Monthly Archives: June 2015

There Is More 

There is more going on here than some scientific evolutionary mandate. More than some Christian assertion. 

Theism is a necessarily insufficient description.

Atheism is likewise necessarily short, conventional and stubbornly faithful to the power of terms to convey real truth. 

Our route to reality fails this moment. 

Faith rules in all sectors. Aitheism is merely another identity politics.  Just like LGBTQ marraige.  Thank God ( whatever that means) for what is indeed amazing.   Love the haters.

Anthropocene Apocalypse – the demise of the Lemur.

One of the first of our kind. Is dying out.

Opher's World

_julie larsen maher 7891 coquerels sifaka and baby 3 15 10.JPGlemurlemur_2647603blemurblack-and-white-ruffed-lemur

These gorgeous creatures are only found in the jungles of Madagascar. They will soon all be dead.

The burgeoning population of Madagascar is short of food. They are hunting the docile lemurs for meat. They are burning great swathes of jungle to clear it for farming land. 90% of the forest has already been cleared. The remaining 10% will all be gone in the next twenty years. Along with the lemurs and the rest of the rich indigenous animal population.

Unless something is done about it the whole world will be denuded of wilderness and jungle and all our wild-life eradicated.

Is that the sort of world we want to live in?

Do we really think we can survive when we’ve decimated the ecosystem that supports us?

Are we going to cut off the oxygen?

Without nature we are pathetic.

Someone has to do something about this insane population explosion…

View original post 5 more words

Appropriation and meaning of discourse.  

The difference of the Postmoderns was located of some essential transformation of being, founded upon a basic and necessary linkage of discourse to reality.  

That was all they had; the end of an era, of a particular world.
By being able to notice this, we no longer make any statements about what is more or less real. 

Instead, we must talk about how discourse is appropriated, what is meant and how such meaning has power.  Not ideology, but how ideology is able to have meaning itself, and as world.   

What is occurring in the appropriation  of discourse. ? 

Living in the now is for losers

It is amusing and interesting how we can designate what terms and clauses are empty of truth, and what are full of truth. For example: “There is no now” supposes a fullness of truth located of the term ‘now’ to thereby argue its emptiness of truth. Whereas the whole clause and argument is filled with the reason why itself should be thrown out.

repost.  The Matter At Hand, Part 1: Post-Modernism, Artificial Intelligence, the Conventional Limit, and Object Oriented Ontology.

I just watched the movie “Automota”.  And was reminded of an essay of mine : 
From reading an essay a few days ago, I was reminded of The Postmodern Generator. You can go read a good essay at:

