Event and Substance

Various philosophers have already discussed the “event”recently. I generally consider three philosophers contemporary that are significant to the discussion of truth. I talk about them all the time: Zizek, Badiou, Laruelle; The indivisible remainder, void, and void qua void as implicated in non-philosophy, respectively. Which is to say, in a very Witgenstein manner, that whatever might be nothing is nothing to be concerned with. There’s nothing even we could begin to say about it that has anything to do with what we name it. Nothing here becomes foundational as opposed to merely speculative.

It is this last significance that encompasses the event. The event is nothing that we can talk about, but it is everything that we must be concerned with. In this way it is not fully present, as various sorts of random occurrences filled with content That occupy as well as catalyze change due to the fullness of their content that we unpack meaning from. Rather, it is very much like Rudolph Otto’s slight mention in his book The Idea of the Holy where he quickly suggests that the “mysterious tremmendum”, the “awe-full-ness” Which motivates our very being, which in his discussion is really the root of the holy, is that center of vacancy around which religion arises.

But the event is also not pure nothingness. Zizek points to this contradiction of speaking about nothingness as “a catastrophe” Which arises at the beginning of the universe, where everything is turned on its head, and what we understand is love becomes the manifestation of real evil. With Zizek, Nothingness inscribes us from all sides and indeed it is the event which brings us into the middle to form political identity, as one might say, out of nothingness, or, in the middle of nothingness, stretching backwards to a moment of pure absurdity, and extending forward into a ‘Master signification’ which avoids all scrutiny.

Badiou attempts to tell us what being and event actually is. Indeed his masterwork book is called “being and event”. We find, though, that he too must take up a sort of Zizekian tack and move everything into the political realm. In very short, Babiou says that the event is where being irrupts into the world. The event “begins the count” of reality. And I imagine we are supposed to gather that this “count” is quite similar to the generation of meaning by human beings. And so where else do we generate meaning but in the political realm, I guess.

Laruelle is really the only one of these three that actually takes seriously the idea of nothingness. He takes it so serious that it becomes a foundational feature of existence. Like I said, there’s nothing even to say about it; it is being so effective. One could even speculate that if I had anything to say about nothingness, it must not be very effective. One could also gather that where nothingness is effective thereby do we find Truth; and indeed I’m pretty sure that this is why many people have accused Laruelle of conspiring toward a religion. Indeed, many people that really enjoy this philosopher sound like religious fanatics, but I would say, honestly, it’s because those people really don’t understand what he’s talking about.   When nothing becomes substantial, when nothingness is indeed a foundational term of a universe, Then something changes in the way that we reckon the universe. This is to say, as opposed to the invisible given that what we understand is the regular or conventional philosophical approach, what Laruelle calls “sufficient philosophy”, Understands as an essential substrate, a criterion of truth where everything revolves around everything else, all the while assuming that there is this fundamental “truth of the universe” that we are finding through experimentation, empirical science, academic philosophy — I’m not really sure what label we would put on this given. Badiou I think makes the best proposal for this kind of real philosophy, because it gives everyone involved a legitimate stake in the game by allowing their being, they’re thinking, their efforts in reality, to arise from nothing without ever having to admit that indeed nothing is what is informing their activity. How offensive to my being in the world to consider that everything that I’m doing is based in nothing! (It is devastatingly offensive, in fact. What the hell is alienation if it isn’t an identity which understands itself in the context of nothing and thus meaninglessness?)

In truth, this is why I believe it is more justified to call such a real activity thus “religious” in nature. Because in reality we can talk about whatever we want to as if it has substance, for example, we can talk about nothingness and what it might be and how it manifests in various this and that, but all the while never recognize or rely upon that nothingness as indeed as that which is informing the activity again. Instead, people point to the effects, and use that as an argument for an ontological foundation of relativity and eternal interaction of thinkers which establish for themselves and for each other the world, the real universe, etc. Such approach I call religious because it requires a certain amount of energy, or force, in order to overcome the contradiction involved in having all efforts actually based on nothing. Because most people will quickly retort “well, what is nothing?” And begin the cycle of eternal recurrence again.

