Monthly Archives: December 2016

Reapproaching Bryant’s “Onto-cartography”.

City taught me is that the signi er, meaning, belief, and so on are not the sole agencies structuring social relations. Whether or not a commercial district grows as a function of the amount of energy available to that zone from the power plant is not a signifying or cultural difference. Whether or not people begin to die or move away as a result of pollution produced by garbage, coal-burning power plants, and industrial waste is not a signifying difference. Whether or not people vote you out of of ce because they’re angry about traf c congestion is not the result of a signi er. To be sure, there are social relations here insofar as it is people that produce all these things and people that are ocking to this city, moving away, or voting you out of of ce, but the point is that the form the city takes is not, in these instances, the result of a signi er, a text, a belief, or narrative alone. It is the result of the real properties of roads, power lines, pollution, and so on.

from “Onto-cartography”, by Levi Bryant.

I hold a certain place for Bryant; i’m not sure why. He has reacted too many of my comments on his post In a, shall I say not so welcoming manner.

There is some sort of tension, it seems, no matter how i try to set it aside in my own insecurity, between a successful philosopher professor and what he has to say, and the philosopher who doesn’t make his/ her living off of his her productions.  I guess it goes all the way back to the Greeks; I read somewhere I think it was Hickman’s blog talking about Stigler maybe —  I don’t think we are to off the mark by saying that our current career philosophers are really just sophists in modern guise. 

So I take this paragraph from Bryants book. In the introduction here he talks about how he used to be all dialectical discursive dude and then he played the Sims video game. And we have his description part of which is posted in the quote above.

Know what is sad to me, but really just indicates the polemic that I talk about at my work, of two routes, is that his transformation his conversion that he explicitly describes the reasons for in this introduction, really just shows how he is totally had misunderstood as well as missed construed the situation that he abandoned. 

I will not go into all the aspects here; perhaps a lot of them will be noted in my upcoming book. But, on one hand, it really makes me question just what criterion philosophers must meet in order to become well-known for some particular philosophical subject.

But on the other hand it really goes to the necessity of cleaning up philosophy. Because it is obvious that he changed over into this new realism materialism speak from a misunderstanding of the situation to begin with. His philosophical position, though academically substantiated in letters and time and effort, is founded in the very legitimacy that he abandoned as a theoretical space. Again, the agumentative proof will occur elsewhere.

But it wont really matter.

The general point is that in order to have any ‘change of heart’, in order for a transformation to occur such as that Bryant talks about, One must necessarily be viewing ‘surfaces’. But then the issue isn’t so much about argumentative proves how one might be viewing surfaces or not; The issue concerns the very substance of the human being itself and it’s inherent ability. It is the obviousness involved. For one has to ask how it is possible that a person can have such a transformation; because then we have to ask ourselves the question of how it was possible that he was understanding something in one way before hand such that something made sense in a certain way that he has a different understanding subsequently. The point is is that while he may have had such a transformation to say that oh what I thought before was incorrect or somehow not accounting for all the facts, and now I see this new way — The very situation that he transformed from was because he misunderstood the situation: it is not that it is been discounted or disapprove in or is incorrect, rather, it is that it is totally correct. So it is his explanation of why such a transformation for him occurred Evidences his mistaken appropriation of the matter; The transformation does not occur because what was before was wrong; it occurs because it is totally correct and has exhausted itself and its possibilities. If thereby is not discounted but actually there by establishes the ground by which we may move on to something else. It is not that there are ‘roads, voting, city’ that are beyond signification; it is not that the discursive paradigm is only talking about words or something like that, such that cultural and subjective relations fails somehow; it is more a particular orientation upon reading discourses that talk about this situation that is incorrect, that would bring about such disillusionment. It is the reinstatment  of magical thinking, of revolting from the offense of one’s faith two there by reestablish it by withdrawing from the lack presented, back into the lack. This is what is meant by the transcendental cluase. Realism is the attempt to reinstate a glorious past, of actual material real empirical objects yet founded in a speculative capacity of human free agency — and this regardless of what is argued, because of ones orientation upon objects. 

It is from this distinction that we can read his onto cartography and see something just slightly off, this series and structure of argument just a touch skewed, such that we hope it had the substance that it seems to want to deliver. 

I only offer my critique and efforts of helping people, as I hope people do for me. But it seems that some people are insecure in their position, and intuitivelyknow that their position somehow off, Who will only take certain criticism, Who will except only certain arguments as valid because really they have no defense against the ones that they are automatically putting aside, albeit because they have the force of an institution of letters behind them.

I have a certain sympathy and that bothers me when talking about philosophy. We should be hitting each other hard and expecting that the other person expects to be hit hard. 

Intelligence and the ethical Segregation of Human Attributes. 

