Cogburn on my post on Žižek/Bryant

REPOST
One day soon i will explain this situation that Harman evidences by this post.

For now, its kinda interesting:

A typically clear post HERE from Jon Cogburn, who does the best work I’ve seen that actually crosses the analytic/continental divide (rather than prematurely claiming the de facto meaninglessness of the divide, which remains very real for important intellectual reasons). Here’s another way of stating my frustration with Žižek so far as an interlocutor, and not as an […]

https://doctorzamalek2.wordpress.com/2016/02/29/cogburn-on-my-post-on-zizekbryant/

Advertisements

Real Bias: O.J. Simpson and more Discussion Stemming from the ‘Irony is’ and the ‘A Story’ Posts…

This is the latest reply from the discussion I am having with Dave from Big Story Guide.

To read the evolution of the discussion, you can look to the comments on ‘Irony is..’ and most of it is on “A Story”. These just a few posts ago.

It is ongoing still.

But this reply by me I think is pertinent to my work and my upcoming book “Absolution”.

:::::::

 

The reason why I asked about women: because femminism and social justice are closely intertwined.

Firstly, I think I cannot close religion into some arena that never addresses or concerns the rest of whats going on in the world.

Second; I am reminded of the OJ simpson trial. (Im watching the series but I also just watched the ‘Real Story’ that was an assemblage of a bunch of media clips.)

I think they do very well at showing the situation of the OJ thing that no one really could get a grasp on 20 years ago.

The question is: Is he guilty or not guilty?

Now, while this seems like a straight forward answer, we found that it is not. in general, blacks and whites viewed it differently.

The whites saw it as a straightforward, business as usual, determination of what actually occurred; i.e. did OJ take a knife and stick it in Nicole and Ron and kill them?

Of course the trial was turned into a trial about race and OJ was freed because the question was then never about whether he actually stuck the knife into those people. It was about whether the LAPD was a racist instiution.

In a larger sense, it was a trial that concerned the whole American institution.

What it revealed was that the Truth is not an objective situation. It is a subjective negotiation.

The trial brought out to view the situation that Black people has known for their whole time living: That while white people (in general) just saw things as matter of fact, black people were affected unfairly and unjustly due to this ‘matter of factness’, that indeed this matter of fact was not based on any facts at all, or rather, that the institution that was erected upon this assumption of ubiquitous and obvious truth of the universe, was not only faulty, but ethically contradictory. It brought into view that Fact that what people know as true Indeed informs them as to their truth, such that they are incapable of seeing reality in any other way. Knowledge, in this way, functions axiomatically and self-evidently.

Now; We should note that the above situation is not the case absolutely, but only transitionally, only to the extent and operation that something of the truth, for its reckoning, was left out. But the process by which we come to the truth must have truth as its object.

Ie: It is not that truth is subjective and negotiated so much as there must be a negotiation of subjects in order to arrive at what the truth is.

For reality, the truth always  works itself out ironically.

A civil suit was brought and OJ was indeed found liable for the murders. See here that it was not the Law that found his guilt, a ‘filtering’ of objective evidence upon a leveled field of consideration; rather it was the Law that justified the occasion of truth. It was indeed the Civil case, a negotiation of subjects, that found the Truth.

**

But this is the real objective case. This is the situation in which we find ourselves, albeit, objectively. In the search for truth, reality is the process of uncovering all possible parties involved in the case and the hearing of them in a proposed level playing field, even as the field itself is adjusted as each new party concerned is found.

But what is left out in this consideration is the subjective case; we have to be careful here because too soon and readily do we tend to want to fall back into making the argument for the real objective case.

In the effort to find Truth, ironically, we do not look for new parties and search for all the evidence. In this effort, the parties are all present and evidence is all logged and available.

**

My point is that I understand that when you say “the Big Story of the Bible is the most cogent telling of the story of humanity”, you are indeed talking about what you are saying here: There is a story that encompasses all the facts, and the Bible presents the best telling of the assessment of the facts.

I say I agree. But when we go to discuss just what the facts are, what they mean, what that individual piece of information that goes to inform this logical result that is the Bible Big Story, we are finding that we don’t necessarily agree with one another.

The way I am viewing this situation is that you are proposing the Big Story like a case of Law, of real (subjective-) objectivity, upon a level playing field, and as new parties come in you apply the best you can the letter of Law the the Story to account for the new party, and likewise new evidence. Hence, sometimes God has not revealed to you the purpose or placement of these new aspects, so you ‘don’t know’.

Yet the way I see the Big Story is that your particular version, your orientation upon the story, your proposal as to its universality, as an objective ubiquity, is yet also part of the telling, Because all the evidence is in, all the parties accounted for.