There’s is a faith because they (we) are involved with what the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre Proposes that every good being does when they encounter the “abyss” of freedom: we “revolt” from it to gain our freedom. There is no freedom in nothingness, though; nothingness is really nothing else but nothingness, And the “…of freedom” part of the encounter is really the ability and capacity to deny what offends us.

It is the ability Part that is most significant for me, because it indicates to me that this is not some essential truth of existence, something that all humans do automatically or something, or how the universe actually is or — again I don’t even know how I would talk about it in the short venue right here on WordPress…

But it is an ability of consciousness, an ability of the human being to revolt from that abyss to create our own worlds of intention, worlds that we want to have. Worlds that we desire, worlds that we use desire to make. Etc.

This context from which I’m speaking here on this post, this particular post, I am just saying that while I might be able to revolt from the Abyss , I don’t have to revolt in order for the universe to remain viable and for me to be an actual person in society. And in fact I think that is a significant issue is whether or not I’m revolting from anything. Here and there are use the term “acceptance”. Indeed, human beings have an ability to revolt from the abyss of nothingness in order to gain their freedom in society, but this freedom is not essential in the sense that it somehow is implicit in the nothingness. The nothingness is nothingness. It is nothing. It’s nothing to talk about. It is in our effort to speak that we find freedom in denial that such speaking is based in nothing at all.  The overcoming of this contradiction I call faith.

It is a particularly 20th century industrialized capitalist democratic religious congregant which finds its identity in revolting from the abyss of freedom in order to make choices about who and what they want to be in the world.

Presently, it is this particular mode of reacting that we call “modern”, and what I described amounts to a reason why it is so difficult to think beyond capitalism. It is just one particular mode of being human, but being in general, though, and that indeed it projects itself both forward and backward, we must necessarily understand that it is not some essential human trait, or some essential human way of being that has gone on since the beginning of humanity — But it is indeed the “beginning of humanity” that is arising as a psychic component within the modern individual around the event.

When these parameters and limitations Are realized, are comprehended and accepted, Then we find the only truthful way to discern what we are involved with in our current situation is a religious faith, A mythological cosmology which is actually effective.

X



A Bridge which Defines: On Richard Rorty’s very pragmatic interpretation of Gadamer Hermeneutics in his Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (1979)

It is easier to describe what something should be not, then to formulate what something should be, as it is easier to deconstruct then to construct. …

On Richard Rorty’s very pragmatic interpretation of Gadamer Hermeneutics in his Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (1979)

————- If we can take this short synopsis of these two authors as minimally representative of what the two authors say in general, Then what we have there, with Rorty anyways, Is a proposal which allows for the subsequent developments in philosophy of the 90s up till present, as represented by Badiou, Zizek, Laruelle, and even the speculative realists.

The point he describes is a kind of “empty space” that is then elaborated upon by these authors I just mentioned. This empty space can be understood to define two ontological situations, together which constitute what Laruelle calls “unilateral duality”. This unilateral duality posits two conditions that do not reconcile back into another unitive condition, but then also defines the state of each of those conditions.

One condition is exclusion and the other condition is inclusion.

Badiou Likewise considers things in this way, though he doesn’t enjoin with Laruelle at terms.

The one condition, which We can call the conventional route, excludes anything which arises outside of its semantic mandate. Basically, it posits a one reality in which everything exists and of which human beings find out through applying ‘reason’. The one route says that there is nothing that falls outside of the potential for reason; this route is necessarily a systemic route, it posits systems within systems that even extend so far as to imply there’s a grand overreaching system which we may not ever be able to comprehend. The way the exclusive route functions is the reduction and exclusion based of contradiction; it includes only that which constitutes itself in potential. It includes everything that is possible in potential.

The other ontological condition is the one which includes. This ontological condition includes the exclusive condition. The exclusive condition posits the possibility that it includes everything, yet by its own activity is necessarily exclusive to anything that might arise which does not conform to its particular semantic mandate. 

By contrast, The inclusive route includes contradiction as well as that which is exclusive. It is what Laruelle calls “non-philosophy”, in order to allow the exclusive route to lay in what is most common, namely philosophy as a positive method. 

The speculative realists understand and attempt to incorporate or use this ontological feature of non-reduction, non-philosophy, or what The link to post here would define “In contrast”, such that what we have for a new philosophy, what we have on the ‘other side’ of that empty space posited above, is a new manner of philosophy which resides parallel to its counterpart: Unilaterally dual in nature.

