The Fallacy of Realism.

(Da Sein and the Phenomenon, part 2)

If we pay attention, then we may notice that we have been deceived. But most do not notice. The distinction, then, is made between these two ‘awarenesses’, these two ‘knowledges’. So we have really three distinctions, three ‘modes’ evidenced in philosophical authorship.

One; of the deception. Denial that there is a possibility of various modes. This is denial as ignorance. This is no acknowledgment of any sort of some grand, real deception. Here reality is reality. There is no problem here. Reality offers the truth of all things possible to human understanding through the interaction of humanity in the universe. All possibility falls within reality.

Two: coming upon the deception and seeing it not as as absolute limit. This is denial
– either in knowing of the limit and revolting back from it, as an essential mandate of being.
– or, knowing of the limit and using that limit to actively create. This is denial in the deceptive sense.

Three: Knowing that the limit only concerns reality.

But see; this is not a description of a One ‘true’ situation. This is a description of three manners of appropriation. We are talking about how meaning functions, and not about some true-real reduction to some common humanity.

This proposal always reveals this triad. Those who see that all expression must reduce to a common human understanding, what we call and is the modern situation; those who have encountered a type of confrontation or awareness of the modern situation but who nevertheless consciously operate within it, the post postmodern situation; those who do not reside within the modern paradigm, those of the post-modern situation, of Da Sein.

Da Sein is not a description of some whole humanity, as if everyone, every human being somehow exists as a Da Sein. No; he is describing an exceptional situation. It is the subsequence that Heidegger had to defend against; but also the reason why his system did not work, and likewise why he though the German Nationalist Socialists were the way to go. Likewise, this is the reason why certain post postmoderns have to defend against being identified as Da Sein: Because they do not wish to have to confront the conventional subsequence, the conventional ignorance, that would (mis-)identify Da Sein as somehow having to do with Modern terror. Indeed, it still does, but under a different guise. Deception.


Da Sein and the Phenomenon, part 1.

There is an attempt to distinguish items to be considered, but the enfolding of meaning always asks after the distinction is set. We ask of the reader, but the reader is already on the move from a place of transcendent agency toward an object for its knowledge; that is, at least from a certain perspective. All the while, it is this perspective that is ignored in the enflaming of agency, of the infringing of an other upon the ‘reader’ (we will say for now, in this case), for the reader is indeed always that other that avoids reconciliation within this ‘certain perspective’. A route is always implied as it is evident as we ask into the truth of the matter, for as we move forth to expose the truth, we inevitably come upon resistance to that truth, and find ourselves moved from the Modern into the Postmodern.

This is to say that significance lay in the fact that whatever is or was Modern ‘did’ not work, but only from a particular perspective that truly understands what sense Modern is to have. For the fact of the matter is that whatever Modern is or was cannot be ‘placed’ or located to a static historical, momentous, paradigmic temporality, except that some kind of ‘post’ Modern understanding has been witnessed. Yet, where indeed there was a Postmodern era, say like the 1960’s to the late 1970’s, there we have evidence that what is Modern in the former sense, has not gone away. This means that however we classify temporal-static moments or eras, they are always Modern, and this, in the sense of supplying a true arena called reality.

This distinction too avoids something. To have something Modern by which to have moved into something ‘after’ or ‘behind’ it, as Post-modern, implies that these distinctions are not really saying anything substantial, but, as a very good analogy, but are talking about after-effects; it is an entirely appropriate description, post-modern, to indicate less a moment in history or time, and more a manner of coming upon reality, of meaning itself. Nevertheless, as we find this situation, we become caught up in the mush from which we wish to distinguish elements and we become, in fact, despite our best intentions, distracted from what is actually occurring. We thereby, often without knowing it, without noticing it, are sucked into a manner of knowing, moved involuntarily into a mode of being that we did not choose. We are conned, convinced by an agency with an alternate agenda, to believe that what is actually occurring is what we overtly see, and this is to say that the terms of discourse presents reality in a wholly, essentially and ubiquitously true manner. It is the contradiction inherent in the belief of the ability for terms to bring us a true reality, for terms to link or otherwise be able to convey objects in themselves, True Universal Objects, that brings a to final distinction.