I have been ranting and about intelligence and something else. And it is not too difficult to notice that I could be talking about myself versus everyone else. That I am supremely intelligent and that everyone else in the universe is a complete moron. While this might be the case, If I am to be a part of any world where there are people that I am addressing were speaking to or attempting to communicate with her through this blog then I have to step back from my omnipotent posture. 😛 

And it might be possible that this is really where I am getting this idea from. Because it seems like at every step I take weather backwards or forwards weather macro or micro, I inevitably and left in a situation where I can’t help but deemmyself as being more sensible than the other of my topic. I can’t help but take myself as a rhetorical subject, but it is in this ability to take myself as merely some sort of speaking universal object that I am therefore able to find issue with those who are unable to remove themselves from their own serious endeavor.

For mine is the most serious there is; why else would people react so violently against it? Why would people go to the mall to get some Sirius discount prices on cool things the day after Christmas and then find themselves in a fight with 500 other people? Am I allowed to say it’s because they’re idiots? 

See also that the situation that I keep finding myself and is a very philosophical problem. The philosopher is constantly in a battle to stay in the middle. One must be careful not to posit ideas that isolates him or herself from the rest of the comprehending group, but at the same time any philosopher of significance and integrity cannot Acquiesce to the group findings. Physical science will always be incapable of accounting for the human being into total sense; for isn’t this what we’re talking about? Aren’t we in the attempt to find the absolute true thing? The grand master narrative into which all existence will fit to be explained and to be sensible and accessible to our comprehension? 

So when I say that most people are idiots it really is that I’m saying that most people are small minded and myopic in the reckoning of truth and reality. So while my argument tends to isolate me as this unique single individual as opposed to the rest of humanity, as though i am only talking about myself as supreme ruler, it is really more to indicate then I’m probably not the only one.

In this moment of considering how 500 people could get in a riot at the mall the day after Christmas, and extrapolating it to say fans at a soccer game, or a football game, I am contemplating a theoretical possibility that a democracy by the people necessarily and eventually has to reckoned by a sort of blind, behind which most of the “people” really are left voiceless while still seeing themselves as having a voice. Indeed that it would be a sort of fiction in which “the people” are involved as a total reality such that they must activate their being in such away consistent with the fact of their reality that they are involved with the government by the people. For it seems necessary that ignorance is in capable of maintaining a structured government by which society may be ordered. Any government that we have that we know of as government does not arrive to the equal voices of all the people that are governed. As an analogy example, a group of fourth-graders did not secure the state of Arizona; just as an example. 

The very idea of being governed by the people of a democracy work every single cytisine has a voice must necessarily and eventually be founded in a realization that most of the people only have a voice at certain junctures, certain occasions that have meaning for the people themselves. Perhaps he is junctures fall under the category of justice, but then somehow this meaning of justice is extrapolated into a government by the people that is not really inclusive of everyone’s voice in the determination of government.

In effect, what occurs in the discourse of enlightenment is an inevitable realization that there is a certain aggregate population of people that while represented, essentially have no voice because they have no concept of what a voice could really mean in the context of government. In effect, due to the inclusion of a system that concerns the economy of moving goods and products and services, we might want to say oligarchy, but really we would be talking about an aristocracy. 

This is a situation then that my segregate itself from regular real discourse. And the automatic miss trust that goes along with such aristocratic or imperial tendencies there by must be kept within its own arena of real human causation; the check on the tendancy for human despotism will and should continue. The real method of justification that accounts for all the activities of human beings within a context of dysfunction, trauma, and idyllic historical utopia should and will be left to its own mythological fantasies. Because it is real. 


Intelligence and non-intelligence. 

( note: this post is also voice dictated with very little editing )

I’m going to attempt to stick with the pervasive philosophical idea that reality is manifested only thru discourse. So instead of saying intelligence and idiocy, i’ll say intelligence and not intelligence, also because using the prefix non-has become so cool, and also also to indicate The stratification of real estimation. This is to say to indicate that intelligence is not some sort of basic or essential human universal relation upon all other possibilities of existing, and to emphasize the relativity segregation states. 

If you read my last post it might seem incredible that I went from 500 people getting in a fight at a local mall and the symptomatic subsequent fives that went on at another malls I guess across the nation, to an assumption that most of human beings in the world are morons, to A justificationof aristocracy. Yeah that’s a bit extreme. But it’s more that I just use the idiocy ofsmall number of people as  springboard to express my Opinion that most people are idiots, and then to theorize apartment situation.

But I don’t think it would be difficult for anyone who works a regular job to agree with me that most people that they work with are idiots. And if you work with the public and your job that most people in the public or likewise idiotic. And if you know anyone who makes social rules that works and governments are on board you would have to agree with me that many of these people enough of them are likewise imbiciles. 