Now when I say ‘good’ I mean it can make sense. If you have never heard of it, or didn’t read the very end of the page, the PM Generator is a program that generates essays. Click the link again and it will produce another one. They are completely false.
I was reminded of the PMG after reading a ‘actually legitimate’ essay that made a certain amount of sense but that I really could gain no baring upon what it was addressing or really saying. Of course, though, we must acknowledge that there are types of privileged discourse that have to do with production niches. Computer code may appear like nonsense to the layman, but the meaning of the code is easily identified to its object, whether it be origination, such as the direct meaning of commands and their ordering to the machine, or their destination, the effect or running operation of the code’s incorporation as an application. The ground and purpose of the code, though confusing to the layman, can be easily explained. Yet, in philosophy and theoretical discourse, we have a different situation. If I had gone into the essay (the ‘legitimate’ one I read) with a sense that it must have relevance and be based in a certain potential for truth, then I might have read it more than twice and made a good effort to find out what it meant, including following references to other essays that might be in its genre, and concluded that it had something significant to offer. But I didn’t. I saw — for sure after the second read — that, for one, it was purely privileged in its bearings, but privileged in a different way than computer programming; which is to say, the meaning and point it addresses is proposed and suspended in a cohortive discursive base that is taken as relevant merely because there are people in positions of authority and or respect who are speaking in such a way. But then also, for two, that not only was it probably important merely because certain people have developed an investment arena for meaning, but more so, the arena was merely that: The arena allowed for a fabrication (without grounding) to appear as if it had significance in deep human roots, socially ideological and or political, of a kind of substantial innately human kind and pertinence, and due to this fabrication of meaning caused a series of human efforts of various vectors (political, economical, ideological, artistic) to be based in the arena solely for the purpose of inflating the identity capital of the people involved in the fabrication of the arena. But it it is just this kind of insubstantial rhetoric that post-modernism allows to be true, for it makes itself true by it being a product of human sensibility, but of an insensible sensibility that is the egocentric transcendent that has gotten us exactly to the place of reasoning that sees world destructing activities, such as global warming or climate change, democratic-capitalistic support of aristocratic development, two-faced power structures that advocate equal access while being allowed for through an inherent subordination and oppression of designated marginalized segments of society, ideological disclaimers for ‘naturalized’ inequality and oppression, etcetera.
The point, I suppose, I am trying to make is that it is not that the PMG is writing nonsensical pieces of theory. The defenders of the significance of ‘real’ theory is the disclaimer that …” The Postmodernism Generator was written by Andrew C. Bulhak using the Dada Engine, a system for generating random text from recursive grammars, and modified very slightly by Josh Larios (this version, anyway. There are others out there).” They point at the ‘random’ and ‘recursive’ elements of the generation and exclude what other theory may be made by humans. And, this is not to say that human generated theory itself is also random and nonsensical at root. Maybe this is so, but then we have only enacted an eternal irony for which the argument is but a point of contention (perhaps a kind of ‘the’ point of contention whereby the individual is marked off to his her identity), and then one might be better suited to a religious monastery.
I am more concerned with how real theory is distinguished from PMG theory, because, for one, if we are indeed moving to the inception of a true artificial intelligence, we need encounter and identify the limits of human conscious effort and not only how human consciousness may operate as a real item, but also how this real item functions as a item of what is true of the universe in which reality is formed. We need encounter that aspect of being human that gains reality by its offense, that is, in the effort to create identity against the bare fact of its existence. We may have realized what it means to exist, but we have have not encountered how we react to such a sentence; we have only reacted to the truth, we have yet to reveal what occurs when such a moment of truth is come upon. If we allow ourselves as human beings to be able so easily fall prey to discursive ploys of fabricated meaning, should we not realize that an artificial intelligence will be able to notice this human tendency, this weak spot, and take advantage of the flaw in the fabric that is and has been causing our essential lack in potential? Should we think any less that an artificial intelligence of our own making will be an intelligence nonetheless not human intelligence ? The question must be: Can we program our lack as an inherent limit of artificial intelligence? Are we able to do this, or is the fact of the possibility of a true AI a harbinger an indication that our lack is indeed a lack of being human and not of our creations’ ? This is the issue of the point of contention: What is contingency and cause?
Because this is to say that the flaw is exactly the reassertion of essential Will that gains its force through meaning based in a universal maxim of segregation and the exploitation of blind spots inherent to such segregation, that this is a human mode, and that if a human as itself may see this flaw — shall we be so arrogant as to presume an intelligence of our making will necessarily be a human intelligence ? Indeed, would not an ‘artificial’ intelligence have at least an equal probability to have capacities that arise in the blind spot of human intelligence in so much as the likes of Graham Harman shine light into the regions of the universe that have intelligence (being) regardless of what human beings regard as such? The Frankenstein’s monster of human creation is not that humans let it get away from human control, but that humanity itself was already beyond its own control. Is not this the evidence that what we would consider an artificial intelligence actually more likely to be an intelligence that offends us, our ability to be sensible? Such that a true artificial intelligence would then actually be an intelligence that overlaps what is being (Dasein) as our mode of corresponding intelligence with what is intelligence proper, as modes of being of an actually more true universal reality? ‘Artificial intelligence’ thus might be that intelligence that evidences to us how our transcendental mode is actually merely one type of mode of being, A.I. then the revealing of the limit that is the transcendental thought by its actually arising partially within the (non-ethical) universal paradigm, straddling, if you will, the willed and the non-willed. Would human intelligence as a conventional red herring be able to stand up to a mode of intelligence that understands itself as a determined mode of activity, that is to say, determined by objects ? Nietchze might say that it should be able to.
For what are we seeing with the PMG? And what is the reaction against?
Shall we see in Part 2 ?

The Philosophical Hack

The Philosophical Hack.

I’m gonna start some notes and things toward another book. Some of you may have noticed that my first book is the first in the series “The Philosophical Hack”.

The idea behind this is a disruption of what we know as philosophy. Now, I don’t mean like ‘I have a philosophy of drinking coffee’ (only cream, quickly poured until it curls up to the top of the brew). Neither philosophy’s ‘of’ anything; what is significant of philosophical considerations is, by my estimation, only questions of truth, and the method of doubt that ends in nothingness. It is this nothingness that concerns us, for obviously, once we have found this nothingness, if it were true — since we are moving upon a true basis attempting to find the truth of it, It seems so ridiculous that it is assumed as it is proposed that it took some 300 years to get to this, our post-post-modern situation. So ridiculous, actually, that it must be presumed upon something that is incorrect in its foundation: And this foundation is what we have called ‘Philosophy’ itself. For obviously, I didn’t dissipate into nothingness once I came upon this nothingness, this, again supposedly, essential truth of truth. Something about philosophy must be incorrect.

