Suspension of Anachronism in Philosophy? 

Just a pondering…

When I watch the newer Sherlock Holmes movie I just had a awareness about the date. Just looking at their outfit in the setting and clothes it’s impossible to not know that you know late 19th century. Despite the modern fighting techniques and such — One cannot help but feel a certain date when you watch Gunsmoke or wild wild West, or bonanza. Or how about Metropolis. 

Whenever we see these movies or shows one does not have a sense at all that these periods and stories (whether. Contrived like the Sherlock Holmes movie or actual like the gun smoke shows ) are to take place contemporary with our watching them. Every moment of context is mediated by the idea that these shows have occurred in a different time.  And the sense of time automatically has a certain category of understanding knowledge perception date attached to them. 

A book that comes to mind is the big book of Alcoholics Anonymous. When you read that you get a distinct feeling of date. Some of the phrases that he uses, in that book in order to understand what they’re saying you almost have to look it up in a dictionary. 

Or even read old science fiction novels like HG Wells or HP Lovecraft. Isaac Asimov. It’s difficult not to ‘feel’the date. 

I’m sure everyone is understanding what I’m getting at by now. 

Somehow with philosophy I don’t really have that kind of view upon books usually. For some reason most of the time when I read books on philosophy I read them kind of from a sense that they concern me now as their content is appearing to me at that moment. Reading Kierkegaard somehow I take his writing within a sense of style rather than in a sense of time. Similarly Hagel feels more like a style to me. I suppose I have to temper my perception of Plato or Aristotle to that of the author who translates them though. 

I was just considering Hurssel logical investigations (i’m going to venture into that fortress soon) and just reading Wikipedia’s summary of his arguments as a sort of primer (since all my appropriations of phenomenology has been through other authors and summaries and analyses, I figure it’s time I get down to the original meat) it struck me how the argument or issue that at least wiki is saying that logical investigations addresses ‘feels’to me dated. Strangely enough reading Plato doesn’t feel to me the same kind of date. Actually I’m thinking about all the various authors have read, it’s strange how I have perception of date through different manners of their presentation; I read something of Lessing recently and I couldn’t help but feel less a date as an anachronism of argumentbut more by his style. Bertrend Russell has a style that always strikes me as 1920; I don’t know why.

It is kind of weird inpondering this topic. 

I suppose it is because of my philosophical position. But I’m not sure, if except add a somewhat young age, I viewed the discussion of objects as a discussion of things segregate from my understanding of them. It is interesting that at least wiki speaks of Hursserls consideration within a sort of automatic understanding of the situation. Things’out there’ and the possibility of that situation. To me, that is such a strange concept that it is difficult even to place the very idea in discourse. I find what seems such an easy assumption in Wikipedia, even as I understand what it is saying clear to me , difficult for me to speak of when I go to try and describe it. That is weird. 

But nevertheless that type of argument that Hursel was I guess attempting to overcome (we shall see as I will be reading it soon) seems to me anachronistic,  it ‘feels’ to me dated. 


But the point I suppose I’m trying to make is that I for one don’t take philosophical books automatically with in a historically temporal appropriation. Somehow I seem to take all philosophical books upon a level playing field, discerning their merits and defficiencies by the meaningful content that I gain from them, appropriating A sense of time from the actual argument (most of the time I suppose even though I have said sometimes style just hits me). 

I find that strange. If someone was to present to me a mechanical device from 100 years ago, I would not dismiss it on it’s perhaps lack of modern functionality. I would dismiss it instantly upon the very fact that it is 100 years old, and then bring it in to have some Modern conception . When I read HG Wells I’m not considering his science fiction as a contemporary piece; I might extrapolate his ideas and see how they might compare to what is occurring now, but I don’t take his writing as a piece that occurs now.

There is something about historical ideology, style as well as topics and approaches to topics , that categorizes certain ideas with in a temporal scheme, and that some of these ideas tend to avoid this automatic categorization. 
I’m sure there’s much philosophical speculation that can be found within this pondering.

But I suppose that the oddity has something to do with innate ideas and the idea of a stratified common humanity. 

Do You Love Me: Music Philosophical Theory. 

I’m beginning with a typical theme of this music theory, this philosophy of music, with Nick Cave and the bad seeds song

Do You Love Me, part 1“.

