Excuse The misspelling in the title. I’m lazy.
I’m always giving Prof Bryant crap; I think he got tired of fielding emails from non-students of his, but I take it personally. I’m just an ass that way.
There is something that just strikes me as off about Bryant’s stuff. He seems to come upon good observations, but his responses — I can’t quite put my finger on what it is that appears to me to be missing something that I see is quite vital.
Here is a latest post of his:
One that strikes me is his ambivalence , his kind of wishy washy ness. I feel like philosophers take that as a kind of admirable quality, but there is a difference between mushy and open.
(I’m such a shit talker — but to no one that cares: why would anyone who makes a living at something care about the opinion of someone who does it with no consequences attached to his standard of living? It would seem the professional’s ability to house and feed herself is vested in coming up with particular kinds of problems and solutions, of exhibiting a certain kind of attitude. How else could they have been hired and stay employed?)
A pivotal discernment to his essay: He appears to be so oriented upon, what I call, True Objects, what others setting aside strictly philosophical designations would probably call “things out there”. He is bringing up some airy forlorn sadness out getting back to the question of Wisdom, but is already lost in the field of objects, already oriented in his being toward looking for himself, or the solution to the world and living a good life, out in the world. In this, I would say as much as he calls himself an OOO or a Speculative Realist, I would say he is clueless even in what those labels mean or are saying. Like he just attached himself to the label cuz it seemed like it had some solution for him….
I would say it all makes sense. And the philosophical question is how to put it in words that make sense.
But this is not a closed mind, a pompousness as if I know it all, but exactly the opposite. It is that it all makes sense, and there is a problem in this because it seems that it should not.
exactly the opposite of Bryant.
not that Bryant is closed minded, but perhaps that he is already looking for the answer in objects, those things that exclude, somehow, the investigator. and in this way is closed to the possibility that may lay outside of such objects (in that subjects are now objects also; that we cannot no longer doubt).
So the query goes to those who would say that it does not all make sense. Against which I would have to say what? is not made sense ? how is it possible for you to come to a sense of what does not make sense without a sensibility by which what does not make sense indeed makes sense as to in being of a category that ‘does not make sense’?
It is this question that many will say does not make sense; but then I will have to refer those to Bryant and his kind, for there is not some ‘One’, some ‘wholeness’ to which we refer. No longer. There is not a ‘one humanity’. There is a real humanity, but then there is also something else that that this humanity, this humanity oriented upon objects, cannot admit, cannot see, is entirely unable to view. It is this type of offense that route most people to exclaim “Nonsense!!”.
And I say: Well, Ok then,thank you for that. and As I have said. We have discerned how the question concerns one’s orientation upon objects, rather that the assertion that somehow we have made a ‘turn’, such that now there is ‘A’ real view of objects. The question arises because now there is an issue that concerns one’s orientation upon objects.
Many of the so called OOO’s and the SR’s are caught in a limitation that I call the orientation upon the True Object.
We have to understand how this occurs.
Because the True Object occurs only in faith.
more in a bit….