Monthly Archives: October 2016

What is Real? 

In my work , I endeavor to be as clear as possible to the most people and as large as range of intelligences as possible. Philosophy, The agents typical of philosophy, The philosophers of the profession, on the other hand , seem to start with what is most obvious and through maneuvers and of deconstructing and dissecting meanings of terms, by doubting what is apparent and what is right in front of them, come to some sort of any sort of Thierry that at any moment is a pause in the ongoing development and growth or evolution of understanding, to therefore talk about what is more real of what is apparent. For a broad term this is called metaphysics, and often enough with no hesitation it can be called ontology. 

Philosophers seem to function this way automatically. It seems that the idea of doubt is somehow reversed, such that the end result of the doubting it seem to be more true or of a more fundamental occurrence of the apparent reality. This route and method constitutes probably every percentage of philosophical book and author that anyone would want to look for. There are maybe two that I know of out of maybe 100 that do not use this method. 

Because to me it is not the route of doubting that leads to some sort of foundational base that ends up to constitute what is apparent. To me it is the end result that must be doubted; this is where doubt becomes significant and not merely a producer of discursive fashion. It is here that philosophy endures. 

What’s more is that most philosophers are looking forward has their philosophy. Even while they look to past authors and historical philosophical books, and see themselves as delving into a tradition that is established arguments already made to thereby allow the new philosopher to synthesize these past arguments and hopefully come up with a new significant ontological proposal. but they are not viewing it as a past because they’re reviewing it as a means towards their future. It is this kind of reversal that I am meaning when I say that so many philosophers seem to be using meaning in reverse.

We might hear Kierkegaard and I think maybe even Heidegger, as well Badiou comes to mind; The philosopher is concerned with one thing and this one thing is all too concerned with the past. Some Conventional philosophers would want to take this in as a sort of irony and argue their future career upon the folding and obscurity that these passages might denote to support their endeavor. But I take it merely as a statement of fact. There is no future to be concerned with because the future has already been determined, and this is why the philosopher of significance is concerned with the past because he is trying to figure out how it is that the future can unfold and no other way then it does and indeed it is at this moment. 

So it is that even as I say that I am trying in my work to be as clear as possible and what I’m saying and to be able to be approachable by people of even fair or averageintelligence, I really find that the deceivers the clerics the bishops of philosophy have gotten to them first. So sure are the simple minds of the belief that anything true must be complex and hidden behind a veil of intricate and involved discursive ramblings that given the most simple idea most if not all turn away the first sentence from it’s obviousness; so many today doubt themselves because of the mysterious veil of religion that conventional philosophy as errected by it’s traditional method. And this is so much the case that even the philosophers themselves padded in seats of long names and prestige, initials of credentials, that the philosophers themselves cannot even comprehend the meaning of a simple and obvious statement. They argue their involvement and complexity of what is really real; they enforce illusion upon the people around them and establish a higher key of religious power and dominion below them.

So it is at the end of my philosophical endeavor, which is indeed just the beginning, I say reality is that which is all around us and that this is most true. The dog That walks in front of me; The house through the woods, The sidewalk under my feet;  The grass. We can find nothing more true and real then these. 

From this, we can begin to speak about what is significant, begin to unravel the modern religion of reality. We find the entrance into what is offensive to those traditional spaces of power, what is not real, but true.  Not concerning ontology, but more, teleology. 

The Purge. 

There is just too much to read and too little time. One needs take, I suppose, The method I learned in undergraduate: you get knowledgeable and you focus upon a specific thing, you narrow your focus and become knowledgeable and intelligent upon a small area. 


We will indeed see what the future hold but probably I won’t see it because I’ll be gone. While I tend to agree with this short example from the post below, That there is going to be some sort of purge in a manner of speaking, i’m somewhat skeptical that we will lose anything we call human except so far as we call ourselves something else, which is to say except as I might not be driving a Hyundai any longer but will be riding in a Cadillac, The merging of humanity into some other form due to a I and or technology  merely yields more human, i’ll be at defined do the conventions of the day.  Where are we human when we hunted and gathered? Where we still human when we developed firearms? How about when we came up with industry and mass production? How about when the Internet came along where we still human? 

I’d say that in every moment and every era there is always some sort of grand thing that humanity is going to do that is going to either destroy humanity or transform it into something entirely different and unrecognizable. I’d say that this is a feature of being human that it overreacts over determines under determines and does everything I can not to accept what is right in front of it. 