Beginning in this way we notice all the facets involved of many philosophers. The first that comes to mind is Alain Badiou and the idea that the philosopher is concerned with one thing. Theodor Adorno’s Negative dialectics come to mind also. Soren Kierkegaard and his teleological suspension of ethical and his piece on Don Giovanni, as well as most of his books. Derrida also comes to mind, in particular the book I’m reading now, “Of Spirit”. And at that even Heidegger’s Dasien. We might even also see that it is not difficult to consider some of the Speculative Realists and Graham Harman’s object ontology. In fact there is a whole library of western philosophers’ ideas that can be applied to just this one song in a way to where the application removes the possibility of doubt that there may be a linkage of philosophy to art.

I have asked myself why do we find philosophers referring to art in their philosophy? We have Heidegger involved with Friedrich Hölderlin; Kierkegarrd considers Mozart; Quentin Meillassoux takes apart Stephane Mallarme; Harman got into H.P. Lovecraft; there are plenty others. But what strikes me is that noone (no one? That I have noticed, anyways; I could be very wrong (can someone help me out??)) has been considering art that is happening at the time of the philosophy. What I mean is, it appears to me that all these philosophers only consider artists of their (relative) past. Why are all these philosophers bringing past forms into relevancy of our time? Are there no current and living artists that may represent the significance that seems to only occur in old dead artists?

Now, as I said in the other post; I am am not talking about some cultural philosophical analysis the likes to reify themes of social justice or ideological evangelism of recursive ontologies. Slovaj Zizek is great in this regard; his is ideological recursively in its most immediate incarnation; his is the mark of the closed distance, he is the example of his own ‘filling’ of his own parallax gap. We could write a whole book on what is occurring with Zizek, but then by then end of it, never get further than anything Zizek has already said himself; suffice it to say that when we begin to understand my work, let alone his work, then we might also begin to have a baring upon what is occurring for a number of philosophers, if not philosophy itself in general. This brings to mind certain authors, and as well (again) the issue I treat most everywhere in my work: I am not sure we need to plaster over an issue with thick, viscous jargon and dense conceptual acrobatics in order to find out what is occurring. Though an idea might be entertaining in its conceptual gymnastics and the dexterity and or flexibility of thought that is required to understand them might be fun to consider and talk about (like a rollercoaster), often enough it is the assumption of depth in what appears as complex that amounts to true nonsense and really gets us nowhere besides spinning in a theoretical circus. When we begin, as well as when we are proceeding, we should always keep in mind the question as to if we are actually contributing to something significant or if we are merely creating self-aggrandizing conceptual pleasentries for social mobility circles. Are we getting anywhere or are we risking nothing.

Blah; enough of my proselytizing. Back to the point.

When we speak of a ‘first’ philosophy, we must keep in mind the meaning that I suggested in my post “Being Decay”, and see that we have settled in the land of what has been typically called ‘Continental’ philosophy, but likewise that arena from which we find a further divergence, that is, in so much a what is ‘continental’ perhaps has become merely another conventional philosophy; whatever its significance was, we might be able to notice that the destitution of spirit (see my earlier notes on Derrida’s book) marks a collapse of continental arena; more precisely, the move of what could be the point of the continental designation is into what is ‘destitution’, or of ‘desolation’. It is this desolation that the Postmoderns mark by their attempt to ‘pull it back’ from the nothingness, the void that it fell into. This is the irony of the post-Postmoderns such as Laruelle and Badiou, as well as Zizek. This is to say that the idea of democratic multi-vocality is itself a voice of the destitute spirit.

Our concern is that never (it seems) do or are modern philosophers considering an art that is actively present, meaning here, by contrast and therefore the spirit that is indeed destitute, that spirit that is indeed living on desolation row, instead of attempting to deny the fact of its existence. The reason why philosophy, as a philosophy that concerns ‘spirit’ ((with or without parentheses)) of any sort, is destitute is because the spirit by which it proposes to be concerned in indeed lacking. We might then reconsider what I mean when I say that conventional philosophy deals with everything from a distance, but proposes it within a condition of intimacy and why I say that what is theoretical occurs at a distance, but further that this is not always the case, but is only the case in a particular condition of Being, i.e. that ‘spirit’ of Being-there that is destitute of spirit in as much as it exists through a denial of this situation. We shall elaborate on this facet later.

