Rp and comment on Chameleon theory (theories)… Everlasting worlds…

Supercomputer simulations of galaxies have shown that Einstein’s theory of General Relativity might not be the only way to explain …

Chameleon theory (theories)… Everlasting worlds…

—– Real objects withdraw from view and relation. Real objects arise in this manner encrusted with qualities that come into appearance as to embody or correlate with the terms which pose to identify them.
Yet, in truth, terms merely float like Pacific Islands, over the molten core of the real object.

Thus, in truth, we speak less of how terms are correlated with other terms or encrustments, less of what argument may appear as more true or more plausible than another, and more of what is actually occurring in that activity of knowing anything at all.

Passing on a Dire Celebration: An incomplete engraving

x

At the entrance to the temple of Apollo at Delphi, stood written the words gnōthi seauton, know thyself. But anyone who’s read Dante Alighieri …

An incomplete engraving

—–
The day that Christ is born is a darkness broken only by the light of a star.

The wise men are beckoned by that star, to make a journey…

The Moment of Decisive Significance

Happy Holidays…

But particularly

Happy awareness of the birth of knowledge.

👽

Rp Struggle is True

Struggle


There is The quite real ideal of mental health that everyone believes whether or not they want to think about it or not, namely, that you have to be happy in order to be mentally healthy.

Then there’s the truth of mental health which goes to resilience and flexibility in the real experience of living life in the world.

Unexpection: Body or Embodiment: The Paradox of Modern Cosmology

The paradox of modern ontological reckoning is always constitutive. The activity of modern academic theory is a reification that such constitution can be overcome or changed, despite its argumentative semantic content (see. Lyotard as well as Haroway and Barad). X

—-referring to the previous linked essay by Thomas-Pellicer, Ruth, De Lucia, Vito (2016)

This rhetoric describes (it has no agency to inscribe) the inherent offense which thereby we are able to understand modern cosmology as a religious order. In this sense, “ideology” is a theological tenet that shift’s responsibility to Other, away from the horizon of discourse onto an essential spirit, if you will, that is neatly avoided by the religious act itself.

Religion, in the sense, is defined by a categorical offense. A contradiction, but more so, any motional rejection which lay at the core of all identity for modern being.

New materialisms have identified this basic offense as body. …The problem with the academic methodological core is that Word PressBlocks are shite.

Now Stepping back into this post from the basic annoyance of the platform that I have to use in order to post a simple idea (WordPress Blocks)…

The way, process, anti-ontological route, by which the new materialists attempt to overcome the modern faults uses the method in the attempt to overcome it, and thereby denies by its very act the meaning that it proposes.

I’m reading this essay about “re-embodiments“. the basic force of the paper and the ideas there of I generally agree with. However, at the same time, the fact that they have to situate their meaning within traditional discourse is —

as though the argument might be able to dispel the modern categories, the modern polemics, the either/or political foundation through which we find social identity,

—merely shows that they have to rely upon the problem itself in order to give us any sort of idea of overcoming the problem. Basically, they have to tell us that the problem is inherent their solution. And this method, this giving and taking away that we notice of the post modern theorists in general from the 20th century, shows that we are really not getting anywhere but more problem.

The problem is this constituent of being, again, as I agree with the general force of the argument itself, ironically.

Where I differ is in so much as they attempt, often, to do away with certain terms by inventing new terms. Basically, they see that the old terms are embedded in a political discourse of history, so many of the new materialists feel, it seems, that they need to come up with new terms that somehow get beyond or disrupt the old terms. So, instead of using “body“, which, some authors say merely reify the mind-body distinction, they talk about “re-embodiment”.

I say that the use of the word “body” does not necessarily imply mind as a counterpart, and that to think that it does merely shows an orientation in the modern way of being, the modern way of understanding where by everything is political, and discursive at that.