So I say the Bible is telling the Story that includes our telling of the story. And this situation is what is difficult to view when one sees the knowledge they have of any situation as being that of the objective case being heard upon a eternally leveled playing field.

But yet also see: This statement of the truth of the situation is itself ironic, and depends upon where or how you are placing yourself in the situation; but more, not how you are placing yourself , as through some sort of choice, but the orientation upon the situation is dependent upon how you have been placed, in order to thereby view the situation.

A Story.

Dave at Big Story Guide is always wanting me to put my critical ideas in a story form.

Well, here’s one for Dave that concerns my earlier post about irony:

 

First, irony. In short: The last thing one would expect. There are mundane comic kind of ironies, and then there also stretches a kind of ‘cosmic’ irony. This last is sort of like the distance that people will ask of us from seemingly aggravating events; like, God is laughing at our frustration, that we need to repose in God and know God has the plan.

The irony that Gods purpose is to bring about its own destruction is of this later type: The purpose is to filter out the riff raff; but that will not happen through any sort of human negotiation or pondering decision:

 

But you want a story.

 

I suppose a good story would start with, say, Juan. He fears and loves God; he believes in Jesus. This is so much that case that all his prayers begin and end with ‘thy will be done’. After a time, or at some time, he begins to see God working in his life. Events unfold in a manner that makes sense to Juan, that God is indeed involved in his life, that indeed he has a relationship with God and Jesus.

 

Then something terrible happens that shakes his faith. He falls to the ground one night after many nights of being incapable of coming to terms with what happened; how God could, after all this time of being with Juan, of showing him the right and the wrong, of placing fortune and consequence in places throughout his  meaningful and faithful experience – how could God allow something to happen that is so terrible, so inconsistent with the relationship, so seemingly random.

So Juan falls to his knees one night in desperation, in failure to reconcile an apparent disruption in his faith. And in complete supplication, asks God to show him the truth.

God then takes Juan out into the wilderness and sends a demon. Juan is quite astonished and doubtful, but likewise is he kinda pissed at God. The demon says, “if you have such faith, then you will want food and it will be given to you. Follow me.” Juan is hungry and follows the demon and the demon feeds him when he is hungry. But then after a while, Juan has fallen far behind, and is beginning to wonder if being fed is so miraculous.

The demon notices Juan and looks back and says “It looks like the food is not fueling your faith well enough; you can hardly keep up!”

And Juan replies, “You’re kinda boring though. There are much more interesting things off the side of the road.”

“Are you coming or what?”

“Why would I want to?”

“You are the one with so much faith.”

And Juan remembers why he is here, and catches up with the demon.

After sometime in the wilderness, they reach a large town, and as they approach the center, any people look at Juan and are amazed at the site. He is dirty, skinny, and sunburned. Many go to help him, asking “What happened to you?”

“A demon lead me into the wilderness. Ive been walking there for about a month.”

They are even more astonished. “How on earth did you survive? There is no streams or food; when was the last time you ate?”

And the demon said to Juan, “These people like you. You can use this to you advantage. Don’t say anything about me and you will become great.”

So Juan said, “God fed my thirst.” And the people where humbled and sympathetic, that he would emerge from the desert almost dead and speak of God. They figured something terrible must have happened that he would’t speak of.

From then on, it got around town that Juan had survived a month in the desert with no food or water for a month. Everyone came to hear what he had to say. All he said was “God told me to go, so I went, and now Im here.” But all the people heard and saw was a naïve and perhaps zealous, disturbed, or maybe foolhardy and adventurous boy, so they had mercy on him, and they restored him to health and he lived happily every after.

So it was that after many years, When Juan was old and fat, with a big house and  many grand children that the demon returned. “Where is your faith now, Juan?”

And Juan recognized the demon and told him, “I have no faith. I had a crazy idea because I was pissed, to take off into the wilderness and forsake my family and friends. I almost died because I wasn’t really eating or drinking anything. Luckily I came upon this town and some people nursed me to health. There was this chick who thought I was cute. I am honest so a store owner showed me his trade. The rest is history. Faith; shmaithe.”

The the demon stood back and in a gleam of light, the glamour and deception of the demon was cast off, and God stood before Juan, and said:

“You wanted me to show you the truth.”

