—excerpt from Healing Fiction by James Hillman. c.1983

The question implicit of the object of the subject is not, like the usual phenomenologically subject-based philosophy, meaning; rather, the question is to what use is philosophy put? For what purpose is the Being of philosophy? Cedric Nathaniel puts this juxtaposition of view in terms of how philosophy understands itself automatically with the Being that is necessarily established through the human Being such that this conventional philosophical effort always must be asking and answering the being of itself in as much as it’s manifestation is assumed implicit to every and any other kind of Being, that is, as though the human being is the sole arbiter of the universe.

Once such reductive pattern and method is accepted for what it is, it likewise can no longer be doubted that what it is is what it is doing. It is this move that removes us from the phenomenological correlation by accepting that such correlation can ever be avoided in philosophical reckoning that is involved with time, tradition and history, but as well, then, such a notice does not suggest that something is wrong with those constants.

No longer involved directly with making arguments of ontology, the effort concerns thus the teleology of Being.

—ibid. p.97

Algorithms and institutional isomorphism: A Call for a more Philosophically Comprehensive Theory Of Counseling.

Algorithms and institutional isomorphism

Algorithms and institutional isomorphism
— Read on

This is quite interesting.

It resonates with ideas I have been throwing about. For example, the way that I use the term religion in my work seems consistent with the way that internet platforms are homogenizing corporate identities, as this summary (the link) might suggest. Less about what corporate activity, ability, or work that they do or products they make, the platforms through which they present such corporate subjectivities not only limit their ability to be viewed but indeed function as a space of reflexivity which thereby allows them to view themselves as a unique and valuable contribution to the socially economical universe, Even as this universe is contracting in its ability to grant universal value beyond its domain.

Also, as I suggest in The Philosophical Hack, what is significant is our relationship with technology. Less our subjective meanings and relative interpretations of our thoughts and feelings that we have about our relationship (which are indeed valid, if overworked and often understood as substantially ubiquitous), the relationship has more to do with how such subjectivities manifest as the relation. For example, how technology tends to allow us to think our meaning is unique and individual all the while confining that presentation to specific technological items.

We might then see through the lens of counseling, as counselors, that subjective issues may find more resolution by the smaller possibility for explanation rather that a wider one. The more possibility is understood for a context of therapeutic help, perhaps the less individual help will be achieved.

Hence, I might hypothesize that a more coherent and less divisive ideal for therapeutic help is indicated. Less assertions of various conventional scientific methodological truth( this method is more correct that that) as argument (less acceptance of universal subject-relativity and individual argumentative validity) and more theoretical philosophy which might function to supply a model which contains, explains and addresses the phenomenal possibility for therapy.

In other words, less client choice in therapy and less Counsellor self-righteousness about appropriate treatment options, could lead to a more effective therapy as a whole movement and client responsiveness to treatment.

Because it seems right now, on one hand the client has so many choices for therapy that they don’t even know what they might be choosing, and on the other hand counselors as such might be so self righteous and myopic in their theoretical basis that they are asserting a particular type of methodological solution up and against the larger arena of counseling which posits that there could be many effective treatments. I am proposing that if the theoretical basis of counseling is it self limited within a larger explanatory philosophy rather than granted in infinite relativity, then the client might feel like they are actually getting significant help even before the therapeutic process begins.

Counseling, Philosophy and object orientation: The ends and beginnings of the new.

Collapse of Complex Societies

Collapse of Complex Societies
— Read on

My comment:

Interesting that in the beginning of my counseling work right now and pondering how to approach clients and their various manifestations of suffering, my thoughts have also gone to civilizations how they rise and fall.

It sounds like this guy entertains Somewhat similar aspects, Or at least like much of what I’ve been pondering is implicit in his ideas. I’m buying his book (but there is a free pdf download of it! Search.)

Here is my rough formulation that’s been rolling around with my marbles:

One. Human consciousness, or human beings, is an organism just like every other organism but is also an object just like any other universal object.

Two. Hence they behave not dissimilarly to any other organism or object with reference to their universality.

Three. Human consciousness as such “forgets”. The nature of knowledge for any particular moment is ultimately based in a configuration of forgetting which thus encompasses the moment within the past and future as ideological constructs.

Four. There is no agency but that which arises within the Ideological construct. Causes and effects are ultimately contained within the particular construct, to then justify it within the idea of being able to escape the usual human cycles of civilization.

five. The ultimate paradox of the progressing humanity is located upon its conceptual relationship to technology. In the end, the only way that the human beings will transcend this paradox is to fully realize and establish itself within the limitation which arises outside of the ideological correlation.

Six. This never happens. Yet — if it does happen, then it happens on a level which is not common to any humanity but nevertheless participates to define humanity outside of its common understanding. This is to say that it defines its own limits outside of that which is understood as ideological.

Seven. The individual is not dissimilar in its organization, process, or structure to civilization. The therapeutic process might thus be seen in the context of simple and complex, but also singularity and multiplicity. Various psychological and or emotional problems or issues may arrive or present themselves in a similar context (s).