But this empty space cannot merely reside in conceptual reason, as the link to post talks about. As he suggests, philosophy must involve something more than just reason, more than just a capacity to think through Aristotle or reductive logic based away from contradiction; it is thus a bridge. 

But we could equally and just as well go back 100 or so years before and say that it is a ladder that then after we climb, or cross, it must be thrown away, or actually it disappears. For once we climb the ladder, once we have gotten to the ‘other side’ of the bridge, there is no incrementally reductive manner of reasoning which will allow us to cross the gap, what Slavoj Zizek knows as “the parallax gap”, And what  Badiou understands as “the void”. There is no way to use language or discourse to communicate how to move accross the gap Because the very foundation of discourse has changed by virtue of what, by all reasonable standards, is not reasonable. This is similar to what Kierkegaard calls a quantitative leap, as opposed to a qualitative leap; it is absurd to the conventional exclusive route of reason.

In short, the conventional philosophy of incremental reductive reasoning is insufficient to realize the full ontological extent of being in the world, which is really being of the world. Just as Heidegger had a real conflict, (Is Nationalist Socialism the actual culmination of history? And do I have an obligation to believe what I reason is so?), an actual breach in the rationale of his Dasien, An interruption which occurred from what is actually real in itself, outside of reason’s ability to conceptualize toward reduction, The fall back into reason had real ontological repercussions which shows that Heidegger’s original proposal of his book “being and time” is faulty. (That is, his philosophy is compromised Because he made the wrong decision, as evidenced by history.)

But the fault is not internal to his philosophy; rather, it is faulty Becuase of how we might be oriented upon what his philosophy is talking about. The fault lay in that there is no inherent truth which is discernible by the Method of reductive philosophical reason into his “being and time”; but the truth of Dasien is reckoned when we see that it is not based in reduction, that is, the centering of thought within the content of history of reductive reason is contradictory in-itself. It is contradiction spelled out ‘long hand’.

As much as the exclusive methodological philosophical route would want to argue that there is an essential truth to be found be a close reading of reason to his book, or any philosophical books really, ultimately the truth of what he is saying can only be found by crossing the bridge, passing over the gap, moving through the void which leaves the reductive method behind to fail in its want and desire to posit any truth found by its method. This is evidenced by any attempt which would want to argue ‘what he is really saying’: We keep discussing and arguing over it anyways.

Yet this failure does not mean that it does not still function. This is the meaning of a unilateral duality: Two Routes which are ontologically necessarily, one which posits philosophical sufficiency, and one which accounts for the truth of the situation.

Why the Coronavirus does not ‘Want’ to Change Our Lives

On Covid-19 and the Actor-Network Theory.

How the Coronavirus ‘Wants’ to Change Our Lives

———- “of course the virus doesnt want anything…”

The tack I now take is towards people not being miserable; I am not really anymore trying to explain some grand sense of the universe into which everyone must fit. But of course those two kinds of approaches on sensibility can overlap.

Image copyright here

I am falling away from the belief and intention that there is a noble and knowable unity to which knowledge is attached. I lean towards what has been being told to us for a while, that whatever knowledge is, it is ultimately human knowledge and nothing else, Yet, and so much as it is “human knowledge and nothing else” these two facets necessarily inscribe a world that is not being recognized. 

This is to say that I’m pretty sure there is some grand noble big truth to which knowledge must be attached AND There is not. The truth is is that both of these situations exist simultaneously without having to fall or reduce into the other for another big T unity of truth. The truth is uncomfortable. The truth of the world is uncomfortable and uncertain.

The plain facts of the matter is that most human beings are not so open minded and flexible. Most human beings want to find a concept that Makes them comfortable. yet at the same time, Most human beings are rigid in their concept of self other, and world. And this is OK, but my job as a counselor is not necessarily to have a rigid formulation of truth into which these people seeking comfort must for themselves to be comfortable.

It feels and is becoming more apparent to me that it is this rigidness that is the source of most “amicable to the couch” mental disturbance or issues. It is not necessarily that the structure of one’s mind is incorrect or that the way that they are thinking about things is incorrect, or that there is some “illness” that is attacking them. But, it is possible that such formulations will help them to get over their mental situation that they find problematic.

