Yes. Philosophy?

Philosophy, which, according to Aristotle, begins in wonder has embraced pedantry and protocols and office charts. Can it be saved from itself?Philosophy, which, according to Aristotle, begins in wonder, has embraced pedantry and protocols and office charts. Can it be saved from itself?Continue reading . . . News source: Arts & Letters Daily;stronggt;begins-in-wonderlt;stronggt;-has-embraced-pedantry-and-protocols-and-office-charts-Can-it-be-saved-from-itself.aspx

Definition of Object. 

“an object is a postmodern subject”

-Lance Kair. 

Granted I’m not laying out my whole theoretical base here in these comments. If you’re interested I’ve written a couple books  or you could check out the rest my blog. 
Objects may go along with representational thinking but I would challenge anyone to not have some thinking that is representational despite how you wanted to define it. 
The problems we are confronting in our day is the perpetuation of postmodern kind of D construction or postmodern kind of application of theoretical forces. 
I simply take The method of such applications and the results as facts. When we consider the ontological result of what we might generalize as postmodern thought, my argument is that it is found to be an incorrect method. And that due to this incorrect manner, what I call an orientation, I place the whole tradition which supposes to find itself in the postmodern condition in the category of object. 
What this means then is that objects are subject to postmodern condition. And that the subject being at self an agent of post modernity itself becomes an object of its own estimations, it’s own constructions as well as its own deconstructions. The totality that this situation indicates can be called thus an object in itself, because it defines itself by its limitations. 
This is where I see Adams robust ontology, The ability to have such an analysis, text From, again despite all the theoretical postulates and name associations. 
I have a feeling all the stuff is going to be in my third book which will be out sometime in 2017.
For those interested, you can find my latest book HERE.

Ontological Robustity ;) 

What makes an ontology “robust”?It often happens to me that when I begin using a term ironically, it eventually works its way into my sincere vocabulary. That is exactly what happened with “robust,” which I initially intended as mockery of Radical Orthodoxy’s gold standard of ontological adequacy. At a certain point, however, I realized that I was using it […]

C.S.P. New Album out soon!


The new album by

The Covert Sound Philosophy

will be out soon! Get free download of early release single from the album “Virtual Improvisation” by leaving your email HERE or goto (and help me out so I can see if the new code worked !)

In the mean time, or just for the sound of it, check out some great tunes by

The Damned

There Anit No Sanity Clause

Thanks For the Night

and, of course, the theme of the evening

Curtain Call

The Proposal of Science of Philosophy, and the Partition.

Just some notes on Laruelle’s “christo-fiction”, but notes that others might witness, i guess…

I have said as much that the only Way we could have a science of the type we are talking about (as i have recent posts a few ago) is to establish a partition. I speak about this partition in a few ways but they all really indicate the same basic situation. Here I mean to indicate it as an initial gesture,  or as a necessary preliminary step, which involves an admitting of certain type of agreement, but all of which really coalesce in the development of a fact, what we could call a philosophical fact, but more, once we really understand the situation at hand, what we must call an object. 

And this is to say that we should see what science does and how it proceeds; despite what subjective bias might be involved in the procedure of what we call science, we should really see that science does not question it’s object. It does not bifurcate itself upon itself, and by this we also notice that that is the problem of philosophy, The reason why there is such antagonism to developing a science of philosophy, so to speak, of the phenomenal subject — it’s because philosophys whole point is based on a subjects intuition of objective material of which is the perpetually argued over in the space allowed through a transcendental agency. 

But I don’t so much propose that the methods of this philosophy are wrong or incorrect as Larueele wants to say; I merely say that such philosophy deals in real things. 

Nevertheless we have with L a confirmation of how such as science might arise: 

A closed site: A space found through the erection of a partition. 

Star Wars and philosophy, part 3: Entry into non-philosophy?

Long story short, it takes the Force to hold the universe governed universe together. Obi-Wan Kenobi even says in “a New Hope” that it  surrounds us, penetrates us, it binds the galaxy together.

In the story we have three representatives of each attitude upon the Force. Master (Obi-Wan), ignorant (Luke), acknowledging but unbelieving (Han Solo). In considering the Dark Side of the Force, we are to understand that the Force indeed runs through everything and is a kind of thing that can be used for good and bad. In the case of the context of the Story (IV), the Dark side is presently controlling the galaxy or universe. The Dark Side is where one uses the Force through Will-power, as will is coordinated with what a person wants, the chief determinator of want being the frustration and anger that can arise when things do not go the way one wants.