I say that my cup of coffee is a body. The body that is the cup. The body that is the coffee. The body of work that may be any discussion about that cup of coffee. There is no difference in this sense between the body that is the computer monitor in space in front of me, and the body that I inhabit as myself in the universe, and the bodies of knowledge that likewise arise in the universe as such, as a body.

The body of knowledge about myself is of no different quality in itself than the body the computer monitor embraces, constitutes, and embodies in itself. The body of knowledge is no different as a thing that arises in the universe, the body of the universe, than the celestial bodies themselves, the planets as well as the body of forces between them, nor the bodies of knowledge that concern them and are involved with them.

(PDF) The Philosophical Hack: The Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Event | Cedric Nathaniel – Academia.edu

xThe Philosophical Hack uses Slavoj Zizek’s book “Event” as a platform from which to hack into philosophy. A hack in one sense is someone who knows how to use the technology but nevertheless assembles useful objects in non-conventional manners. A hack
— Read on www.academia.edu/39724836/The_Philosophical_Hack_The_Concluding_Unscientific_Postscript_to_Event

*

An epistemological horizon left to its own operation, un-hacked, is the definition of a religious cosmology, the heart of ideological power.

*

Parts, Objects, and the Event: less and more

It is less a assemblage of parts that, placed piece meal into a storyboard semantic collage, that constitutes an event.

It is less the pieces of objects that come together in order for us to find and understand what an object is.

Rather

It is more the Event that brings about the whole instance and significance of what an object actually is such that parts have meaning. The object organizes knowledge around itself.

The weaving of threads brings material about to constitute a blanket, say, but that blanket itself is only partially available to knowledge through the material occasion.

The blanket arrives only at the event of being that is a blanket.

The blanket itself thus recognizes its material in a way that the material can not quite appreciate or comprehend of its object…

…the jump…The Leap is not made by hoping: It is not made at all.

Guattari and Deleuze’s Modern Teleology

Two Routes unto objects constitute the truth of the universe.

On Exploring Emotional Intelligence from a Linguistic Perspective

Exploring Emotional Intelligence from a Linguistic Perspective
— Read on www.academia.edu/53579692/Exploring_Emotional_Intelligence_from_a_Linguistic_Perspective

—–

I disagree with this author‘s particular use of supporting examples because they detract from his point about emotional intelligence, but as well, linguistics involvement with mental well being.

*

What are we trying to accomplish?

This has to be the first question involved with any statement that’s supposed to say something factual. For, even the very idea of there being fundamental and basic facts is based in an assumption about what are we trying to do by referring to facts. This is not to say that there are not facts, or that everything’s relative, but more to suggest that in so much as I am referring to facts, I need to be clear about what I’m trying to accomplish.

*

So let me be clear: facts exist truly. They don’t have anything to do with what meaning I’m making out of them (except the fact of meaning making) as though the fact that I might be making meaning dispels the potential for there to be facts. For, How could I be making meaning then? Since there would be no factual basis to say that I am merely making meaning.  The point is redundant, as I discuss elsewhere.

Semantics as a basis for discussion is overrated, ‘overmined’ as Graham Harman might say, and to call upon semantics as some sort of universal fact of being human in the world is really to call upon and assumed project about what human beings are supposed to be involved with; which is to say, if you are A human being then you are involved with the world.

I disagree with this giant assumption. And again, this is not to say that the world of human beings is made up with a bunch of random opinions based on personal experience and semantics. I am saying that that assumption is involved with a certain type of project, it assumes certain things, and it moves people toward a certain goal that is unspoken.

My work has to do with laying a foundation by which people will be able begin to speak about what is unspoken before they assume what is common.

*

OK.

To the reposted essay.

I agree that the greater emotional intelligence a person has, the greater lexicon to describe emotion, the more access a person has to who and what they are. I’m not sure that really this short linked essay is really saying that though. It seems to be saying that if you are a human being then you should have a greater lexicon so you can achieve more in the world.

Think of all the assumptions that go into the difference that I point out there. Then when you read the essay, think of the huge weight of assumptions that are going into just the fact that he would write a paper in such a way.

