Post-nihilist praxis and pessimism: rehashing some old ground

In the last few months I have begun to explore philosophical pessimism, although not in writing and not on syntheticzero. It might seem strange to do…

Post-nihilist praxis and pessimism: rehashing some old ground

—- I appreciate this writer’s sense of calmness and work towards clarity of his thought.

Although I tend to move away from the ideas of the writers who present in synthetic zero, I do sympathize with their plight and expression, if simply because — And I do not mean to sound better than or to devalue such intellectual synthesis — I went through that. Where my ideas indeed resonated with everything that they talk about in this blog.

My blog is called “the philosophical hack”, and this name and project came out of its original name called “constructive undoing”, and “constructive undoing” came about after this period that I see synthetic zero reflecting for me.

🧑🏾‍🚀

This post was very, very long, and so I didn’t quite get more than about a third of the way before I had to start skipping down the essay and read various paragraphs to get an idea of where it was headed and what he might be saying.  

This author expresses a key idea that I could associate the project of synthetic zero with. This idea is trauma.

One of the issues that I have with philosophy, and indeed the issue that brought a head to me the ability to move upon what we could say was my initial trauma, but then also that post traumatic space in which and through which I attempted to dissolve that traumatic element which remained in me to be able to attempt to argue against it, is the refusal or inability to get over itself. See, I was attempting to carve out my own legitimate space in the midst of a trauma which would not go away.  My ideas were indeed “trauma informed” in the sense that they indeed were sculpted out of the traumatic environment for which I was invested despite my best interest.

And so one could say that what happened to me was that I gave up on that project. For I realized in the end of that approach to philosophy all I was doing was reifying and maintaining the initial trauma in the attempt to get rid of it. For, philosophy tends to take real things and turn them into intellectualization and then argue itself within a Kantian Sort of a priori To find its various discursive categories and areas within it. It takes the very real fact, the very visceral and encompassing effect of trauma in places it into An intellectual category to dissect as if trauma itself is nothing but an intellectual category, a definition.

Ironically, philosophy itself does this to reality itself. To me, this is what Nietzsche was saying, and other authors, and this is why capitalism is nihilistic: because it places everything in a reductive motion where philosophy is intimately bound up with rationality, such that such association becomes the supposed ground of all things that are real, such that “nothing” becomes the foundation of reality. This is the ironic manifestation of our current ideological paradigm. And this is to say that the reductive method of a particular orientation upon reality, one which usurps reason itself onto its own resources Such that it has no recourse from which reason could arise except to say reason itself, which is the synthetical a priori — Every time what is actually real encounters this assumption, the trauma is reified, and that argued limit for a reason just pulls further back into itself to look for a way to get rid of that automatic traumatic response. 

🌈

When we understand that the current modern ideal of a reason is it self a disassociation from reality, then the transformation which can arise is one that begins to understand that reason indeed has a real ground and that 20th century existentialism and indeed postmodernism, was just a further attempt to own the traumatic situation of the prior trauma of that particular category, or for that particular orientation, upon reason.

Once someone divests oneself from that ideal category, Then what is left is not a world that is going to bring it self to destruction because of the post traumatic response of “rationality”; rather, It is a seeing the world for what it really is, where human beings are merely a part of the world and not the container of the world.

Discourses of power are only against what is ultimately functioning as the trauma. In that particular paradigm, the human being sees itself as destroying the world at every turn, ultimately destroying its own body, eating itself away, hurting itself, self harming, suicidal, nihilistic.

Once that trauma is healed, then we find the actual reality of the situation: It it’s not “the world” which we are hurting, rather, it is how we are viewing what the world is that is the significant philosophical issue.

x

It is Healthy for the World that the Humans Got Sick

Pollution is going down. And now it appears that wildlife is doing better in the national parks that human beings are not visiting because they’re not allowed to.

https://apple.news/AS6Et2Ar_TFmdPVRwXRIN7A

Maybe this might allow human beings to have a new reflection upon who and what we are in the world.

Maybe we can at least consider that the world has some sort of consciousness or Being that we are in a relationship with.