CFP: Techno Glitches & The Study of Religion (Graduate Conference) (Syracuse University)

Because conventional method cannot find the thing they are perpetually reinstating, as evidenced in the re- Realism at least, some genius has thought of getting everyone’s ideas on what’s always missing, or the occasion thereof: 

(Truly hysterical if it weren’t so serious):

The Belief of Belief.

Below is an example of the problem that arises when we have, as Bruno Latour talks about in his book “An Investigation into Modes of Existence”, belief of belief. 

In my opinion, it is an utterly capitalist problem (how to market a True Object), of defining oneself as a benefactor of transcendental Truth (the real process of violence ). Secularist propose to be a possessor of truth just as religionists do. Definition for the sake of who’s God is best and more true. Religion itself it thus a moot category.

Indie Spotlight: Puneet Gabriel McCorrison

Some cool tunes right here : 

One of my favorite singer songwriters is a friend of mine, Puneet.  His music should definitely be all over the radio.  You can support him by subscribing to his YouTube channel here: The Puneet Gabriel Channel.      For now, feel the magic in his new jam, Through the Morning Mist:   Through the Morning Mist  […]


“…what we need now is a Christian fundamentalist group that kills in the name of God. Then we might have a kind of symmetry that shows the ridiculousness of labeling everything ‘terrorism’. Certain people just are prone to violent solutions.”

Anonymous shopper at a mall in Colorado . 

The Ethics of Divergence. 

This comment Originally prompted by AGENT SWARMS latest on non-philosophy :
It is becoming my experience that what ever is posted on the Internet becomes an kind of ‘automatic common propriety’, perhaps kind of similar to the problem the music industry encountered starting about 20 years ago. Of course it is a standard curtesy to give credit to originating authors but I am beginning to see that while obligatory, it is not mechanically nor ethically required. It is the nature of this type of media, I suspect, that Information is fluid, and in this fluidity often misses (deliberately or not) the site for the sake of the presentation of information. The impetus I think, oddly enough, comes from the struggle and competition for ideal identity, To assert oneself as an originator of an idea. 
Perhaps we are witnessing a type of transitional phase that is revealing the determinative nature of existence, in that what occurs is ideas seems to end up associated with people by a sort of strange rhythm that defies the aggregate of individual assertions and plays for ideal notice.

One presently can only wonder: For, I have encountered a return on notions also; indirect but seemingly obviously stemming from my originating idea. Yet I would have no way of proving or finding the route by which my idea was usurped into discourses of other already theoretically and or socially affluent, already established in the skills required of our modern age for a kind of ‘web dexterity’, if you will, by people who are taking advantage of the brisk and fluid pace of our modern media. 

Yet, it seems the ethics of this stream overrides the traditional curtesy for siting originating authors because as I just said, the standard seems to be more and more the information itself for the sake of a universal human soursed use, where the ethics arises out of such use, ends as opposed to means.

I risk being taken advantage of even here, since philosophically this might be seen to be actively justifying its motions; which is to say, arguing that the truth is given up for the sake of the real, the one for the multiple, as an automatic and axiomatic real operation. Badiou even argues that one need not withdraw, albeit, arguing for his own position as he either lives in the past or preys on the peasant congregants.

The only option for philosophers with integrity, that is, those who do not tow the ideological party line of realism, is to withdraw their ideas from this (un)ethical stream. 

Hence I do little different than those so skilled in exploitation, if I might be so bold and maybe ignorant, by calling for a divergence in philosophy. 
Who knows?

Bad Taste.

Wow.  Who’d a thunk.  Quite interesting:  

If I might start. Keep in mind, I am interested in a variety of topics concerning intoxication, and not only recovery. But I will start with this observation. With the whole ‘drug epidemic’ it might seem to some distasteful to start a blog that has to do with talking about drugs, as if I am […]