate change, just as it is appearing I’ll-suited to the task of addressing mental health.

I think this is strangely ironic when we consider that philosophy itself is considered a “sufficient” philosophy, Meaning that our ability to reason upon things is sufficient to excel the human being progressively through history. It is this type of philosophy to which I associate empiricism And phenomenology. If we look back, phenomenology is a type of empiricism, and indeed propagated or at least coincided with the prominence of the ideal (idea) behind “empirical science”.

Apparently and obviously it is not as Objective as it would like to pose and present upon.

So it is that our current understanding of climate change must be incorrect. Both of the people that talk about the empirical science and things that we should do to address climate change, but as well as the naysayers.


This is a radical form of understanding and this is why I say that I am addressing truth, not merely the negotiated reality of proof and attempt to convince through argument.

I am talking about objects in themselves, truth as truth. what is actually occurring.

The Great Divide: Was The Handmaiden’s Tale Nonfiction?

Intelligence !! That, is the question.

I am not that dense to believe that any piece of news is Above pure propaganda. This link to article is by the guardian, and I do like to think this news source, though leftist, has its neutral facts in order and is reporting neutrally, with a liberal bent. 

That’s what I like to believe. But I know it’s false.

However, I do think they’re reporting on some thing that’s actually occurring, somewhere, and somehow similar to what they are reporting on.

And yes my opinions are biased also. But I think this goes to my point I’m going to make here about intelligence.

The Notion of Intelligence Has No Substantial Basis for Legitimacy

The notion of intelligence itself must be an inaccurate way to identify a human being.

I say this because my first reaction to this article is that human beings are not intelligent. Lol

What I mean by this is, their opinion makes no

And what I mean by this is that they are stupid. lol

I could go on, but those last three sentences don’t really say anything at all except that I feel that I myself I am intelligent, my opinions make sense, and that I’m not stupid. Any definition that I would want to bring up around those terms are necessarily biased in my favor.

Notice that my post one or two ago ask the question: where does legitimacy reside?

It largely comes out of “intellectual/ethical” divides such as the arguments around birth control.

I have to admit that whatever these people are, that they are so adamant about not getting abortions antiabortion and such, must not be the same type of human that I am. I mean this in the sense that regardless of what seems intellectually sound to me, that is, that everyone should have the right to their own opinions and be able to voice them, Obviously the people who are “pro life”, as if strangely enough, I am not for living and for allowing people to live how they want to live, Do not hold this opinion that I have that everyone should be allowed to uphold their own ideals ethically about life and how to live it. Obviously that maxim only goes so far for them. Ultimately, and I would say due to what this ethical maxim means to me, again, namely, that everyone should be able to uphold their own ideals and live life as they see fit, The people who are prolife do not agree with me about what this simple statement says. And this is to say that they agree with it so long as you agree with them about this one particular issue; it doesn’t really matter what it is.

It’s like the “great divide” of ideology. There is no source of legitimacy from which we could find an intellectual or ethical common ground. Even if we believe in the United States system of government, ultimately we have to admit that the charge on the White House and the Trump in whatever they might be called, again only believe in the common humanity so far as everyone has to believe in the basic ideals they believe.

I don’t think I need to run this in the ground. I think you get my point.

The Theory of the Logistical Basis for Ethics and the Two Routes

This is why I say that ethics is not something that Arises innately within us. Because of the great divide, it appears more true to say that ethics are trained into us. Surprise!

Really the great divide must be how we are oriented upon how ethics arises within oneself. 

If I feel that I am instilled with the ethics that extends over the human creature as a global manifestation, by, for any other term, God or deity or “natural morality”, then what we have in these kinds of debates is really a battle between religious zealots. For, even if I am the most liberal minded atheist, if I am also pro life then I am believing in some transcendent yet substantial and foundational “should” that encompasses the human being as a species.

 For example, there are plenty of people that believe that we should try to help every human being no matter what due to the fact that they are human. I’m not sure how that kind of morality is not based in a religious type of formulation. I’m not sure how that relies on something that is not transcendentally encompassing to the category. 

Ethics that’s always argues, in the end, for a logistical basis of its epistemological foundation Rather than a transcendental one.

We Have Never Been Modern

We get to this point and ultimately we have to begin to notice the sociologists discussion Bruno Latour we have never been modern.  specifically, he points to inherent contradictions in the modern way of conceptualizing things, but also the contradictory motion that must be in play to uphold any one of the positions.

For example, we can argue that no God exists, and yet as I have shown above, at the same time that I am making the argument that there is no God, I am nevertheless relying upon a transcendence that is forming my ability to have such knowledge. If I move then to define what transcendence is, proposing to rebut your argument that I am relying upon some sort of God for my proposal, then I have entered into the contradiction that I propose to be solving. It is these types of contradictory positions/motions that the author draws upon to make the suggestion that this is what modernity is, but in order to come to such a critique we must never have been modern. 

The Two Routes, again

So, I come back to the problem inherent to the issue of abortion in America. There is a reason why our form of government must pose “one nation under God”. Presently, in order to govern modern minded people, a governing body must reside in that space of irony. This is what our legal system is based on, standing on the fulcrum of modern contradiction.

However, the most pertinent to our case here and what this article represents. If indeed ethics is only a logistical solution and not an ideal solution, not a solution which arises inherent to the universe and or inherent to the human being itself, then we have a huge dilemma.

The logistical rationale for ethics thus argues that there is no human being that has inherent worth. That a human being’s worth is ultimately in relation to The prevailing ideology.

Hence, The basis of the logistical approach to ethics. The problem of ethics has Little to do with whether someone has inherent worth; it has to do with the fact that I can never totally eliminate my opponents or ethical enemies. As I posted elsewhere, because I can never get rid of people who, by my estimation, Are not intelligent, nonsensical, stupid, I thereby have to reflect back upon myself how I am going to live comfortably and happily with them.

 Disgusting, right?

What Does This Have to do with Mental Health?

Mental health either is the effort to bring the individual back into the ideological fold, whatever that is.


Mental health is the effort to help the individual find themselves despite ideological maxims.x

the Modern Real Method

I keep coming back to what I see as a basic and fundamental issue in philosophy.

Why must we reference others to support the veracity of a proposal ?

I mean this in a de facto sense, not de jure. For, of course most modern philosophers we know of make implicit to thier argument the necessity for reference to other authors.

My question is: Why?

Why is Plato and Aristotle and whoever is ‘basic’ not required to reference for thier proposals to have veracity ? And yet no one currently is allowed to propose truths in the same way?

Why is no appeal to truth permitted to thought?

Any ideas?

Juneteenth. The Issue of the Two: Reality and Truth

The United States’ Second Independence Day!

 Ive heard opinions that while this moment should be officially recognized, we should’ve named it something different because it’ll confuse everyone having two independence days.

I think it’s fabulous. Yes, fabulous in that we are recognizing a significant truth in the real history of this country, but also that there are Two recognitions that ultimately inform the truth of the actual situation.

This resonates so incredibly well with my philosophical notion of the Two Routes upon objects.

In thier individual truths, they cannot reduce to the other in fact. They can only do so in real reductive argument.

Yet, aside from that method of arguing, one always excludes the other, while the other includes the exclusion. They both, as real non philosophical aspects, constitute the truth of the situation.