To wit; Nick Cave is still alive and playing concerts! But we will also notice that his situation evidences the transition (the conversion? Harman?) that had already occurred, what we notice as Postmodern, which is an apology for Modern, that still had a plausible purchase upon authenticity in its attempt to rescue the the wayward spirit, and the post-Postmodern, which is an apology for the Postmodern not being able to rescue it. In other words, we find that the German Idealists (in a very general, as well as very specific sense, as well as the French and others) ironically were correct about somethings while being entirely incorrect of those same things. We begin to understand what Kant was talking about, what he was addressing, and we see how the closing of the distance that appeared in the Modern found its closure now in the explanation wherein the destitution of spirit marks, but not in some sort of anti-spiritual atheist biological evolutionist continuance of ‘Being there’ ontology, but rather exactly in the Being-there having no substance, but entirely consituted in material; what we view as historical does indeed function within a presumption of the material of substance. Yet we find the closing marks that point of divergence because the closing that is the meaningful nothingness, the coming upon the nihilistic universe, did not end anything. We find, inevitably, if we can be honest, that it is not that somehow ‘nothing’ is at the base of all things, but indeed, that the rational route by which it founds substance in nothing is the destitute spirit, but further, that the only manner, the only possibility through which such destitution can be noticed is by the spirit that is not destitute, which is to say now, not real.

We begin to get the picture that philosophers sit in their library chair and ponder deep and significant elements of philosophical lore through long hours of reading and study of other literary folk who (it seems) must be dead. We cannot but ask: What risk was wagered? If it was anything less than death then we have to question just what was come upon by such novel considerations. Strangely enough, Heidegger can be seen in the attempt to buck the trend of ‘academic safety in distance’ in as much as he does indeed talk about “the work of art”. I admit, though, that I myself do not go out an look for philosophy-art, but somehow I feel that there should be at least some who are engaging philosophy and art that are contemporaneous with one another. Here is one artist/blogger I have come across. The impression I get from much of our current (state of conventional) philosophy is that same age-old image of the scholar who never encounters anything real (dangerous), while proposing great treaties on the nature of reality; they surround themselves with the ideological, epistemological, ontological, walls built of discourse, isolation, but painted with the veneer of life of the Everyone, of the masses, the common human being, of social commentary. But this is what the academic institution is for, what it does, and why it does: It supports the real ideological paradigm and supplies the rationale for why it is supplying the only route for what can possibly be true. We the call this type of philosophy conventional, but likewise we call it, unapologetically, real.

But what of the actual experience of life? What of the engagement with all things legal and illegal outside the safety of the theoretical world? Here we have a distinct possibility that brought about the Continental-Analytic distinction, what it used to mean. Heidegger, for all his insecurity posed as confidence, at least took a stand, however questionable it may have been. We have to ask as we read, for example, “Being and Time”, what the fk is he talking about? This has got to be the question that leads us into the Continental tradition, and the same one as well that finds it having dissolved in its attempt to be real. This is Heidegger’s (WW2) mistake, as well as all those German idealists; the irony of Heidegger is the truth of the falsity, the forensic analysis of ‘spirit’ that does not understand that its method is destructive; the ‘question’ is the imperative of historical manifestation, which is at once the move toward this ‘spirit/world Being-there’ that is destroyed upon its implementation (what struggle are we talking about here?). It does a disservice to the meaning of them to attempt to bring their ideas into our reality as if it still has relevance as a living philosophy. Even then it was already dead; it just had to come to a re-cognition; that this was indeed the case.

When we begin to see that this closure is not one upon some ‘universal’ or ‘common human’ spirit, then we can begin to see that what has been theorized within a horizon of a closing of distance, of the ‘shrinking’ of the distance between theory and its object, has reached its apogee in the present, now, and we can start to understand what I might mean by a theory of Rock and Roll, or a philosophy of Rock, or even music theory.

