The question just can’t be what are we talking about, because I think that kind of regular question just leaves a gaping space in which to fill in a bunch of random discourse, A bunch of terms suspended in high concept that never really gets to what theyre talking about, rather it draws people into its circle , it’s circling .
So I think the question that should be raised more properly is “what the hell are we talking about?” Does anyone know?
It seems recently we’ve come upon the parameters of the situation. (If you think there are other parameters or even no parameters, please, leave a comment). That we have a kind a middle ground where concepts flow in and out where we negotiate and discuss things and possibilities and theories and do everything in moderation smoke a few cigarettes a day have a couple beers now and then but don’t turn into an alcoholic and don’t get addicted to nicotine, everything in moderation kind of arena. The parameters of that arena, the extemities by which things may be negitiated, then is on one hand ‘nothing’ and on the other ‘self aggrandizment’. This is to say that when we’re sitting in the middle and we want to reduce the terms in front of us to some sort of conclusion we only get, in the last instance, one of these two conclusions, that is, unless through the ruminations that we’ve really merely stayed in the arena of the middle.
So by this I still have to ask that if the only two possibilities are nothing and self reflection, what the hell are we talking about.
This is my question: to what are we referring when we use terms like ‘panpsyicism’ ? To what r we referring when we say ‘process’ ?
I say that in our discussions about what may be more real we are really talking about one thing. The usual routes of discussion talk around this one thing and use the disclaimer for talking around this one thing that to delve any further yields the polemical situations I have just noticed of nothing or self talk.
The problem is not so much about some essential absolute limit as it is about closed mindedness. As I say, the fear by which faith becomes viable.
We need to develop an opening, and this opening is the compromise of the free agent of transcendence. In other words if we are to destroy the transcendent we cannot be including everyone in reality because the backlash will always be that you’re infringing upon my innate and essensial universal freedom. If we are to create an opening we have to limit the types of response that are included in the consideration of how such an opening might be made, because most of the responses will be based in the closed minded limit of faith.
So part of the early part process of creating an opening is to be able to develop a mode of discernment. We need to clean up philosophical discourse . But this mode cannot be another theoretical operation, another theoretical model similar to Latours AIME, although his attempt is admirable. Instead it has to come through the appropriative concern over the assertive. If we are to find a science the mode needs to be about verification rather than argumentation. I feel that what is being verified in understanding needs to come forth to be put out in front to be there by able to be looked at and scrutinized by those whom have been verified in their experience by what they have come across. We need to find the common object, agree that indeed there is an object even if we can’t find it at this moment, so that way we can then begin to talk about its features. We don’t know what humanity is because we take it as given; this is to say that we haven’t filled out the whole object that is humanity, there is still a gap, A reasonable doubt , A recurring hole that allows humanity to escape the grasp of science . Indeed, strangely enough The current means by which we come across an object of humanity is it self refuted in even the regular philosophical considerations of the past 2 or 3 hundred years. Perhaps the first step is realizing that there is no common humanity. Can we get over ourselves enough to be able to consider the possibility that there is no humanity that is common in a potential of education? Can we consider even for a moment, even if it is incorrect? Presently we have no way to test these assertions; Artest is based in every individual being able to commune with some sort of transcendent aspect that inspires individuals to make statements. Such it is that any sort of ontological philosophical consideration is always avoiding the object of it’s discourse. And it uses discursive sleight-of-hand to avoid this very fact; it uses deception located in the ability to define terms in different novel ways to avoid the thing that is allowing the person to be able to define the terms in various novel in different ways. But even more aggravating is it sees that such discourse as identical to the object that it proposes to be describing, such that involved in this particular mode this particular method it that’s takes objects that are already there in the experience is worth by other transcended agents, such that they can get together and talk about nothing in the common arena or religion in the self talk arena.
I say that sounds to me like a bunch of nonsense and bs.
(Wow I can’t believe I just posted this. Lol. I don’t even know what it means.)