Sports Doping

Why not?

Why are we so worried about sports doping? Is it because we are concerned, like with recreational drugs, that people will become addicted and ruin their lives? Or is there some ethic or morality that finds ‘unaltered’ humanity a noble cause?

Why don’t we have two leagues then, one that upholds the nobility of untarnished human potential, and one that allows all and whatever progresses of science ?

Let one league stay pure.

Let another use every progress of science toward advantage.

Let the players go into this second league with full acknowledgment of the hazards, the largest is they might just die in play. They might die from their bodies simply not being able to accommodate the chemicals and substances they use to enhance their ability, and they might also die from the mere strength that is given the other players. Say football or even hockey. We’d have these huge guys with the bulk and strength that might overcome the body’s natural ability to withstand force. Someones head might be dislodged, or an arm torn off.

There is enough money and business intelligence to figure out how to ethically contract such a sport situation. Can we not be responsible for ourselves? Can we not remove the religious ethical standard that says a person cannot knowingly cause potential harm to oneself if they want to?

I mean, the technology is there. Why don’t we see just what the human body, in concert with scientific and medical potential enhancment, in motion and competition can really do.


Notes on Telos: A Short Critique of Transcendence

Below; It is interesting that Land wrote about this stuff near 15 years ago. Though I have only recently come across Nick Land, his thing sounds very similar to my ‘destruction of the transcendent’. But then again, this has been going on for a while (Nietzsche, Meillassoux, to name two 150 years apart) my question would tend to stem then not so much concerning that a transcendent must be removed, but first why or what is going on that people keep coming to this conclusion (it is not merely a simple rejection of religion, btw), and also, can we yet admit that there is not going to be any destruction going on in the, what I term as, conventional estimation of things? From my angle, there is not going to be some grand reckoning, neither where some aggregate of humanity is going to ‘suddenly understand’, on an individual level or social level, nor on some global scale of destruction. This is my point: Humanity, for all it thinks it changes, does not change, rather the objects of its determination change.

The dialectic that Land is talking (below repost link) about keeps arising and it is not going away. It keeps arousing a kind of discourse that proposes to be able to change humanity to some sort of ‘awakening’. But I tend to disagree with Land, perhaps; it appears that he is saying we need to get over this ‘enlightenment’ type movement and attitude, and I tend to say this also; but Im also saying that this particular kind of view upon ‘history’, or ‘the world’ is not necessarily one that occurs ‘since’ any temporal period, for there is an argument to be made that this type of thinking has been going on ever since humanity arrived on the scene. Michel Foucault did not ‘discover’ Man as a category; he merely  problematized it for the purpose of creating an opening to allow more creatures to be considered with reference to the category ‘Man’, and to substantiate history as material. In other words: He opened the door for more material product, more production of capital, allowed for there to be more capital. In so doing, he was just as involved in the modern enlightened estimation of things. Our present further analysis then seems to say that this time we have really done it, because the discrepancy between the enlightened dialectical meaning and the conventional ‘post-everything’ meaning itself amounts to a festering mistake whereby we are this time gonna destroy ourselves.

So, I will argue, that it is a particular reality, a particular function of consciousness, to make sense out of the moment in a manner that transcends the moment itself, which is to say, so as it looks at the past it sees progress occurring relative to itself, but as it is indeed involved through its discovery of its own (displaced) transcendence of existence, the dialectical aspect of a particular manner of consciousness’s functioning must solve for its novelty, its uniqueness, its segregated identity. What I am saying is that it is not so much that ‘at some moment in time’ humanity began to have some sort of distorted view upon the world; it is that in this moment consciousness is having a particular view that justifies itself with reference to its redundant projection of the past, to justify itself, to glorify itself. I would say that if indeed humanity does function in its stupidity and ignorance to destroy itself then it has already occurred. But since it has not already occurred, obviously, something else is going on that has little to do with the content of material, and more to do with the fact that there is material being acted upon in whatever manner.