A sort of side note: We must have compassion and a certain sympathy, indeed an empathy, for Badou, when, as of late I am told, he appears to have come upon ‘love and happiness’ after a life-long philosophical journey. For it is possible to view him, his work and perhaps his history, as a result of being caught in the ‘mistake’ of the academy, of finding his theory through a closing distance. Indeed; what else could Badou mean but that we, as philosophers, are concerned with one thing? And what else could Hegel have meant by his voluminous statement?

With all this in mind, consider the lyrics to part 1 of “Do You Love Me”:

“Do You Love Me?”

I found her on a night of fire and noise
Wild bells rang in a wild sky
I knew from that moment on
I’d love her till the day that I died
And I kissed away a thousand tears
My lady of the Various Sorrows
Some begged, some borrowed, some stolen
Some kept safe for tomorrow
On an endless night, silver star spangled
The bells from the chapel went jingle-jangle
.
She was given to me to put things right
And I stacked all my accomplishments beside her
Still I seemed so obselete and small
I found God and all His devils insider her
In my bed she cast the blizzard out
A mock sun blazed upon her head
So completely filled with light she was
Her shadow fanged and hairy and mad
Our love-lines grew hopelessly tangled
And the bells from the chapel went jingle-jangle
.
She had a heartful of love and devotion
She had a mindful of tyranny and terror
Well, I try, I do, I really try
But I just err, baby, I do, I error
So come and find me, my darling one
I’m down to the grounds, the very dregs
Ah, here she comes, blocking the sun
Blood running down the inside of her legs
The moon in the sky is battered and mangled
And the bells from the chapel go jingle-jangle
.
All things move toward their end
I knew before I met her that I would lose her
I swear I made every effort to be good to her
I swear I made every effort not to abuse her
Crazy bracelets on her wrists and her ankles
And the bells from the chapel went jingle-jangle

And then, once we see this announcement, this proclamation of the situation in the present, of the present already occurred philosophically, later we find Nick speaking in more certain terms of the spirit in its very destitution, yet within a longing, such that the recourse of such spirit is to prostitute itself, for that is all the substance it has left, all the value it holds in its destitution. In this we caution against holding identities apart to say “this” instead of “that”, that ‘this’ interpretation is actually more real that ‘that’ one; of course, what is real determines is own real-truth, but as it is already determined in its offense, in its resentment (do I hear Nietzsche?). In desperation, people cry out for more institutional definition, so in the destitution of spirit do people look more and call out for what is ‘more real’; hence the recent popularity of (what we might call) the “New Realism” (including Speculative Realism).

 

Do You Love Me, part2

“Do You Love Me? (Part 2)”

Onward! And Onward! And Onward I go
Where no man before could be bothered to go
Till the soles of my shoes are shot full of holes
And it’s all downhill with a bullet
This ramblin’ and rovin’ has taken its course
I’m grazing with the dinosaurs and the dear old horses
And the city streets crack and a great hole forces
Me down with my soapbox, my pulpit
The the theatre ceiling is silver star-spangled
And the coins in my pocket go jingle-jangle
.
There’s a man in the theatre with girlish eyes
Who’s holding my childhood to ransom
On the screen there’s a death, there’s a rustle of cloth
And a sickly voice calling me handsome
There’s a man in the theatre with sly girlish eyes
On the screen there’s an ape, a gorilla
There’s a groan, there’s a cough, there’s a rustle of cloth
And a voice that stinks of death and vanilla
This is a secret, mauled and mangled
And the coins in my pocket go jingle-jangle
.
The walls of the ceiling are painted in blood
The lights go down, the red curtains come apart
The room is full of smoke and dialogue I know by heart
And the coins in my pocket jingle-jangle
As the great screen crackled and popped
The clock of my boyhood was wound down and stopped
And my handsome little body oddly propped
And my trousers right down to my ankles
Yes, it’s onward! And upward!
And I’m off to find love
Do you love me? If you do, I’m thankful
.
This city is an ogre squatting by the river
It gives life but it takes it away, my youth
There comes a time when you just cannot deliver
This is a fact. This is a stone cold truth.
Do you love me?
I love you, handsome
But do you love me?
Yes, I love you, you are handsome
Amongst the cogs and the wires, my youth
Vanilla breath and handsome apes with girlish eyes
Dreams that roam between truth and untruth
Memories that become monstrous lies
So onward! And Onward! And Onward I go!
Onward! And Upward! And I’m off to find love
With blue-black braclets on my wrists and ankles
And the coins in my pocket go jingle-jangle

 

But this is not the end of spirit. For the nothingness that we come upon is nothingness because it is not nothingness; it is a mark announcing that the route of reason that came upon its insubstantial basis is indeed incorrect in its estimations.