Or, and I think this most likely will be the case, we will continue to invest our souls in a God that’s going to welcome us Home after our trials on this world, as we continue to not give a shit about any one or anything else besides our human self righteousness. Idiots in the universal democracy: the human being thinking itself into isolation.

An Idiot is being alone, or separated.

And I just want to say to the ‘either/or’ people that I am not calling for some sort of “spiritual“ awakening or some sort of New Age ‘we just need to love our world’ or whatever those old kind of 1960s 70s 80s tropes are or were. If that’s what you need then great, but…

A new way to understand relationship has to do with a different manner of coming upon Being, Less becoming, more Being come upon. Like an event.

Maybe it is possible to look at all the people that are becoming or are upset or having difficulty with being in isolation less through the trope of that human beings are social creatures. Maybe it could be that we are coming upon the anxiety involved in the world rejecting us for who we are Being, Like a plea, like a call to us, for us, to join the world in the universe, as opposed to centering ourselves and desire and self-righteousness.

Maybe: A world of responsibility.

Oh no! I almost forgot. We don’t want to be responsible. We want to be right.

Fear itself is countered by kindness.

In this moment, our greatest foe is — yup — fear itself.

If you are able, tune into what is happening in your body. Your body is not separate from your mind but actually forms a ground from which thought finds support.

If your body is nervous and shaken or tense, then your actions which stem from your thoughts may not be arising from the innate wisdom of your self.

For example, your mind may be telling you that you are not afraid or that there is nothing to be afraid of, while ignoring that you are actually deeply fearful and scared. This could cause you to choose to behave in ways that put you, and ones you love, in harms way.

Be kind to yourself. Our world is changing.

Be more aware, and less ‘beware’.

*****

What climate is changing? Is the question we have been asking for a little while on this blog.

Religion and Spirition and mental health

Religious and Spiritous.

I am not sure what would qualify a general category of people who are not religious, or who claim they are not. But if I may call upon that general category, I’ll say that they would take issue with the following:

Without religion, mental health as a description or indicator of a group of bodies that functions well individually and together, regardless of the details of that function, deteriorates.

And id say that the first defensive posture would say something to the effect about the “history of religion” and corruption and “what God?” and all those young adult arguments that we all have been over so many times.

so.

I must thus qualify that.

I elaborate upon what I mean by ‘religion’ elsewhere. But likewise, philosophically, I don’t really enjoy the idea of ‘spirituality’ as a counter position to religion; the two polemics seems to me to miss a valid point about being human, again as I elaborate elsewhere.

So perhaps a way to skip the longer discussion and get to the meat and starches of the table, is to draw a parallel between the conjugates: religion and spirition, and religious and spiritous, and rephrase to say without spirition the group and individual deteriorate. And this also conveys a deterioration of world.

In very short short, the orientation upon what we could call empirical facts as a means or true substance to draw the individual in a world misses a significant and necessary element in being human for the establishment of a healthy individual and society, and thus world.

That is, to reduce the human to the physical-empirical (and I might add as much as it tends to signify the same absence: political), defies that the physical-empirical contains any significant meaning. Hence, the deterioration of the world.

Spirition. I like that.

Philosophy and Climate Change: We’re Not Literally Doomed, but… – Scientific American Blog Network

Climate Change: We’re Not Literally Doomed, but… – Scientific American Blog Network
— Read on blogs.scientificamerican.com/hot-planet/climate-change-were-not-literally-doomed-but/

Is philosophy only for the discernment of truth through logical fallicies?

Is reason the sovereign of all real truth?

What climate is changing?

Perhaps Deep Adaptation is about more than food and water. Maybe it is about atmosphere?

What atmosphere?

What is deep?

Who is effected when the climate changes ?

The change is here.

#theactualendoftheworld

#thechangeishere

#theendisnow

What Lies Beneath?

There is the geographical notion of ‘deep time’ that is often known in reference to its Christian dispensational model of about 6500 years when the earth was made.

The idea of deep time offered that the Earth was much older and has been developing slowly by regular patterns.

Perhaps there is a certain correspondence between ‘Darkness’ and ‘deep(er) time’? 

REPOST: 

Source: Articles: What Lies Beneath?

https://syndaxvuzz.wordpress.com/2016/05/22/what-lies-beneath/