Crazy as it sounds (and I don’t even know what Im really saying 😉 despite this argument, and despite everyone’s ethical imperative to be PC and globally responsible, it most likely will not cause any sort of real solution to be able to be enacted, neither reactionary pessimism nor progressive empowerment (but it probably could); it moves somewhere beyond the reckoning of applied real materialistic solution, beyond the relativity of the necessarily negotiated economy of living and sustaining the ideo-politico-social creature of human life, and instead moves at the level of metaphysical facts. Highly speculative in its base, it is meant for those who already understand, not those to whom it needs be proven. As I have said: We are involved in argument for the sake of verification, not argument for the sake of proving. I do not know how it can play out, and we will see if it ever can.

We need look at authors such as Land and begin to see what they are doing, and not so much what they are arguing or what material point they are trying to make about history and the present situation; this latter is indeed interesting and indeed may be applied to reality (this is the project Badou has outlined and he and others are caught up in). We need begin to look at what universal function is being enacted by the human object.





Western dialectic is a disease of the eye, a broken promise of transcendence. Open your mouth and taste reality; follow your snout into the world. “Telos lends itself to discourse, whilst even the silence of terminus is effaced. Death has no advocates.” (Land) I gathered together a few notes from Nick Land’s The Thirst for […]

Oh Yes, he Did.

“…its because youre a fucking moron — are we allowed to say that here, Mr. Lee?”

“Why not Mr. Johns?”

” Ok then. Miss Kotova, if you stand by that statement, then you are a fucking moron, Susan.”

“Well, at least im dealing with reality, Jon.”

— from the 1st talk Concerning Theoretical Value. 


“…engage? You want me to enage with the texts? And which authors should i reference? Might i ask what you expected here? Isnt this the reason we called this talk? I guess we cant assume then that everyone here understands the point of all this, eh?… the conclusion of the great lineage of texts have showed us that they were wrong, that their method was incorrect…the conclusion of the project was nothing. What does that say to you?”

-Jon Johns at the 1 st talk “Concerning Theoretical Value”. 

Latour on factishes and belief

  B Latour is so close…to address the concluding statement: Latour says the job is to keep from reifying fetished facts; id say that he is barely doing anything but. Latour is making a good showing though. Id situate it as that there is already this reality of ‘factishism’ which cannot be checked, but is always left to its own True Objects.

What do you think?

Aberrant Monism

Before moving on to work on Spinoza and the concept of aberrant monism, I want to add one more post on Latour. I hope that between this and previous posts there may emerge a relatively coherent picture of my reading of Latour. I also hope to indicate how Latour’s thought can become, and ought to become, an effective tool in countering a number of the presuppositions of contemporary neoliberal politics, or what Mark Fisher aptly calls capitalist realism. As usual, feel free to point out the errors of my ways.

As contradictory as it may seem, Latour argues that ‘construction’ and ‘autonomous reality’ are to be understood as synonymous. Among the neologisms Latour uses to elaborate this point is ‘factish,’ being a combination of fact and fetish. A fact, traditionally understood, is autonomous and unconstructed. When Pasteur discovered the role microorganisms play in the process of fermentation he simply, on…

View original post 1,257 more words

Difference in Knowing. 

“…(there is) a difference between knowing thru undetstanding the discourse, the explanation of an event, and knowing through actually encountering the event; basically, as anthropologists have noted, there is a difference between book learning and learning that occurs through field work. 

What we have left, then,  for philosophy, is to ackowledge not only the lack if not mistake involved in book learning, but more, the validity of field work into subjects and environments that have heretofore been downplayed as covered in books, ostrasized from legitimate academics, or otherwise removed from credibility and stgmatized due the ethical effectivness of instituational norms and thier complicity with ideological progress. We need reconsider what we mean by ‘experience’, and sort through the ontological entanglement perpetrated by what we understand as philosophy .

 There is a difference between an experience upon reading the theoretical proposal that thus bring more theory, and an experience itself that brings about theory. We need explore and get honest with what is really occurring ‘philosophically’, as an encompassing term. ”

– James Quederh. At the 1st annual talk “Concerning Theoretical Value”. Feb 2016