Secular is a real designation of a particular route, a real route, just as religious and spiritual is likewise real material categories. All designation of a particular meaningful paradigm (mythology) has been worked to its end. A pass is enacted that then allows for reality to move apparently unhindered. We find a similarity to the efforts of Bruno Latour, for an opening is needed since reality is found to rely upon invisible passes that shut out the truth of the situation; something has shaken loose, something that shows reality as a faulty estimation.

More in a bit.

Rock and Roll theory; Music theory. 

Just as I was considering my last post in reflection itdawned on me that when we say ‘Music theory’, we mean something different then when we say for example ‘political theory’, or the like. 

.

As someone who was raised in music, and who was a music major for one and a half years, I was struck just now by the idea of’Music theory’ because with that last post of mine I use the tags ‘Rock ‘n’ roll’ and ‘theory’ and it Dondonde me that what I meant by rock ‘n’ roll theory is probably not what usually comes to mind if someone was to say music theory. And upon a quick search of rock ‘n’ roll theory, Rock ‘n’ roll theory philosophy, Music theory, I was confirmed to what I already knew. 

Music theory is not a theory of music. It is not a theory of the art or rather the artistic appropriation of the art of music. Music theory is more like a science of how to make music. Even more philosophical approach to music usually will only game you a history of music. In fact, though I am somewhat limited in my library of knowledge, Soren Kierkegaard is probably one of the very few people that is put forth any sort of philosophy or theory on music. 

Now of course i’m not meaning this in the sense of some ontology of music, or some reason for music, or some psychological therapeutic benefits of music. 

In some post to come as part of the notes that will be going into my next book, I will be putting forth a theory of music, but specifically rock ‘n’ roll theory, which could better be called a philosophy of rock ‘n’ roll. But again not unto itself as some sort of ontological transcendental psyche moving sound of the spheres spiritual blessedness of God and Satan. Rather it will be specifically tied in to contemporary philosophical motives, and elaborating within the work that I’ve already done and continue to do. 

Colonizing Rock and Roll (on the surface). 

Some might say that rock ‘n’ roll is a product of the colonizing
Westbut I would think it be more proper to say that rock ‘n’ roll was a reaction to the normalizedregular predictableMundaneand rank-and-file of modern progress

.

Like every random crass and chaotic act, is not difficult to see how rock ‘n’ roll it’s self has been colonized. We might even say that it is a symbol of the last bastion of freedom, where freedom itself in the process of having conflict with the self-awareness of freedom has finally relinquished it’s chaos for The denial of regularity. 

Now I don’t mean to pick on This Band in particular; I am sure the live action of their shows defies the constrained recorded version of their songs, and I’m sure though music and rock ‘n’ roll has indeed embraced it’s business side of things more confidently then the members of bands themselves have in the past, such rock ‘n’ roll bands hailing to their historical mentors of hard rock do most likely have a certain air of this rock ‘n’ roll attitude that people hold so dear. 

And I’m not particularly picking on a certain style of rock ‘n’ roll or even the straightforward traditional 345 piece rock ‘n’ roll band. 

It is more the modern media version of the music industry that seems to indicate best what is occurred. 

Again it is not so much that perhaps this band is not cool, good or not really rockin. It is more that it is so simple to do. And I don’t mean this like you don’t have to practice to get good, or even that it takes good songwriting skills. It’s that the it’s become formulaic, but more that any band can get together and spend the money and get in a studio and write up a review to put on the Internet and…ta da! It is that such music has become just as routine is having a House plant in your living room. It only matters what category you want to fit in, and a certain amount of people will probably like it, and you will probably be able to make a certain kind of living off being in a rock ‘n’ roll band. Perhaps I’m saying that the risk is been minimalized and so rock ‘n’ roll itself has become destitute of, perhaps,authenticity. 

