Watch “Slavoj Žižek on demonization of leftists, Julian Assange & Yellow Vests” on YouTube — maylynno

Slavoj Zizek, who is my source of world news, explains in this interview with RT London about the total confusion between Left and Right that is going on today by politicians and the criminalization of the Left by the Right. The real battle today is about bringing down fake news and freeing people from the […]

via Watch “Slavoj Žižek on demonization of leftists, Julian Assange & Yellow Vests” on YouTube — maylynno

To refer back to my post on the Phychologist who will not be named: Jordan sees himself as intellectializing the “common people” the “common humanity”.

I agree with Zizek: We get nothing from the “common people” Becuase they are only acting, moving, and as a conglomerate, by some unknown and unintelligible force.

Listen right at the end he nails it, 30 seconds left:

Here is where the intellectuals must take responsibility for their ideals: we must be critical of ourselves, to see where we are indeed “making the world in our own image”.

Quantum Computing and its relevance to Philosophy.

via A few videos on quantum computing and the physics of time I want to come back to later — Mark Carrigan

In order to move forward philosophically, we must get out of our philosophical head that everything must reduce to 0 or 1, nothing or common reality.

I begin with that statement because this is the problem that we face in philosophy: It is less a philosophical problem as it is quantitative problem in the Kierkegaardian sense; the quantum does not reduce the the classical qualitative criteria. The quantum is found exactly in what philosophy can do as opposed to its classical or conventional for of what Is.

This is to say that philosophy, as a name for a particular kind of process, exhibits and endorces as it then enforces implicitly the idea that all philosophical matter must reduce to a “all or nothing” result: All philosophical proposals must answer the the conventional ontological standard. Philosophy is caught in this problem; this is the modern and current problem of philosophy. A resurgence of Realism responds to a inability for what I term conventional philosophy to inhabit and address this problem, but its reactionary move is really a recourse to using a Sartrean Existentialist mode of psychological defense, the ‘out’ of revolt from the Abyss (which is contradiction, i.e. an answer which is not 1 or 0) back into real (political) identity.

This, of course, is not to imply, for example, that the realization of Quantum Physics somehow does away with or argues against the validity of Conventional or Classical Physics. Yet, when the quantum is approached by conventional philosophy, this is exactly its methodological response. In short it asserts that All philosophy must adhere to the Zero Sum Game (1 or 0). All philosophical proposals which do not meet the conventional criterion of amounting to a 0 or 1, is nonsense. I submit that Quantum Physics and all the wonderful applications that we have gained from it would never have arisen if Scientists were so closed minded and stubborn as philosophers. We merely need to view what is before us and stop rehashing what is –purportedly theoretically sound– already there.


There are philosophers who have or are beginning to incorporate quantum analogies into their proposals. Francois Laruelle, Slavoj Zizek, are only two that come to mind. AGENT SWARM somewhat often reviews authors who have entertained quantum ideas.

But we should be careful not to fall back into the conventional postmodern method of intesionalist Ontological immanence. This is to say that it is improper for philosophers, those involved with a process of engaging with the world, to figure for all instances that just because thoughts can be assembled in a meaningful manner that they therefore have real theoretical substance. We have seen what philosophical fantasies of this sort produce; strange discourses which appear to have conditional validity, and its associated incredulity, as well as blatant idiocy. A quantum computation of philosophy would not rely upon a conventional inspiration of free postmodernist range. Not everything is situational to inspired manipulations of discourse; the Kantian synthetical a priori so abused by some self-theorized Postmodernists is not as ubiquitous a self-reflecting truth as they would assert in their appropriation of the PM cannon. Some discourses actually require a more significant ground. This is what the Realist move responds to; the potential for nonsense to appear as more than nice fiction theoretical stories. While even Speculative Realism is responding, Id say, properly to check the promulgation of magical thinking, other philosophers who have indeed uncovered a realm which exists outside of the Zero-Sum Game of conventional philosophy, appear to actually be holding up a conception of a valid philosophical science based in quantum analogy.

“Keep those legs closed ! I haven’t taken my bong hit yet!”

(Who the F*^& keeps saying that stuff ???)


The book “The Philosophical Hack” confronts the conventional philosophical cock-block. It is a hack into the fortress of conventional certitude. It is an essay which addresses the miscommunication involved in the flattening out all philosophy to a unitive horizon. It is concerned with what philosophy can do, rather than endless ontological proposals about what is.