Nevertheless we might say that mental issues arise from the inflexible ideal of self attempting to impart upon that in flexibility a certain flexibility in approaching that particular problem. This is extremely difficult enactment, and yet, if one could be just a little more flexible in their self-concept, the application would become rather simple.



Within this flexible notion of world in which we are not able to Become separated, by this flexibility, we should see that there are different types of human beings. Just as a human being is not the same as a child, is not the same as an adolescent, is not the same as a young adult, is not the same as an adult, nor an older adult, nor aged, nor near death. There is not one comprehensive human mental state or approach that works successfully to accommodate the human being from birth until death, just as there is not one manner by which we designate a human being must live, must think, the foods they must eat, the way they must dance, what they find funny…

AND There Are indeed systems toward helping human beings with mental issues that will work with different types and situations of human beings. For example, since my recent post had to do with psychoanalysis and particularly Lacan, there will be people for whom psychoanalysis will be effective, but it does not mean that the people  for whom psychoanalysis is not effective require them to work harder or something, or requires that the psychoanalytic theory needs to be better worked. 

The effort of counseling, seems to me, requires that the counselor be humble in their estimation of theory and practice, be amicable to the reality that their particular theory of what mental issues are and how they are treated is not true, that is, in so much as there may be another theory which will be effective for that individual person.

Now, this flies in the face of not only what and the majority of human beings think, how they think of themselves and their own thoughts and the world and universe and how they do for those various cosmological narrations to grand narratives, but also I’m sure very offensive to the counselors themselves.  The reason for this is people in general but practitioners of any sort of doing must believe that what they believe is true. And because of this self centrality socially speaking we have the idea of “opinion” and relativity as a grand narrative which coincidentally coincides with the physical contingency of 20th century physics as a colloquial explanation.

We know that even many counselors (but particularly psychiatrists and psychologists) for the most part are rigid in their ideals of what mental health is what mental illness is because hardly none (most likely) Will even take the 30 seconds to think about what relativity and opinion means for that pet theory, but will rather stick to their guns about “personal truths”; this is to say that Everyone gets to have their own personal truth as long as that personal truth coheres in and correlates with a grande system which tells us about the “big truth, the “actual truth” of what mental health is within the actually true universe that has been bestowed upon the big idea of humanity in general as we move through this big picture of history.

The point I’m making here is not that everything is not relative, but that we do not have a sensible and coherent philosophy of how relativity actually functions in application. Rather, we have a bunch of self centralized ideals attempting to assert upon one another and argue with each other which one has the better contact with the great transcendent big T truth. 

OK!

Now to the reason why I reposted that post on actor network theory.

The disclaimer in that post that I quoted above, “of course coronavirus doesn’t want anything”, is a blatant statement of how actor network theory is being commandeered toward the faith in the big truth, and not conveying a proper understanding what actor network theory is actually saying about the condition of the human being of knowledge.

For my question would be: why is not the coronavirus wanting anything?

And I’m going to leave you readers with that, that is you readers who are actually trying to think…

…I’ll also leave you with the strange idea that what I’m talking about above does not mean that counseling has to do with “whatever works”.

🌈 have an excellent corona day. 🌏



x

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

Current Deontology

When we do not suppose that morality is created by thoughtful humans, as opposed to existing in-itself, then it becomes possible to read Kant’s categorical imperative (or his basis of deontology) as meaning that which can occur in no other way than it does. This reading seems to deny the traditional reading which sees deontology as having to do with an the morality of the doing of the act, as to choice.

The question that I have yet to see be held against this latter sense arises when we find that we are using hypothetical reason to address the categorical imperative, or, that what Kant proposes as Pure Reason answering to the Practical. The question should be: why?

When the other why question is never addressed to the categorical imperative involved in the practical thinking approach to pure reason, then we have a deontology which contradicts is own meaning by answering to whether any act is justified morally in-itself, and we view Kant as suggesting that a categorical imperative has to do with an ought. Which is to say, ethics and morality are imperative to human existence.

As a side, Kierkegaard already questions this: what the attempt to iron out self-contradictory motions of reason implies (or at least the half he was able to see given the ideological conditions of his moment).

