Limits and limits. 

Over at Deus Nexus he or she posts all sorts of stuff that lay right on the margin. I think most people like to stay right in the middle right solidly in the middle and make appraisals of all sorts of things in and judgments upon what is rational and real and logical actual, but over there at Deus she he talks about all sorts of stuff. Some of it admittedly I kind a roll my eyes at but I love that it’s there, and some of it falls into the realm of what I like to talk about and what I think is pertinent. 

In the early 90s a friend of mine was all into J. Krishnamurti and he was all about hey man you should read this guy he’s really got some cool things to say. So I remember reading a couple of his books, because my friend had like I don’t know five or six of his books he kept getting his books. But I remember reading a couple and they’re like lectures or reprints of talks that he had where people would ask questions and he would answer them. But I remember reading it and I remember talking to my friend and thinking it totally funny that the whole book with Krishnamurti saying the same thing. The various people ask questions and Krishnamurti would basically answer them with the same answer but phrasing it in a different way according to what question that I asked. I thought it was hilarious. 

Nowadays I’ve come to have something to say of my own, and in this I tend to hesitate at the human ability to frame situations. Words like ‘transcendence’ and ‘immanence’ Bring me to halt. ‘Ineffable’ is another of these terms. Here’s the definition of it: 

” in·ef·fa·ble:



too great or extreme to be expressed or described in words.

“the ineffable natural beauty of the Everglades”

synonyms: indescribable, inexpressible, beyond words, beyond description, begging description; More

not to be uttered.

“the ineffable Hebrew name that gentiles write as Jehovah”

Now, I don’t know about you guys but I think this word just as an example is contradiction manifest, because even in the simple definition of unable of being described the word ineffable is proposed to describe that situation of the thing that can’t be described. What that means to me is that the word itself is insufficient, that the meaning that it is supposed to be inscribing of a situation event or object is incorrect. Now think about this. Ineffable is supposed to mean that it can’t be described, yeah I’m saying that that very definition the meaning of the term is incorrect. Now I don’t mean to be indicating a reversal, as if it really means that it can be described — that is irony and that is what the conventional sense of the word relays to us. No I mean to say that the word itself in the instance that we are taking that word to mean something that is actually beyond our ability to comprehend or know of it, is by contrast indicating two elements of being human. 

One element is that despite what we might say or think we know so as to indicate a limit of our knowledge, we are really implying and working on the opposite notion. If I say that ‘I don’t know ‘ and somehow mean it as some actual situation some true situation of my human being existent here, then I’m founding myself in a situation that is inherently contradicting to that situation that I am proposing to be in command of knowing or not knowing thereof. 

The second element is that our ability to know, which is to say thinking itself, is indeed somehow linked to a true condition of the universe. And this is to say in no foggy terms that we cannot have a thought without a correspondent transcendental communing that thereby gains for us that confidence for the known thing. 

So I’m not going to go on this line at this moment but just seeding some ideas right now. 

In the considering of the re-post below I just wanted to note the contradiction inherent in the conversation itself even as we might think that Jay Krishnamurti and the Bohm might be talking about actual true intelligences and possibilities beyond our regular living lives, The very discussion for closes itself and only indicates the situation of the being human in itself. And I believe it is this kind of contradiction that we need to come to terms with. Not coming to terms with how small we are in the universe or how limited we are in our knowledge, but exactly that our knowledge is indicating only itself. In one sense we can agree with Stephen Hawking, but I would say inasmuch as we agree with Stephen Hawking, we are fully invested in the reality of spiritual agents of transcendence. 

That being said I like Jay Krishnamurti.  🙃😊🙃

REPOST: Intelligence Beyond Thought

In 1980 Indian spiritual philosopher J. Krishnamurti met with physicist David Bohm to talk about “insight, illusion, awakening, transcendence, renewal, morality, the temporal, and the spiritual.”

awakening, consciousness, mind, spirit

If there was ever a question…

…Capitalism is marked as a Culture of death.