In fact, it is downright silly that philosophy as a serious endeavor continues. But in this light it should be noticed that it indeed is continuing, but is doing so upon a certain type of insubstantial base. This is the issue of the point of contention, the significant event, and similar ideas that fall under the rubric of the Philosophical Hack. 

An analogy: computers and computer language, programs and applications.  

One could say that in the past, history had a point, a purpose, a teleology, that proscribed what it was to be, ontologically. And this teleo-ontology was defined by a referent called ‘humanity’, such that all human beings fell under an explanation guided by conflict and wit. This explanation told of a humanity that was dispersed over the globe in groups, and as these groups encountered each other they competed for dominance, whatever type of competition ensued, war or diplomacy. Whoever won, it was assumed all fair game. To be human was to play this game.  

The issue concerns how I might retain my humanity and not participate in this game. I make a hack. 

The game can be said to be integral with discourse, such that there Is nothing outside or beyond the game; philosophy can this be said to justify the game, using its power to justify its play of power.  

So, we might draw this game analogous to a program, an application, or perhaps better, a programming platform. I know very little of actual computer lingos. But I think i know that there is a particular type of language configuration upon which Micosoft works, and another that say Apple uses. So, for our analogy, we might imagine that the history of the world, and the philosophy that has arisen in concert, was Microsoft.  

Now, I am not going into the extended argument and ramifications here; that is part of the Philosophical Hack.  

Here’s what I know of what ‘hack’ means. 
Here is def. 7 from 


a to devise or modify (a computer program), usually skillfully.

b to circumvent security and break into (another’s server, website, or the like) with malicious intent: Skilled criminals hacked the Bank of America’s servers yesterday, jeopardizing thousands of accounts.

I think we all have a pretty good idea of what ‘hacking’ is. (I do not have malicious intent, though)

But also, hack has been commandeered as a meaning in the same way the nerd was commandeered from its insulting meaning. So, a hacker is someone who hacks by performing hacks. A hack in this latter sense is thus a protocol that is not found within the platform that is being hacked. But this is where the analogy ends.

It is important to realize that we are not talking about some new way of conceptualizing reality. Our position is that reality is just reality and it is only in as much as particular conceptions hold sway do we have a total reality in the potential to be communicated. This an be seen as a particularly Marxist conception: ideology is a fantasy, but a fantasy that is enforced through the complicity and want for magical things to occur. This is reality.  

The attachment and want for the categories of such reality thus also develop particular real meaningful reductions.  

(Many will not like the following)

Everything that is real occurs within a ‘platform’. This platform contains all the possibility of things that are real. Given this, the concept of being human likewise occupies a particular conceptual space. But this is not merely ‘knowing’ as we like to segregate objective elements of reality. In short, the discourse of reality is structured in a particular manner to reduce such true-objects to a meaning that supposes to get at, what, returning to our analogy, we could call the ‘machine language’, which, say, from the perspective of the lines of code and the applications derived, means nothing, but merely means, say, “ones and zeros (0011101011101101…)”.

All religious and spiritual ideals stem from the reaction to the situation of coming upon that which the real discourse of reality situates as defines what is the ‘molecules of energy streaming through the microchips’, say. In the end run, in the last analysis, we have the ‘nothingness’ that is proposed as some ‘spiritual source’. Some ‘really real’ nature of reality.

Now, of course, from reality, this reduction is indeed a ‘real real’. But at no time has anyone left the ideological platform. In other words, such spiritual truth is but a real reduction that exposes no actual true truth, but only real truth. Further, such spiritual ideals are needed, as bases from which to enact psychological agency, due to the real ideological investment.  

Thus we posit a hack that is philosophical in nature, that posits no reality greater than reality, that this reality cannot be undone; thus, we move upon a different platform, largely ignoring the reduction to the ideological reductive state. In short, we posit that while I may have to deal with the ideological state, I am no longer philosophically subject to that state, such that the discourse that arises merely exposes those mechanisms by which reality has power; not ideological mechanisms, rather those mechanisms that allows ideology to function powerfully. We enact a basic,and unimpeachable divergence.  
(Yet. One couldvery well say also. Im a philosophical hack because im not a ‘professional’ philosopher ).