Yet, when we understand pure reason, as a thing that exists, as really having nothing to do with morality in the first place (morality is something that can be accounted for by the imperative rather than a by-product [Nonphilosophical unilateral duality]) then we can understand what Kant is really saying about the categorical imperative. Namely that it is a thing, an act that is existing or that exists, that occurs in no other way than it could, A thing which is consistent with its category, a thing which cannot occur except how it is. It is a category which occurs the only way it can, and thus affords no purchase by the practical; that is, except in as much as the practical or hypothetical is already being understood through its own imperative of Being, which is to say, as the ubiquitous and proper way of Being, which denotes a proper way of seeing, thinking and understanding, as this proper way axiomatically excludes the act of thought by its definition. 

Wiki says that deontology derives from the Greek deon which means obligation. That’s cool and all. But I also like de-ontology. In the same way I like to use intension (in tension) when speaking of phenomenology and such, as opposed to intention.

We are able to see what we are able to think, but also vice-versa — and not simultaneously.

Have we yet begun to think?

{for those who read the unedited typo version previous to this post: I have no idea where the last comment, which is now deleted, came from.}. 👨🏽‍🚀

Does the Banach-Tarski Paradox Anticipate The Two Routes Upon Objects ?


This is the best vid I’ve seen all month!

I definately am Not a mathematician, but this vid explains this paradox pretty well. And, despite the scope of his conjectures at the end, a significant philosophical question would concern whether reality presents a sufficiently able manner for conceptualization to encompass all that we are able to know?

The precipitate of this first question thus moves retroactively as opposed to redundantly:

If we can take the initial object as any real object, then we can likewise take ‘reality’ itself as an object which itself is real. If we are to understand anything, communication of reality must be involved in some manner.

The initial issue, then, is if what is proposed to have been communicated is able to be viewed and understood as not having been communicated. And then if what was not communicated is able to come through as this latter view, that is, what has not been communicated being communicated but not in the former instance and not a replacement of the former (what was indeed communicated is not nullified by the communication which was not communicated by the proposal of what should have been communicated)?

#thetworoutes.

The initial contemplations upon truth can be found in Nathaniel’s The Philosophical Hack.

The Object of the Subject

Thinking Marx Through Harvey — thru reality

Thinking Marx Through Harvey

Thinking Marx Through Harvey
— Read on syntheticzero.net/2020/01/23/thinking-marx-through-harvey/

I like it.

The only critique I would have of it is that one does not give way to the other. To give way, to choose either one or the other or to have one or the other “prove” itself to be the basis ground or ultimate truth of things as it is, is to resort to a reading of Kierkegaard that is not conventionally mistaken: it is to have faith.

We might see that the issue is not so much (or is less) that there is an idealistic Marxist realm where ideologies or abstractions usurp brute realities, and then a disillusionment that comes along that shows that such abstract realities, or theoretical systems based on abstract concepts, is an incorrect way to understand the truth of things, so to speak — but indeed such conceptual (e-)motions occur.

My critique is that the reduction to one form or another, at least in this kind of dialectical polemic, where I was incorrect before but now my idealistic version of reality has been proven incorrect– this kind of polemical thinking, this way to position myself in the world, this either/or mentality, is what is incorrect. It is not unethical; but it is incorrect with regards to what is true.

When we read Kierkegaard, we might understand that what he’s really indicating, especially in his Pivotal philosophical works “either/or, pts 1 & 2”, is it is possible that my ideological theories posing or pointing towards some truth actually does still occur as such, that is, showing truth, while yet also as I come upon the real world which discounts it and proves it to be incorrect. What occurs is that there are two correct versions of reality that do not work together nor conflate into or toward another unity, and that this is the truth that shows how our interaction with the world takes place.

I submit, arguments of what is real, or what is actually the case in the world, function As we might understand them informing us intellectually ,through a vacillation of ideological categories that function truly to establish the world, a world, the world, in exactly the way it is, and the subject mediating between those worlds as though indeed I, the subject, is changing. In the scheme, though, the world that is involved with the greatest of all categories, essentially does not change. We can even bring Slavoj Zizek’s question in here: are we able to change how we understand change?