For, while it may be a nice thing to be able to achieve, to be a high achiever, I severely doubt that more than 20% of people in the world ever become a high achiever no matter how much they will try, or even if they will want to. So, to talk about some sort of common human being that should have any emotional quotient of intelligence, and that achievement is the reason why someone should have a greater lexicon to expressed their emotions, kind of argues the point that you’re a really fucked up individual: it communicates to you implicitly that you are screwed up, in need of improvement due to your inherent ignorance and you need to do better, that you’re screwed up and you’re probably not a high achiever.

I’m not sure that being a high achiever really matters beyond the studies. But maybe that’s because I’m a high achiever. I don’t really know. I’m fairly sure that most people really couldn’t care less whether they are high achiever or not, and those who want to be a high achiever could probably care even less because they’re already on their way to achieving very well. Again: redundant (discussed elsewhere).

*

Read on if you really want to know what I’m saying here, because, nevertheless, for sure there is a vast majority of people that reckon themselves to achievement; I’m not saying that they are incorrect, nor am I saying that people who speak to measurements of achievement are wrong.

I am merely pointing out facts about the situation, as an example of how we might be able to discern differences in projects that are otherwise assumed.

The Point of this Comment.

The reason for this really came out of the repost authors examples that he uses to support his short paper. I’m not sure that he needed to put those examples in there on one hand, but on the other hand that he felt that those examples supported his paper really says some thing about why I would not want to have any emotional intelligence at all, if we’re gonna be honest here. 🙂

Thus we get into the linguistic Symantec trope that pervades much of academic scientific promotion, at least in the area of psychology maybe.

He uses two examples. One is that a particular African culture cannot see blue simply because they don’t have the word for blue. The other example is that another culture has difficulty with discerning, for example, 13, since it lies somewhere in between 10 and 15 and they only have a lexicon that deals with fives, I guess.

I totally understand this idea. But I’m not sure it’s true. It draws upon facts, but then uses its own Symantec to make an argument within the idealism that everything is relative (semantically). And the proof he, they, usually give is that in the production of communication I would fail to communicate to someone else that I understood what blue was. And this goes to the traditional academic trope of the economy of language.

Follow me here; I am not saying that that particular way to organize knowledge is wrong or bad. I am saying that it is being unclear as to its motives, because the project it is involved with is “bettering humanity” and this is assumed as an ethical project mandate. I’m just really not sure what this humanity that is trying to get better really is. It’s not wrong that we’re trying to make a better humanity, but I suppose I am making the argument that it moves so fast into the future that we really don’t get very far at all because no one is really telling me what it’s about let alone what it really is.

Take the number 13 to someone who doesn’t have a lexicon which includes 11,12,13,14.

Does this mean that If I give a person 13 gold coins that they either believe that they have 10 or 15? I would say no. It doesn’t really matter what they can talk about, and the language that they are using is not really expressive of what they are thinking. Of course, we can’t know exactly what they are thinking because of the limitation of language, but that does not mean that if I give them 13 coins that they do not understand that they have 13 coins. We never know exactly what someone is thinking, it doesn’t matter whether or not we have the word for it, because this happens to everyone at all times, in so much as they are a subject (see my discussions elsewhere). 

The number 13 is a purely arbitrary definition about what is present. What actually occurs is more significant than whether or not 13 is being able to expressed.

Keep following me here…

This is why the elucidation of what project is being assumed is important.

Because this person in the essay of the re-post is really talking about mental health. However, they are doing it under a rubric that it must fit into all knowledge perfectly, as though there is this one common knowledge in which all humanity is involved entirely, and yet this assumption is being talked about as if everything is relative to the language we are able to use or have access to. ?? 

This is where his essay falls to the side so far as he might be talking about something specific.

The point that he is making about emotional intelligence, and its relation to linguistics and semantics, doesn’t have anything to do really with whether or not I can discern 13 or the color blue. This is just actually talking about mental health, if I’m actually talking about a person sense of self in the world. 