One has to wonder about intoxication. It seems to me the point of intoxication is to get high to feel good to have a good time. What does it say when people’s idea of getting high is to find the drug that brings the most close to death and a high probability of dying. Because this is exactly what occurs in the heroin community; people do not run from this drug, they run to it,  it’s what they want. 

Now think about the etymology of the word. ‘Heroin’ comes from the Latin for hero, I think it is really the German word for hero, because heroin and opium in general makes you feel great. Despite its strictly medicinal uses, opiates make you feel fucking good. But it is only when you do too much that you get nauseas or find the typical nodded out user. It seems like there may be some sort of short circuit going on in users that use heroin for the sole purpose of nodding out,  basically becoming unconscious, because the feeling right before one goes unconscious is missed because they end up unconscious. 

If we can consider society and its wholeness, we cannot reduce individual behavior to some sort of individual free agency of choice; free agency is a political designation. So philosophically speaking if we don’t limit ourselves to further categories of classifications as if they are dealing with essential universal elements, elements that somehow lay outside of a mythological cosmology,  we can find no mere coincidence in the idea of destitution of spirit and the culture of death. 

Carfentanil is elephant tranquilizer
Surge in overdose from carfentanil

The destruction of the transcendent. 

Evidence and verification. 

The beginning of this blog began with my question upon L of why he’s using jargon to convey a simple idea; in short why is he in bad faith.

It is not difficult for one to notice when they read my early essays of this blog that I had very little practical knowledge of Lorelle or his books, and yet indeed I knew exactly what he was talking about from the very first couple sentences I ever read of him. As I have said earlier in my blog, once a person understands the point of contention the rest follows automatically. One needs only gain an understanding of what vector and author is moving along, because there are only so many things to be said about the situation at hand. One of course can take one of these limited avenues and use it to say many other things, what I call issues of subsequence, and then the further question arises of whether these authors understand that their issues are indeed of subsequence and if they acknowledge the common factors of the issue at hand.

This is what I will be referring to when I speak about the significant event and the pocket veto. Through these vehicle terms we will be able to understand how various authors are able to come to their respective arguments. We thereby will be giving a description of how arguments arrive in their placement and meaning; this will not be so much another argument but rather will be a description, like a forensics of philosophical method. Because, as L notes, Philosophy (what I call conventional philosophy or conventional method) is indeed theology, and in so much as philosophy may be involved in discerning a proper ontology, it is rather more involved in developing a dogmatic religious cosmology.

Philosophy, Colonialism and Partition.

Perhaps the title should have included “non-philosophy”. lol

This talk concerns the opening whereby philosophy is indicated to its method through the ending that supersedes its domain. Specifically, and in the context of Francois Laruelle’s “Christo-fiction“, that which supersedes any conventional appropriation is the quantum. In particular, there is no philosophical posture that is able to bring any feasible critique against its own effective omniscience, omnipotence and proposed as assumed omnipresence. The indictment is made unto its method, which is the argumentative method that is made by agents of transcendence. This alternate posture is thus outside of (conventional) philosophy’s purview, since its route is one of scientific verification over the conventional argumentative method. This alternative method is thus of allowing for a particular framework in which philosophical experiments are allowed, but it no longer includes the framework within its domain of critique.

But we are only at the very preliminary stages of this work; we are in the long game. This talk is an attempt to lay the theoretical groundwork (the breaking of ground has already occurred with the likes of Laruelle, Badiou, Zizek and Latour, to mention only the few still living), to describe some of the conditions by which such a foundation is needed and will be laid. It departs, albeit significantly, with the recurrence embedded in the conventional method’s approach, whereby human beings have access to resources that while arising from some ‘unknown’ source (immanence, transcendence, biology, neurology, evolution, creation, or whatever…), a source that is never found but at all times presents itself within the discourse that proposes to be ‘finding it’ through the conventional method of delegated agents (what I say are ‘agents of transcendence’), nevertheless still function effectively to supply a true reality, elements of which I call ‘True Objects’; the delegation process instigated by humans is at all times assumed to have the support of providence, regardless of what people might assert as the discursive conditions of such providence (such argumentative establishments are redundant).