No matter what discourse, or any other indicator, might “truly mean”, ultimately it is only indicating ideas that are attached to whatever actual world in the way that it is at that present moment. The idea that I am coming to find out what is “actually real” through any sort of theoretical mechanism or intellectual device, is ultimately based in what we would or should properly call “faith”. To resolve the either/or dilemma to one or the other “reality” requires faith.



As someone else has put it elsewhere, it is not a question of whether or not Jesus Christ was actually the son of God or not the son of God, was an actual human being, or was a God on earth, or was the son of God, or none of those things.  The more complex and significant issue is how Jesus Christ occurs in the world that I am coming upon. This last question differs substantially and is quantitatively different than the previous types of questions. 

Similarly, racism for that matter, or aliens, or The European Union, or quarks, bits or gravity, or unicorns.

To be able to weigh up sides and decide which appears the more real, to have placed the stakes within that trial, as though I am along with the world Being determined by those stakes, requires faith.



Likewise it is not a question of whether or not the brain functions in whatever way that science or neurology might say that it does or that it doesn’t, or whether or not science is correct or incorrect in its estimations. Whatever situation is occurring at the time is indeed the situation that we must deal with at the time. Yet, strangly philosophically sognificant, most often how we are thinking about it is understood to be involved with some actually true of the situation which further tends to want to avoid itself this time, wants to “prove” to not others – against, with or by others — but mainly itself how such a truth is indeed essentially true, no matter what anyone will say about it. 

The Criteria for Valid Human Knowlegde: Providence and human progress.

This is an activity which asks the thinker to consider what valid knowledge is. It is an activity as well as an argument as well as a test for the reader.

Are you game?

Let’s see how you do?

December 12, 2019. Next line. Just testing out the voice dictation on the word thing here. And seeing if I can just voice dictate some thing and still have it makes sense. I don’t know all the commands in order to voice dictate and get it to do exactly what I would want to do, but at least I can maybe write a bunch of stuff just from voice dictating and it will make sense.

OK. It actually takes that command to move to down one because if I say it it will move down again.

I have little motivation to sit down and write. I feel like I should have a compulsion to write all these things down, all these ideas I have, because I feel they are important and I feel that people would get a lot out of them. Yet at the same time somehow I feel they won’t be heard. And some of this is because I plain don’t have the energy motivation or gumption to have to promote myself and my ideas.

And then this brings forth the test for the reader. You may proceed.

about human knowledge: or what we consider knowledge as species or group or something like that. That we are progressing somehow through the work of novel ideas as if these ideas have significance towards our progress. One would have to say in light of just myself and my ideas that this progress then is necessarily biased. We would have to admit that really the only knowledge that we might be gaining along our progress of humanity is progress that is invested into knowledge by people who are so motivated that think what they have to say or the ideas that they have are so great that they put forth the effort so a bunch of people can read them. Which is to say that they have to learn to market themselves in a certain way if anyone is going to read them or if those ideas are going to have any sort of influence at all in the world, at least in the sense that we think of influence in “the worlD”. Because we necessarily have to admit that the ideas that we are getting, in this one small way of looking at it, are only particular kinds of ideas at that put forth by a particular kind of person. And if we are to believe that we’re progressing towards any thing in particular, just to say that human beings are progressing, we would have to grant that the knowledge that is coming to “us“ is somehow divined or meant to be or is somehow Bestowed by some sort of providence like some sort of manifest destiny.

But not only that, given that media has allowed for so many intelligent people to have their ideas Polyphia rated even without that kind of effort, we have to also admit than any idea we have towards progress is at once multi faceted and really not directed towards any sort of group process or group progress that we might think of in the sense of progress, at all. But not only that, given that media has allowed for so many intelligent people to have their ideas Polyphia rated even without that kind of effort, we have to also admit that any idea we have towards progress is at once multifaceted and really not directed towards any sort of group process or group progress that we might think of in the sense of progress, at all.

Basically at some point, really along any sort of analysis that is honest about what is occurring, we would have to say that there is no progress in the sense that we understand it, and at least in the sense of humanity as a whole except some sort of progress that we are utterly in capable of conceiving or perceiving.