But this is nothing new. Frank Zappa back in the late 60s early 70s was already proclaiming that rock is dead. And the Who ‘long live rock’! Even the punks who had sought to read juvenate rock ‘n’ roll, by the early 80s was proclaiming, on one hand the band Crass yelling punk is dead, and on the other hand, The Exploited also yelling that Punk’s not dead. I mean; whats really going on? 

It seems now that we have fully excepted that every artistic form will never achieve the freedom it likes to proclaim, this generation proceeds anyways under brackets, within parentheses, with tongue cemented to the side of once cheek, in denial while at the same time because of the full recognition of times past functioning in a type of ironic recognition. 

Just consider what is occurring when we are describing a band and it’s music. Are the descriptors really specifying anything original about this particular band? I mean isn’t every rock ‘n’ roll band ‘powerful’? Can’t we say that any singer who is halfway good ‘nuanced’? And I’m not even sure why a rock ‘n’ roll singer would want to be nuanced, especially when they’re playing hard rock, and especially if we want to call it ‘raw’. It seems that there originality is not even an issue because then they mention other famous Rock musicians. It’s as if they’re describing to me an apple at a grocery store, so I’ll be able to determine what kind of Apple I want: ‘this is hard rock with a strawberry finish and tangy body semi crispy’. I mean listen to the cuts, and read the review. Is there any necessary correlation between the two except that they happen to be associated with one webpage promotion? I’m sure I could easily find some other bands video and take exactly that same webpage promotion and plug that video into that webpage and it would have the same amount of meaning. That description that promotion does nothing to distinguish the band. Listen to the cut. I’m sure easily I could find another 50 bands that sound exactly the same as them. It literally in this modern music world is like going to the grocery store. (and I know this is nothing new; but instead speaks to my philosophical work so far is orientation up on objects). 

It literally is that there is no distinction between say hard rock and pop rock except the very name that were attaching to it, except that these folks might wear a particular style of leather jacket and these other folks put sharp studs in their sleeves, and these guys wear T-shirts with catchy logos on them and sneakers, and these guys do their hair funny. 

For me, and I am musician so take it as you will, The image that this band is trying to promote for themselves (and again I don’t mean to pick on just this band, because they’re not philosophers and they’re just doing what they think they should do to follow their rock ‘n’ roll dream just like everyone else  — but perhaps that’s what I have issue with [complaint; whine])seems to defy the very image that they’re trying to promote of themselves. It’s like the image they’re giving us is it the exact opposite of the image they have. 

I’m not a pessimist; though I may be a party pooper. But I already know the people don’t really care about this music theory. And they just want to hear music that sounds good to them; including myself. 

Actually I think the whole thing is pretty damn silly. 

Being Decay. 

{More notes…”Of Spirit”}

I might put it like this:

With reference to the repost below, in one sense, we’re dealing with just sheer numbers, the number of human beings. And so to talk about decay or thought or the decay of intelligent thinking so to speak, is to arouse a certain kind of nostalgia, a particular longing, while also situating this longing in the facts of the matter from which the heartache arises. The tone may sound like accusation, pointing at a situation to show how it is wrong or incorrect. But in our present ruminations we have moved beyond such polemical absolutes, such transcendental Essential absolutes; we already know that any position is already compromised within the knowledge by which the situation exists.

This is the issue with philosophy, The issue that Francois Laruelle attempts to explicate and describe. Yet he falls into the same problem that he is trying to escape; apparently , he is trying to communicate some sort of secret or esoteric meaning . For the religiousness that people find in his writings is based in the idea that there is an essential linkage that threads between basic universal objective substrates that are not only reflected in their essence through discourse, but further are indicated in there essential truth as things in themselves. The idea that discourse can add or subtract to the meaning of this disconnection is itself a misunderstanding, or for better terms and in terms “of spirit”,  a substantive grounding of the destitution of spirit.

We must consider what kind of experience we are having when we seek an answer in an authors text. If I have a question that I’m asking, and I look for that answer any text and find it, what have I found? What is occurring that the question that arose in me to reference a lack has found its correspondence and fulfillment in the text before me of another author?

These questions and others like them should be the founding questions of a kind of first philosophy. It is the avoidance of these kind of questions that bring the duplicity that some authors notice overtly, and other authors comment upon and notice in passing.