This alternative route, in its beginnings, is involved with the effort thereby of verification. Currently, seeing that the conventional philosophical method works to obscure facts, we are involved with creating an opening whereby the facts may be noted, upon which such a scientific method may be laid. The only way forward in the effort, it appears, is through the enactment of a partition.

 (I just noticed that it cut off about the last six minutes of the talk. Sorry). 

Philosophy, Colonialism and Partition.

The first Webcast of the Philosophical Hack

Two Routes, for another term…

I am finding, as I am reading “Christo Fiction”, that  so far Laruelle touches upon all the same ideas that I do, yet using different terms than I do. And actually I think the terms I used are much more simple into the point; I do not need a large dictionary in order to discern for people to understand what I’m saying.

For example, L uses ‘vectoriellity’ and ‘vector’; I too have used this term in describing the situation. and I like how he says “the quarter turn”, because it really sets in relief how philosophy always wants to subtract, to deconstruct, to pull apart and divide, as Laurel says, to lay everything within the context of a prior decision. The idea of a quarter turn I think is a good illustration.

The point is though I think that his should be taken more as a discourse to be verified, and where  it is argued against thereby might be a good indicator of a different order, a different orientation upon the object as I say, indeed a different vector of meaning is being placed upon a discourse that is ultimately foreign to that appropriation.

As i say the first order must be that of verifying, of placing a description of the matter at hand out for others to see so that others may verify that indeed what is being addressed is the same object. The view that sees such discourse as an argument or a promotion of a set of beliefs should be seen in its proper context, which is in Ls case and my case, a different vector than what is being evidenced with us, and consistent with L, without having to reduce his discourse to some sort of self aggrandization: for indeed the self aggrandizing is in the approach by the real identity. So when we begin to understand what he means by a unilateral duality, we have to also apply the very meaning to the situation that is being apprehended. The question: how is it possible that I know what Lorelle is saying? Do I make an argument for the reason why I know? Do I deny that he’s talking about a fact of the matter ? or do I confirm that indeed he’s talking about the same object that I understand?

Of course, Terrence (Blake, at Agent Swarm)  has a point, and it is a good point, a valid point, but it is a real point, the point that is made through the appropriation of Ls discourse as an argument or a proposal. So it is indeed that this real valid point does not address the matter at hand in the same vector as concerning L work and indeed my work. We consider such discussions of course, but in the last instance we should see that there is no overcoming what I am calling real faith, there is no convincing one through any sort of discourse that they should be converted to this understanding. This situation of complete discrepancy in meaning that cannot be bridged there by any sort of ‘banking theory’ of education is what I call a partition.

The question has got to be, what does it mean that at least me if not many other authors have come upon the same situation that L seems to be talking about? But more, how is it possible that people can disagree about it? What are they disagreeing about? Do not we already have an understanding of the object they seem to be referring to? And what is it that makes me want to refer to what is not the object, which is to say the supposed discourse about this object, to thereforesay that they are incorrect about the object ? In these moments , am I not merely referring to discourse as an object that is segregate or otherwise essentially separate from my appropriation of it in the same move that I am understanding of its meaning? 

But I think the more significant question is how did I know what L was referring to before I even encountered any of his texts? Which is to say how is it possible that I came/come accross Ls books as a sort of first grade book on the subject that he addresses? How is it possible? With no prior education upon even who L is or was. Without any primer from any other philosophers or considerate material; how is it possible that L reads so simply. 

And I don’t think I’m alone in this. 

I think it’s more that people refuse to believe that a sort of ‘innate intelligence'(if you will) is going on within themselves. And this is the say that they have faith in the potential involved in redundancy to alleviate its condition from itself. 

I for one do not think that is possible, and therefore call this impossibility, The bare fact of existence, a partition.
Below: from “Christo Fiction”, by Francois Laruelle. 

In a manner of speaking, I sm asking for verification of the results of the experiment. The experiment is not Ls nor my writing. The writings are the results, that are asking for verification from those who have gone through the experiment.
I am vger.”