In fact I think in the sense of the progress that I must have, and so much as I do feel compelled to try to allow myFlow more freelyflow more Through this voice dictation on word, I must concede to the truth of the matter is so far as I have an understanding of progress or I understand in a sense of purpose in my life, that despite all this education that I might have about how to format papers, how to submit them to such and such journals, have the proper credentials and schooling etc., that those avenues are utterly limited and any idea that I have a progress so far as me contributing to humanity in that way is such a small fantasy of progress in the real sHumanity that I must be involved withe heat .

It seems more sensible that I should produce things like I’m producing at this moment through voice dictation and whatever editing that might be necessary in a sort of institutional or conventional sense is completely unnecessary in the sense that what ideas I have are indeed intelligent and valid because they can be understood by people reading them without the formatting or without all that added after effort that I might put into having them published and some global journal or something like that onlineIt seems more sent to the more sensible route would just be to put my ideas down and have them published in an actual physical book and store them in as many data bases as possible regardless of what kind of editing I have may have done.

The assumption that intelligence must be reflected by a proper formatting now seems old and anachronistic and even archaic in the sense of a true value of ideas. Because anyone should be able to read what minimal amount of editing I do in this voice dictation, with the minimal amount of punctuation’s but without the title page and abstract and etc., and understand what I’m talking about such that I will have communicated an idea that they may or may not of had, but at least will validate something in the sense of humanity at some level .. it seems more sensible that I should produce things like I’m producing at this moment through voice dictation and whatever editing that might be necessary in a sort of institution or conventional sense is completely unnecessary in the sense that what ideas I have are indeed intelligent and valid because they can be understood by people reading them without the formatting or without all that added after effort that I might put into having them published in some global journal or something like that online.

For if there is a providence involved in that small and minuscule amount of actual information that is conveyed through the proper way of writing or the proper way of communicating ideas, which is to say with the abstract and the proper voicing the proper tense first person second person, etc., all those conventions of how to properly communicate knowledge, and indeed what is allowed to be valid knowledge by those conventions, in that same stroke, this, compared to the truely vast amount of intelligent ideas that are not jammed into the tiny academic containers, that is to say, due to that minute amount Of knowledge that actually gets communicated into this human progress, we would also have to say that the random occurrences of this stupid iPhone that keeps shutting off the voice dictation function in the middle of one of my sentences is also an active Providence in the same sense that the formatted and properly presented writings are . And we would have to ask how we are discerning which act if providence is more valid to reveal true knowledge, and communication of valuable ideas?

As well, And however many times that this computer that I’m speaking into somehow feels that it must randomly double a sentence or paragraph that I just put into word such that I write a whole paragraph and then I end it with a punctuation and then the computer reprints the whole paragraph after it again, and I leave it that way, in edited, one should say that this active providence is actually just as valuable as the random occurrence which has allowed someone to get an article published in any sort of journal.

however many times that this computer that I’m speaking into somehow feels that it must randomly double a sentence or paragraph that I just put into word such that I write a whole paragraph and then I end it with a punctuation and then the computer re-print the whole paragraph after it again, one should say that this active providence is actually just as valuable as the random occurrence which has allowed someone to get an article published in any sort of journal.

of knowledge that actually gets communicated into this “human progress”, we would also have to say that the random occurrences of this stupid iPhone that keeps shutting off the voice dictation function in the middle of one of my sentences is also an active providence in the same sense that the formatted and properly presented writings are..

Further; The difficulties that would go into someone being able to comprehend and read this piece of writing that I am putting down right now as I’m voice dictating into word, would be equal if not less to the amount of difficulty that it takes an individual to publish to get an article published in any sort of journal. One would have to ask what sort of sensibility, what sort of logic is going in to the validation of ideas that would make one sort of effort to contain valid knowledge where is the other sort of effort?knowledge that is not valid?

For all the effort that it would take me to edit a article, to edit a piece of writing in which I’m trying to communicate certain ideas, all the effort that it would take me to get it published in the journal, in an academic journal, and some sort of professional journal, whatever – anyone who is intelligent or thinks that they are involved in some sort of betterment of humanity or some sort of progress of humanity in the area of ideas and knowledge, would have to compare that that criteria of effort that is being exerted in attempting to read this very essay that I am voice dictating into word right this moment. One would have to ask them selves just what knowledge is valid and why.

Nonsense? Or valuable?

Were you able to make it through?

Is this knowledge (what you have found) more or less valuable than if it were published differently ?