*

Getting back to the initial impetus of this post-

If we can trust a sort of evolutionary history of humanity, where apparently at some point there were quite a few less of us in the past and much much much more of us now; if we can rely upon the idea that there were relatively small cultural centers or groups of human beings that were segregated from each other as they were sparsely scattered across the globe by whatever means, then we might be able to imagine that within each of these groups discourse proceeded to supply an inherently cohesive group identity. So as as these groups got larger, each intersection of boundary disrupted the previous Group identity, such that upon the meeting of two or more groups the identity of group and the meaning of group in itself had to be adjusted. This process and motion we might see has produced a kind of global group now, and in it’s saturation of meaning, the overlapping of boundaries coming up on boundaries coming up on boundaries, and the negotiation of what this means for identity itself, and for group cohesion itself, is it self highly problematic, almost to the point of being unsolvable.

*

These two dynamics can be said to be at the root of the situation that we call reality, as well as the basic substance or issue that more than a few authors of the past 30 or 40 or so years have been addressing. Any other issue that arises from this cauldron of fragmented boundaries is what I call an issue of subsequence. And as well the reason why we can begin to be able to discern as well as describe the difference between two types of philosophy, two types that have been historically conflated into one effort due to the relatively straightforward capacity for addressing the interfacing of group boundaries (or at least the assertion of an ability for approaching, understanding and negotiating definite boundaries). Yet due to our current situation we can find of such two philosophies, what I call two routes, that we can no longer afford, or rather it does a discredit to the progress of humanity in general, to continue in this delusion of a common arena of philosophical consideration.

The point is to clean up philosophical consideration; not to discredit some forms, but rather merely clean up the arena so we can stop going around in circles, discussing and arguing the same points over and over under different terms, stop the unnecessary activity of fending off arguments that obviously are not considering the same (argumentative) object, as well wasting time in the attempt to describe how such approaches are incorrect in their approach (?); the basis of the non sequitur is that the applicant is incapable of understanding the object because their approach is already incorrect, and no form of description is able to gain access to the incorrect base of approach. The traditional categories should be more properly understood as concerning subsequent discussions, for though I am speaking of teleology as opposed to ontological considerations, it is that such teleology actually moves along a different meaningful area, again, what I call, for lack of a term right now, not real. My example is often computers. I am not too informed about computers, but we might discern philosophy as analogous to the different levels of computer engineering. For example: html does function along its won rules of grammar and syntax, and while we might be able to use the same kind of strategies in lower level computing, the language itself in not compatible to understand the functioning off such levels. I propose that conventional-traditional philosophy is a higher level language that proposes to be able to consider and operate within lower level operations and languages. I propose that we need to discern philosophical capacities similar to computer languages, and 1) stop the incessant privilege that supposes a universal access upon texts, and 2) stop being offended at limited access and the obvious limit of the traditional-conventionally taught maxim of a common human spirit.

*

One example of this kind of subsequence: The segregating of oneself upon the occasion of a text, of referencing another author from the perspective, or upon the orientation where the author is supplying information inherently and universally separated or held from that reader. This type of approach is upon not only texts, but is indeed reflective of an approach upon the universe itself (there is nothing outside of the text, but more properly: There is nothing outside of the terms); but keep in mind, I am not asserting or promoting a kind of ‘spiritual return’, some sort of ‘cosmic consciousness’, some suspended ‘true spiritual human essence of Being’ nor some kind of religious Presentism. These proposals are not concerning an ontology of things. Quite different; the concern here is with teleology. I am merely stating facts, and one of the facts is that when such a statement is made, often people will take the statement as referencing a kind of true essential substrate of consciousness. This is the same kind of person, of a certain orientation upon objects, that evidences a certain route; when encountering a text and there is a significant meaning that is come upon, this route already is confirmed by the standard of real estimations and the meaning is taken unto itself to have been gained through some secret channel, as if held in some special alcove, that some mysterious as to yet unknown chamber of being has been opened for that reader, but further, and more significant to the meaning of noticing this view, that this mystery is particular to the individual such that it is a secret such that it is something that is real and yet it is much larger than the reality that the reader had known up till that point. In short, it is a kind of supernatural or esoteric knowledge that everyone is coming upon but often sanctioned through institutional norms, in fact, supported through slight-of-hand argumentative strategies that further argues as it institutionalizes term-object identities, in particular, the clausal structure (term-object) that substantiates that terms relate real novelty (as this novelty it gained through the ‘great unknown’ of intuition (God, for any other term).