Re-reading R. Scott Bakker: The Post-Intentional World

Was re-reading R. Scott Bakker’s post on Reza Negarestani, The Blind Mechanic II: Reza Negarestani and the Labour of Ghosts. A couple of quotes: Knowledge is no universal Redeemer, which means the ideal of Enlightenment autonomy is almost certainly mythical. What’s required isn’t an aspiration to theorize new technologies with old concepts. What’s required is […]
I might add though that we should hesitate in positing a single absolute reference. Foreign aid through time there has been drastic changes in the condition of being human that indeed has made successive generations be calm effectively unrecognizable to previous, but as well as sort of movement that makes the expansion of a past humanity likewise effectively foreign to its present considerings. 

But the issue involved really is how we might be able to even consider, say, ancient Egyptian. On one level it seems obvious that human beings that existed in ancient Egypt are not unrecognizable to us. And actually if were positing any sort of future human being that might be unrecognizable to ourselves in the present we are doing nothing more than extrapolating are present forces for such catastrophe or such disconnection. At worst it is not that the ancient Egypt shins are unrecognizable to us, but more partially hidden. In fact we can only say that it is indeed their humanity that we recognize all the time all through history all through cultures all through the Human technological advances. To say that somehow we’ve reached some sort of saturation is really just being involved in the motion of singularity that human consciousness produces at every moment. I’ll talk about this more in my upcoming book. 

We will be that we are on the precipice of a technology that we remove humanity from itself or cause it to become something unrecognizable to us today, but I would say the same thing happened when I fell sleep last night and then I woke up this morning. I said happens every time I get on a computer and it doesn’t do what I want to do. Oh catastrophe happens. All my past fears about technology and my ignorance of coding and how applications work and how the Internet works and how I don’t know how to run certain applications that I use every day in their totality. Every moment of my using a computer I’m extrapolating into that knowledge that knowing of computers and the Internet my fears and my ignorance and I projected out upon the Internet in various ways depending on my mood and attitude at the time. Then when I see him often to be most calm and most comfortable and most prepared to do something new on the computer, when I have told myself hurt myself thoroughly for the fact that I’m not going to know entirely how this is supposed to go nor how to do it but that I will take the time and have the patience to investigate and learn about this new thing that I’m doing or using or attempting. And no sooner do I begin to do it then I’m ready to take a bat to my computer. Lol. Call me repressed and dysfunctional. Lol. I don’t really care. But at certain times it doesn’t matter how much preparation or how much meditation or how much forethought goes in to being prepared for whatever situation, at certain times all my fears will have been realized, and I will be just a hairs breadth away from throwing my computer out the window, running downstairs stomping on Garnet jumping on it grabbing my bat and smashing it all the while flipping off as hardest I can those people who invented computers and the Internet in the first place and demand that I need to know the certain set of skills. I’ve become absolutely psycho pathetic. 

Know if we’re going to come to terms with what a purge might mean, I think it really means purging the idea that we’re going to somehow purge ourselves from being human. Again I have not read bakers stuff fully so I can’t know really everything he says or his entire argument, but I would say that what will be purged is his idea that somehow we can be more than him or something other than human. I will agree on a certain level that human beings are manifested in this world and different ways at different times, even to say that to reduce this president into some sort of ever presence is likewise merely overdetermination what it is to be human as if somehow I’ve overcome some real humanity to come to some true existence of world. 

The intelligence artificial or not that humanity is developing through technology is nothing different then being human: it is a human thing, in the same way as this tree right here is a human thing and this grass and this sign and this car: these are human designations. What they are in themselves we might never really know because everything is involved with human being. It’s when we take this being here we want to say oh I have access to something that is more than human or that will be beyond human that we get into the realm of the mythological. 

Even if I was Darth Vader with three quarters of my body made up of technology still humanity will have determined this outcome and the situation in meaning. 
We can never Escape being human. The purge should be the escape from this ever present Escape patch of human consciousness. 

But this will never happen and I will prove it to you 50 years from now. 

The Double.

I am also reading “Witches Werewolves and Fairies” by Claude  Lacouteux.

And i like this part: 

i am becomming more aware, or at least more tolerant and accepting, of the fact that most academic considerations do not consider what may be true or false. Most academic actors are there to argue the institution. In this way they behave just like Christian apologists, clearing the conceptual path for the power of the instituion, justifying its real application.

most, but not all.

I remember Jello Biafra once said that you cannot effect or change the system from outside of it; you have to infiltrate it.

 the cattle argue that grass is the only food. 


I am not sure what occurred here. Since I cannot be sure unless people speak to me directly, I have then to respond in kind in general, under an assumption that the REPOST below is way too ironic. I suppose that may be a luxury of postmodern anachronism; who can really know ? In the end, even Hitler hid in his bunker. 