So it is that I made a super long comment, went on a kind of parabolic journey, to come back to the point that his two examples really detract from the point of his essay.

If I’m trying to help a person develop more comprehensive lexicon to express their emotions, I’m not doing it so they can show up in the world more consistently, so then they can achieve more. I’m doing it so they have a better sense of self, so the issues that they struggle with may become more clear to them. This doesn’t have anything to do with Whether they understand what “consternation” is. Because for sure, as opposed to what the author suggests, at times they might be feeling consternation, but it is that they were unable to express themselves and know them selves that specifically, and so they use the next best meaning, they use the next best way to describe themselves and to therefore act.

It is not that consternation does not exist, but that instead they behave, say, with anger, or they get mad at themselves, or they think less of themselves, or they act out, among any number a things.

For sure, consternation exists. It is the discrepancy between their understanding and actuality which is manifesting the difficulty. It is not mere lexicon and semantic; if it were then there would be no issue. The person simply wouldn’t understand what blue was, and would go about their way perfectly fine. It wouldn’t matter to her what blue was because anyone referring to blue would be simply set aside and described in some other way.

Hence It is due to the discrepancy, it is due to an assumption about what is proper to the universe that is at root of the problem itself.  

The greater point is that there is no viable common project. If we are speaking of emotional intelligence in the context of mental health, then certain supportive examples fail that project, and to use them thus shows a failure of the effort itself. We need a manner to be able to discern these invisible ruptures of epistemological continuum.

So it is that we need a manner by which to be explicit — in the same way as a deficit emotional lexicon yields aggrevation of problem — about what we are up to.





New Material Law

a = all possible material

b = all impossibility of possible material.

All the impossibility of possible material accounts for any thing that is not accountable as material.

a+b = every real thing.

Every real thing is qualified by either a or b.

x = the number of possible instances

An instance is a more-than-one. An instance never arises as one, since one requires an other for its ability to arise to itself. Any posit which argues differently merely proves this instance is true. That is, the definition is not true, but the instance itself is indeed true.

It can only be denied, but not proven so without the covert act.

An argument which does indeed argue something different, is subject to the condition of the universe, C.

C = (a+b) ^x

C is the entirety of possible universe.

Once this is found, only two possibilities arise:

The Real Material

And what we must then call

The True Object (Substance).

This fact is due to the redundancy of material in its possibility and impossibility, whether we call it material or use a different term for it.

That is, once we reach C, the true description of universe, then C becomes subject to being a condition of real material (either a or b).

Hence, it is not nothing that arises outside or beyond the universe C, nor other universes.

Rather, the nothingness that arises is merely part of the real universe.

This is true, since no possibility arises outside of its instance. For any other possibility, again, would be redundant.

The situation which confounds the reality of this situation is that such truth has knowable content, content that we may call substance, that brings into question the real condition of materiality (a+b) as a total accounting of the universe.

Therefore, since the true content of the real universe is not reckoned by or against or in relief of nothing, the true content of the universe is not simply everything, (as a platitude or truism), but must rather involve a different manner or orientation upon what real material objects are in themselves, and thus what information they are yielding to knowledge.

Two Routes upon or otherwise into things.

Rp and comment: Twitter To ‘Pre-Bunk’ Criticism Of Left’s Climate Narrative During COP26

Originally posted on PA Pundits – International: By Alexander Hall ~ Twitter is unleashing a new program to proactively protect the left’s climate …

Twitter To ‘Pre-Bunk’ Criticism Of Left’s Climate Narrative During COP26

—-…and my comment:

Here is another example of The Two Routes in practical effect.

The fact of the climate changing is true.

Climate Change is real.

The truth of the climate changing is something human beings must deal with — and will deal with — despite politcal argument about what is real.

To say that Twitter is not being politically neutral in thier allowance of news, as this repost suggest, is to say that what is real is always politically negotiated.

However, to promote this negotiation as though the climate is not involved with human activity is still politically real, and harms humanity by attempting to avoid the truth.