The ‘good’ or ‘light’ (?) side of the Force thus occurs oppositely. Here, the person is supposed to move in correspondence with the Force; ones wants are supposed to work ‘with’ the Force, such that things and events are not to be ‘forced’ to happen, but instead occur as the will acquiesce to the motions of the Force, with the added stipulation that there is balance in the Force. One’s Willpower is supposed to be a vehicle of the Force, and one os supposed to clear one’s mind (Will) so that the Force will allow the Jedi to do amazing things, and this, due to the correspondence of the moving of the universe with the agent of the Force (the Jedi).

Now we can wonder about this balancing. Are we to think that the universe is in balance when the Dark Side is not existing, or when the Dark Side works in its proper manner, in its proper place?

But we do not need to move further into such speculations. Instead, if we can see a way through into speculation about such aspects, of what ifs, then we have begun to see the correspondence of the Story to our very real existence; for, if we have a manner of considering the ramifications of a situation of the Story, it is only because we see the story as having some sort of correlation with our actual lived lives.

Instead of the what ifs, this essay thus merely moves upon the fact that there is a correspondence that does not apply a logic in parallel, but rather, applies a logic actually according to the situation of our lives; not removed from it, but exactly the same and consistently applied sensibility by which we address real life.

What do we have in real life? What holds our ‘galaxy’ together? Quarks? Atoms? In the end analysis, we can see these universal items similar to aspects of the Force. They are the elements or universal aspects that ‘penetrate us’ also. They are the sensible elemental aspects of the ‘force’ that is holding the universe together and indeed penetrate us, bind us to the universe in a sensible manner.

If we can say that science itself, as that arena that I indicate when I say ‘quarks’ and ‘atoms’, is not a universally accepted truth of the universe but really merely a ‘trope -ic-sphere’ of sorts, then we can say that there are people who are ignorant of science and physics, as well as people who know of it but don’t believe in it, as well as those who know of its truth, as well, those who use its truth for good and bad.

The point I’m trying to get across is that where as we like to think of the Star Wars universe as a fictional universe, it really is only fictional in as much as the book of cosmological terms is different, while the effect is the same. Of course, what emphasizes the fictional aspect of Star Wars, as well as what cements for real minds the reality that is not the Star Wars story, that which confirms our real sensibility, is the fantastic elements: the telekinesis, the acrobatics, the suggestion, the energy that Force-users can shoot out of their fingers; real people place difference out into real space to at once call for a progress while showing that no difference exists outside of that which is commonly understood as real truth.

The point can be found when we bring into play the sheer multitude of people involved. Most people (and creatures) care little about the force. Most people are like Han-solo: It’s a hokey religion. But see, that even the concept of religion is alive and well with Solo, that he reckons the Force by religion. Do we not hear this everywhere in our world? Even from the ‘religionists’ themselves: Even those who believe in the religions reference their beliefs as a general category of ‘religion’. Within this general context is where real people exist: Within the context of belief. Solo is a very practical guy who lives by the seat of his pants and the edge of his wits; to him, coincidence and close shaves with disaster occur by luck. And what is the obverse of luck but hope. Practicality and spiritual knowledge are mere two sides of the same coin; this is the same dynamic involved with Emmanuel Kant’s Pure and Practical reason, as well as Aristotle’s categories of speculative and practical.

The point this time is that it is not so much that the Force might hold the galaxy together, but more that there are a relatively small number of people who are fully invested in the ways of the Force (good and Dark) such that they not only wield them but see their use in the context of a universal truth, while to most people the Force is just a religious belief.

The consistency between our real world and the Star Wars universe is further emphasized (albeit to further diversify real and fictional effect) and exemplified through Solo’s coming to see the Force as an actual and real thing. He becomes a believer in the positive sense, no longer a skeptic; this could only occur in as much as he was already involved with the real world of religious belief. Yet even more disturbing is that he would have never ‘come to believe’ in the force if it were not for his involvement in the real outcome of the battle of ‘Forces’. Regardless of whether good and Dark sides balance each other in some ideal sense, the absolute effect is that in the story wherein Solo has been drafted, good and Dark Forces are indeed working toward that balance.

The people in Mos Eisley Spaceport could give a shit. In fact, we find out later that the Hutts (as in Jabba the Hutt) run the whole planet, a kind of mob-gangster syndicate. It is these people, the greater populous of the galaxy, who have nothing to do with the Force, that is, except in as much as a rather tiny amount of people not only believe in the Force, but use it as well as act upon it as it is understood to concern the proper cohesion of the universe, and as this sect is ‘believed in’ as a potential involved in real estimations, as the Story drafts people into the service of the universal truth.


I mean by this essay to equate ‘transcendence’ with ‘the Force’. And in order to explain in what manner I could mean it, I would have to reiterate what amounts to the past 2 years of posts that I have made. LOL. But for those who have been following along, I am sure you will not miss the inescapable analogous meaning.