Out soon.

The Philosophical Hack: The Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Event” by Cedric Nathaniel. 140 pages. pocketbook format. Published by Od Parcel Press. estimated price: $7 + shipping.

We hope you will be interested in the future of philosophy.

A defense of skepticism — A Traveler’s Thoughts

As an anthropologist, I am usually a proponent of respect for “non-Western worldviews” (whatever that means). However, I noticed something problematic in the comments section of this video by the channel Genetically Modified Skeptic. This video is a deconstruction of the Gaia channel/streaming platform, which is purportedly a channel devoted to alternative medicine and […]

via A defense of skepticism — A Traveler’s Thoughts

And my comment:

Hello from outer space!

That is not you in the video I think; another picture of you I have in mind looks nothing like that guy.

I love how you have put voice to ideas and concerns I have thought about but have not formulated; you put them so well to take apart the issue. Thanks!

While I absolutely understand and mainly agree with you, here is my addition:

As I look at humanity, while indeed I must adhere to the ‘ideological base’, if you will, of ‘non-foolishness’ –

“Know yourself. Be obsessed with distinguishing knowledge from foolishness. Build for eternity”.

I didn’t read word for word you whole post, but I probably will over the next few days. I did scan and read parts. BTW —

When I look at humanity, I do not see a “correct” or “true” manner of things, rather, I see a “sane and preferable” manner of things, and that this ‘sane and preferable’ manner cannot be proven to its justification to everyone even as they may contribute to it. Let me explain..

I see that it is not that people are thinking stupid or incorrect things…

(for the most part, to distinguish between, say, actually mentally deranged and defective mentalities, and mentalities such as the GAIA, but a plethora of other also,  represent – and don’t get me wrong: I am not making a theoretical argument here; I’ll do that elsewhere. When you come across someone that is obviously compromised in their ability of sanity, you know; lets leave it at that for now)

…people are not believing illusions. They are not misunderstanding anything: On the contrary: They are behaving exactly how humans behave.

I would say: The brain/consciousness functions in a wide manner to manifest reality. Most human consciousnesses function with, what we could call (I have not really thought this all the way through, mind you) ‘majority inclusion’, which could mean that the reality it forms functions to manifest an appearance of inclusion in various ways. And I have not thought this through very far: like a bell curve, say, where most humans occur as sane in the 20-80% lets say.

The significance is not that the outliers are insane and the aggregate is sane. It is that within what we call sanity, we are beginning to understand, a multitude of possible forms arise, such that we can laugh at some and adhere to others, but that the ‘project space’ as large enough to include all sorts of strange ideas of reality. Sanity is not so much based in a ‘correct version of reality’, then, as it is, ‘able to contribute’ to the human project (for lack of a better term right now).

The significance I think Zizek in indicating is that we should distance ourselves from taking a position of illusion/not illusion, as though we have the correct organization of actuality.

The truth is that we merely have one organization of what works best, what is optimal for the project that we are involved in, and in this project we need many many human beings behaving as they do in the capacity that are able, including the ability to have a reality, whatever that may be. In other words, we need allow people to have their reality and not create another opposition as thought “I am correct, and you are stupid”. The fact is that there is no justifying this latter Zizkeian-sort of move (if I can say this) to everyone to get them ‘onboard’, so to speak, with the project in a manner which could change their view of reality.

We are not lying, then, nor manipulating, but rather allowing people to be the form of human being they are able to be, indeed they Are, all the while moving the project forward without exclusion, without oppressional ideals (which transfer into to manifest the real world), without inequity or dismissal of the fact that they indeed are informing me as to my reality, are inclusive of it. I think this is the intensional meaning of ‘namaste’.

An example analogy could be the current system of United States. The ‘project’ is the system of democracy; the system is functioning, if everyone ‘believes’ in the system as the preferable ’truth’, then everyone gets to do and be however they want. The support for the system does not, though, rely upon everyone being a public servant nor even voting. Rather, it relies upon those who see the system and behave as though the system is the best and preferable ’truth of reality’. In this respect, I allow for what ever ‘reality’ to manifest for an individual, all the while having them (us) answer to what is preferable without direct enforcement or even having to convince them that it is ‘true’.

In a very real sense, the divide we see in the United States is perfectly OK so long as everyone involved sees the truth of the matter, The actuality which allows for them to have their positions, as gained from this ‘preferable truth’ that is the democratic system of the US.