This is the basic issue at hand in our real political world at this point: That what is true takes a while to get an effective foot hold into the political discussion. The debate shows that the truth is not being discussed, but only reality. Over time, the truth of our relationship with the climate will be beyond effective dispute, and reality will have likewise changed.

The overall issue of Climate Change is that we have named the problem, but we have not realized that we are in a relationship with it, with Climate Change, as so have not been able to imagine ourselves in a different situation. In other words, we are in a dysfunctional relationship and we continue to try and fix the relationship, but the “partner” is not having it.

Unexpected synchronous object semantics

Be Your Own Rock

Everyday

Listen

……

Sometimes I feel that I am being drawn forward. And other times I am just making my Way, doing what I do because that’s what I’m doing.

Presently I am going through a phase of the latter.

I am not sure that I ever construct meaning intentionally. I never purposely sit down and make meaning from things.

Rather, I might be perplexed, or feel out of sorts, even lost, at times.

Sometimes I do ponder things like dreams, and a meaning will show itself.

Other times I’m not thinking about anything. And meaning still shows itself…

Such is the case when I opened my WordPress reader 5 minutes ago.

The beginning of this post shows the titles of the first three posts that were in my Reader.

——>

Naysayers and reductionist psychological Science congregants may point to all the studies about how the mind will make meaning out of anything.

And yet, the conclusion of those kinds of studies never tell us how we are able to come to that conclusion, nor why that conclusion should be any less random than the meaning that the subject gained from a series of random images or words.

If a person has faith enough to set aside the psychological proof that a mind is just assembling random meanings into a string of meaning at all times, then I really have nothing to say to them philosophically, because they have not looked deep enough. They have only stopped where it suits them, as I say, for their faith. I have no criticism or argument to give them; for why would I critique or bombard someone’s faith?

Nonetheless, If I wish to take those psychological studies for what they’re really telling me, which is to say, where I do not hold back, I do not stop at my faith in what I already believe that I’m coming upon, then I might ask further:

What series of random events has coalesced in such a way to allow me to be presented to that particular arrangement of phrases or pictures that we are deciding is random?

Against what sense of truth are we deciding that any arrangement of pictures or phrases or words is random, such that the meaning that I am making (in that case) has no real basis? And is thus meaningless?

Basis Truth

I could go on.

What these kinds of questions tell us is that science is not giving us truth of the universe. Rather, what science is likely giving us is merely a reflection of our culture, of our ideology, of an ability of mind, and not the mind itself nor the universe that arises in truth.

I say this not to resort back to relativity or mirror (or mere) opinions, or subjective perception. I say this to point out that if we reject all those routes into reality, we must find that indeed reality did not disappear, but that there is a truth which can be known which does not reduce to real faith, as I say, To the religion of modern ideology.

Again and again as I said elsewhere, I’m not saying that faith and religion is inherently bad or that it needs correcting. I am merely suggesting that this is the way that consciousness functions. When a person comes upon the truth of how consciousness is indeed functioning, what is able to happen is that the way we participate in the real ideology changes.

It is then possible that it is not so much that we make meaning, but that meaning is what we are. And further, that what we are is not separated from the universe in which we arise to meaning. A reduction to individual brains is able to be come upon and is indeed able to derive necessary reason and rationales. However, An opening of that same system reveals that there is a truth beyond that kind of limited orientation upon things – but a truth that the orientation upon brain/mind religion implicitly rejects. The religion of the scientific mind rejects any knowledge that itself does not support. That is why it is a religion: Becuase there is other rational and knowable knowledge that does not adhere to its cosmological mandates.

Again: this is not to say that reality and knowledge about it is not real or does not function; rather, it is only to say that it is indeed real and refers to real things, but not true.

Random thoughts

Random musings about everything.

Pointless Overthinking

Understanding ourselves and the world we live in.

Learnography

Place of knowledge transfer for kids 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

Object Relations

"A Word of Substance"

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