 

Cristin Ellis’ review of Bogost’s Alien Phenomenology and OOO more generally

Can i say it again?  Philosophy is art.
Repost: 

This review from Postmodern Culture is actually from January 2015, but I hadn’t noticed it previously. The link to the article (HTML) is HERE, though it could be behind a payment firewall for those who aren’t on a suitably linked university campus; hard to tell, since I’m on the AUC campus right now and had […]

https://doctorzamalek2.wordpress.com/2016/02/16/cristin-ellis-review-of-bogosts-alien-phenomenology-and-ooo-more-generally/

Material Undecidability

Im not sure why Larval Subject blog sometimes has a comment opt and sometimes not. Maybe im confused. But heres the repost and comment:

For about two years I barely wrote.  Indeed, during this time I barely read as well. You can even date this shift on the blog.  Prior to this shift I was writing about a blog post a day and then suddenly there was a precipitous drop where I would go days and weeks without writing […]
https://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2016/02/11/material-undecidability/
Comment:
Its funny that as i started reading i thought ‘drugs’.  But it ends up it was not the kind of drugs i was thinking of. .

Then it was simple “sounds like a reboot” , that the processor needed a reboot to sort out all the new updates. 

Then it was “thank you for your honesty. Philosophy suffers by distance and mere theory”. 

Repost:One and Two: Politics, Governance, and Antagonism; and comment. 

First the repost: 

Perhaps it could be said that politics is that which occurs at that precise moment that we learn to count to Two.  If this were the case, then it would follow that not everything is political.  Everything can become political, but politics is something is something that must be made to be.  When is it […]

https://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2016/02/10/one-and-two-politics-governance-and-antagonism/
Then the comment, which is an extension of my previous two postings:

Irony is…

…that God’s purpose is to bring about Its own destruction, evidently, obviously and finally. So that the world becomes the second thought. 

With reference to this repost, the shift we enact that defines the divergence is exactly the move that exposes the ‘second’ of the this repost’s essay, of the Zizek reference and the bunny-duck thing. The point is (the repost above, here) that there is this second world that is not recognized by the ‘one’ world. But indeed that argument falls at a crucial point: It is not just not recognized, but such a second is a second that is only theorized about for the purpose of maintaing the ‘one’ of the First but under different terms, as if it is not merely terms changing. 

Hence we have at least some evidence that the ‘one’ which is proposing toward the ‘second’ world is doing so as a sort of magic, a slight of hand: Established on a theoretical theorem that reality extends no further than discourse and that discourse is reality such that effecting discourse changes reality, the one world distracts attention from its target, which is the reification of the one world, by givng lip service to this theoretical second. 

But see; if we have been following my blog, my essays, we should glean that indeed discourse is all there is but it is ones orientation upon the terms that is at issue. The issue rests firmly in the assertion that there is one proper manner/method of appropriating discourse; what i call the conventional method.

Hence we must expose just how the conventional method maintains its power of truth in the face of its fallacy, and this is done by having that whichis second not by virtue of the oppressing assertion of discourse itself asserting its primacy in the place of the displaced one. Thereby does the destruction of God equate and show that the theoretical second is but an object of the transcendent clause, which is to say, a truth of reality established through faith. 

The second, while ressonant in the first, as we see in the essay about Barths comment on Romans, defies the first in its very nature, which can be said in this case to be discourse, but not merely some ‘flat’ discourse, rather what is now indicated by the meaning of two routes. 

There is Nothing New Under the Sun…

…only the terms change.

Trip out on this essay on Barths:

Read thiis.

Still, though, the point of Barths and this essay beckons a further divergence, but one that doubles back. For, indeed, what is it that i indicate by ‘conventional’? It appears the counter-punctual situation to the point of Barths, but yet even more, it indicates the sitution of his point is that there are two routes. Evidence is what we now need. 

See also that where Barths speaks of faith, as toward a better, or more exacting indication of this position, for whch he says faith, for the purpose of substantiating this very position (non-position?) i turn this notion of faith on its head, and make a move contrary to say that no longer do we proceed into a situation from the burden of conventional proof; instead, the proof is taken as already manifest, and thereby i may speak of divergence as well as two routes. I speak of conventional faith, of reality itself being a product of faith. Thereby i can soeak of truth not as some special or fantastic derrivitive. I specifically speak of what is not real to indicate the rediculousness (but not the falsity) of conventional proclamations of ideological (based against nil) methodology that is proposed upon a ubiquitous plane that encompasses all possibility of truth. 

I speak from the caveat that qualifies this essay within reality as a real emanation: The final caveat is the move of God that destroys God, the final reduction of Reason that defies itself rationally, to successfully argue that the entirety of God is contained in the absolute negation of the posibility of God — but not through some weak atheism; rather, by showing that all the possibility of God can be accounted for as an effect of consciousness, a natural operation of a thing of the universe.