I’m finding it more and more interesting how scholars and investigators pretty much exemplify a kind of understanding that appears to me reversed from what is most sensible and obvious. I imagine that it is because of the misunderstanding involved with text, but less misunderstanding then it is orientation upon objects.
Eventually I imagine that my work will fill this problem out and it’s extents, but likewise we can imagine that it will do little to change this particular mode of operating. One cannot argue against faith. One cannot make a religious person see that their religion is not true through argument. This is because every argument that would propose to work against a particular construction of faith merely serves to support that faith, as we say faith usurps all meaning unto itself: Faith makes true.
But in part this is due to the nature of reality. We might begin to see that reality is but one manifestation, or true way. Better said , reality is the way of one . But you cannot make people who see Reality and its manifestations as encompassing and being able to address all of that is possible in existence and universal potential — you cannot talk people out of their reality. And by extension we have there by defined our current ethical parameters: you cannot destroy that which does not agree with your ethics and so you have to find ways of working with them ways of negotiating the different ethics, etcetra.
So likewise reality is always a truism despite what discursive structures and the forces that follow them might want to enforce its inherent difference. As I believe Badiou said somewhere: (paraphrase) The issue is difference as difference, and not difference as defined within a universal paradigm that relieves difference of it significance. One should see that the overwhelming predominance of humans being in a world is a preoccupation with including everyone and everything within that world to the extent that they have no ability to reflect upon their own being outside of the world of reality. This is what we mean by redundancy, and this is what we mean by convention. One cannot argue with such people, but likewise one cannot dismiss their input.
So it is that discursive structures did not have a multiplicity of meanings of themselves but rather divide neatly into two routes for any particular discursive structure. One of those routes is the multiplicity of meaning multifocality postmodernity etc. One could see that it is not a universal vacillation but rather a vacillation in the functioning of consciousness as a universal object.
So we have manifestations that see no vacillation but rather see a linear progress of human knowledge. We have real meaning extended out upon a multi dimensional reality that contains essential subjects and essential objects, a perpetual and eternal central agent thinker that considers segregate and material universal objects.
Objects as subjects
Yesterday I read an interesting article that pretty much falls into my current trajectory. The article is “The perfect subject (postcolonial object studies)” by Severin Fowles. Since it was published earlier this year in Journal of Material Culture I had missed it since I have strayed away from topics concerning both “material” and “culture” for […]
Objects, Postcolonialism, Speculative turn, Posthumanism, Object oriented ontology