Did I mention that I am a little insane?

I remember a while ago I had a friend who was Christian. Some of the things I would say would offend him because I am not a Christian (more a ‘free spirit’) but being that he was less a born again evangelist and more a ‘spiritual’ kind of ‘Christian-esque’ Christian, he would mainly just express his Spiritual humility. But we were good friends.

One day I said something that he really took offense at. I don’t remember what exactly I said, but I do remember what I said to his response:

“If The world ended today and God came down to judge me I would stand before him chin up and look Him in the eye and say ‘Judge me. I have done nothing wrong.’

That didn’t sit too well with my friend. 

I have since modified my attitude (I’m still not Christian though 😉

It is interesting to me that on the blog AGENT SWARM, Terrence is often talking about open discourse and free exchange, but at times (below) he frames in with reference to how others are not having it, how he want to inspire and motivate open dialogue while other authors do not wish to engage freely. I cannot but wonder…

Do I not clean my house first? 

What is a free exchange of ideas?

           But I think first we must ask what an idea is. Some initial considerations:
Is an idea ‘owned’ by anyone? 

Do I ponder ideas only through ideas legitimized by an established order?

What constitutes a novel idea?

Can two people express the same idea through different terms?

Do different clausal structures identify necessarily different things?

When did ‘the idea’ begin?

Am I limited in my ability to think freely by what terms others have used before me?

If I do not conform my ideas about a subject to what others have already said about it, am I involved in a free exchange of ideas ?

Must I learn the traditional modes before I improvise with skill? 

Do I find God or do I find the Church?

If I repeat an idea someone else had, does it mean I got it from them?

If I must use others terms’ in order to speak intelligently about a subject, am I still involved in a free exchange of ideas? 

Am I able to have an idea that is the same as another person that does not use the terms that he or she used to describe it? 

Am I using discourse freely or is discourse defining what is true for me? 

Am I trapped by discourse, or is discourse taken to mean a whole unitive reality wherein I may be free?

If I have a case that you cannot understand, and will not work to understand, are you still in a free exchange of ideas with me? Do either of us gain from allowing a suspension of misunderstanding? 

Do I reflect unto what terms might mean, or do I take terms as identifiers of what and who I am?

Am I free to move about the building, or am I free to move wherever ?

Must I take the stairs?

Is the free exchange of ideas limited by my own insecurities, or is the exchange defined in the security of others definition of the free exchange? 

Am I complaining about another person or myself?
As Terrence has expressed many times: It is a tragedy when people shut down the conversation merely because they do not want to be involved in the free exchange of ideas.
Can someone help me to clarify where I am mistaken? 
Sometimes one begins a conversation on social networks and after a few short exchanges it suddenly stops, your interlocutor rejects what you have been saying with a short sharp rejoinder, like a verbal slap in the face. What is to be done? Such is life. My reply is simple: This is not up to the […]

Yes. Philosophy?

Philosophy, which, according to Aristotle, begins in wonder has embraced pedantry and protocols and office charts. Can it be saved from itself?Philosophy, which, according to Aristotle, begins in wonder, has embraced pedantry and protocols and office charts. Can it be saved from itself?Continue reading . . . News source: Arts & Letters Daily;stronggt;begins-in-wonderlt;stronggt;-has-embraced-pedantry-and-protocols-and-office-charts-Can-it-be-saved-from-itself.aspx

Definition of Object. 

“an object is a postmodern subject”

-Lance Kair. 

Granted I’m not laying out my whole theoretical base here in these comments. If you’re interested I’ve written a couple books  or you could check out the rest my blog. 
Objects may go along with representational thinking but I would challenge anyone to not have some thinking that is representational despite how you wanted to define it. 
The problems we are confronting in our day is the perpetuation of postmodern kind of D construction or postmodern kind of application of theoretical forces. 
I simply take The method of such applications and the results as facts. When we consider the ontological result of what we might generalize as postmodern thought, my argument is that it is found to be an incorrect method. And that due to this incorrect manner, what I call an orientation, I place the whole tradition which supposes to find itself in the postmodern condition in the category of object. 
What this means then is that objects are subject to postmodern condition. And that the subject being at self an agent of post modernity itself becomes an object of its own estimations, it’s own constructions as well as its own deconstructions. The totality that this situation indicates can be called thus an object in itself, because it defines itself by its limitations. 
This is where I see Adams robust ontology, The ability to have such an analysis, text From, again despite all the theoretical postulates and name associations. 
I have a feeling all the stuff is going to be in my third book which will be out sometime in 2017.
For those interested, you can find my latest book HERE.