This type of orientation is already invested in the inflation of identity, because the route that is most often taken out of that situation is the route that keeps the information secret for the benefit of conveying to the rest of humanity the greatness or the specialness of that person (or institution), the communion for whom was granted this secret knowledge. This is the basis of capitalism, the basis of enlightenment thinking; agents of transcendence negotiating with each other within or on a horizontal ‘worldly’ plane. This inherently meaningful given situation allows for the presumption that everyone in the discussion is being honest, but in fact the hidden platform upon which this honesty appears is itself a kind of institutional allowance for deception. This hidden or withheld aspect is scarcity, the ‘excess’ by which interest may be leveraged against other (real universal) Beings. For no longer is humanity assumed upon a level playing field by this acolyte; indeed the reader that is come upon by such significance is already viewing the world as if it is a place that he or she is supposed to assert their righteousness upon. Hence the group that is made from this type of orientation upon text is one of justified universal hierarchal order. Our current situation is that of settling the scaffolding by which meaning can ethically substantiate such hierarchical norms; this is the condition we are calling the destitution of spirit, the real occurrence of the world. The idea of of ‘relative belief’ marks the beginning of the destitution of spirit because ‘belief’ is the evidence of consciousness in the effort to ‘retrieve’ spirit within the functioning scheme of meaning, within the arena of ‘given’, which is to say, as an effective and thus ‘unquestioned’ object.

Once these norms find placement, then spirit, as a meaningful construct, begins again, to return within the scaffolding as a mark of the beginning of another ‘domination’, of another ‘colonial modern’, that then comes to question itself, again to be left in its destitution. This is the long game, of an ontology that is determined by a teleology that is, for all meaningful (real) purposes, not real.

*

It is a longing because the alternate route of which I speak is that route that knows the assertion of identity is faulty, and yet despite that fault supplies the only route into real human negotiation. The role of such ‘unenlightened’ people is best determined through the granting of truth by its simultaneous revealing of its own fallacy.

Anyways…

Here’s the REPOST:
Death of Culture: On the Decay of Thinking

It is very likely that never in human history have there been as many treatises, essays, theories and analyses focused on culture as there are today. This fact is even more surprising given that culture, in the meaning traditionally ascribed to the term, is now on the point of disappearing. And perhaps it has already […]
https://socialecologies.wordpress.com/2016/08/07/death-of-culture-on-the-decay-of-thinking/

Yeah: Capitalism and its redundant contradiction.

Thats how i read it anyways. Doubly contradictory; not relinquishing its grip as the sand keeps fallling through; not realizing its limit; not recognizing its route is based in a type of argumentative power that is faulty.

Anyways; dig it: 

REPOST: 

Marxists desperately need a new vision for the future

Given its ultimate result, this may sound bizarre, but I think Marxists need their own Manhattan Project for the 21st century. Rather than aiming to level cities, this project will openly aim for the complete automation of production and the complete elimination of wage labor. A global movement that sets this almost inconceivable aim will […]

labor hours reduction

https://therealmovement.wordpress.com/2016/08/05/marxists-desperately-need-a-new-vision-for-the-future/

Dig It.

Not entirely my slot for music, but What  i like about this strate forward rock trio is it breaks with the cut-out female mode of pop allowance.  

And Why we always gotta be trying to be 23 years old in rock music? 

Why we always gotta be referring whats cool and hot to kids? 

Keep rockin Shadowqueen. 

Check it out:

Repost: SHADOWQUEEN

“Where has this band been for years?? This is true feel GOOD rock! The BEST high quality rock you’ll find anywhere in today’s music world!  – Metal Castle. In a just world SHADOWQUEEN would be filling the rock stadiums of the world! – Only Australian Music Listen to the Track Here: https://youtu.be/iXTvkyoIdos Combining the styles […]
https://hearmerawmusic.wordpress.com/2016/08/03/shadowqueen/