But I think it’s more true than we like to admit. Of course I am really easy to get along with ;). And I pretty much get along with everyone I encounter. It is only really occasionally that I come across a person obstinate difficult; I tend not to react quickly and I tend not to take things personally. I tend understand that if someone is an asshole it’s usually has nothing to do with me and it’s because of whatever’s going on in their day and they feel that they have to act out in particular manner.

But if you look at that observation of myself in the world for what it is, we can begin to see how, if I’m being honest and mostly truthful so far is how I get along with the world (insomuch as I don’t have a second or third or fourth party verifying to you readers that I’m such an easy-going levelheaded person), that my view upon the world is that most human beings are idiots.

Why would I take everything personally? Doesn’t everyone have a friend or at least know people that does this all the time? How they’ll take comments as insults when the other person were just meant as a bare comment with no agenda behind them? I’m sorry but I would have to say that at least 50% of the people that I know and consider my friends take things personal and this way; they are always ready to have an attitude with people. Now, most of them are not violent but I do have some friends who are ready to fight also and that some people could call violent.

But I’ve never been this way. In fact I give people the benefit of the doubt to a fault, and really that’s my problem. I tend to assume the goodness of everyone and I tend to defend everyone’s activity to some sort of reason or psychological explanation, and quite often to the point that I get taken advantage of or I’m blind to a certain situation that isn’t working in my favor. If I can be honest, this being my nature it’s probably why I get so antagonistic when I find people are taking a vantage of me. But my armory is not fists and sticks; my weapons are words. Especially for someone who I figure I have a certain trust with; if someone who I have considered my friendtake advantage of me, or take me for granted because I evidence a certain kind of innocence to them, I don’t hold back. I will cut them to the core I will attack the very nature of thier being with arguments they cannot deny. not merely crass and superficial insults , I will hit them with the very ideas by which they presume to be so confident and sure of themselves.

People do not like this. People would rather keep things at a distance and Pummel each other with fists and sticks. Violence usually arrives in my small world in this manner; it will be the person who has betrayed my trust who my attack and cut down that who then strike out at me Physically. But this doesn’t happen too often.

Anyways, my opinion of the world is based on the fact that most people I encounter at least through a few upon what is the rest of the world, did not behave sensibly or forest and since we do not rent questions in which they find themselves.

I cannot possibly understand the experience of being African-American in America. Only theoretically and intellectually can I have an understanding. There has been some speculation or some theoretical reason that wants to explain say three large occurrence of hypertension and black males, rapid drug addiction and gang activity in black neighborhoods, domestic violence etc. — that these are caused or they can be attributed to the expanse of being a person of color in United States for 500 years. I’m not going to discount that; it makes sense I can agree with that I don’t have to agree with it but I understand it etc. my experience in the world is to except everyone at face value; it is only in my perceived distance that I’m able to come to the grand proclamations about most of humanity being idiots, even as I do tend to justify that opinion even while I question it and put it to examination in my daily life of coming across people face-to-face. 

But I cannot say that I have had any sort of trauma in my life that is caused me to behave in any certain way. If I have gotten addicted to drugs or I was an alcoholic there is nothing in my life that I can blame to say that oh my parents were alcoholics or my dad was abusive or my mother died when I was young. For me to have an attitude upon other human beings or to assume that they have some sort of agenda to take advantage of me in some sort away — this is not how I go about my life. In fact I spent a good deal of time when I was younger attempting to gain such an attitude because I thought it was normal and that somehow I was not normal that I was too nice to understanding too forgiving. That’s my own brand fuckedupness.

But this is what also allows me to see that the predominant answered of people occupy the space of mental effection that we might properly call non-intelligence. Every sort of bad behavior is explained away and treated against some sort of bad incorrect or wrong thing that happened in their past as those causes are also attributed to historical and cultural factors that were wrong or incorrect or bad. 

And yet I don’t attribute any thing that is ever happened in my life to some sort of bad reason. Perhaps it is my white privilege but pretty much everything that is happened in my life good or bad I just take it to the fact that it happened and then I had to deal with it in someway. If it was wrong it was because somehow I viewed it is wrong or because the people I interact with behaved in such a way that I realize that it was wrong so I adjusted my behavior. Never at any time did I look to my past to find out some ground reason why this might be the case. 

But it is the way of the world that everywhere you go people are attributing their behavior and social events and personal events and people’s behavior to some sort of causal matrix of personal cultural and historical dynamic. 

somehow I’m excluded from this.


So it must be I gather that either I have no intelligence or they have non-intelligence.

more in a bit…

Intelligence and idiocy. 

(Note: this post has been voice dictated and largely on edited . Lol)
One can’t be too surprised when there is a large fight at the mall after Christmas, and then that there’s other fights at other malls for whatever chain reaction Evento cause explanation someone wants to give to it. 

And yet it is kind of surprising when there is a large fight at a local mall the day after Christmas because there was so many people at the mall. I think it is really this surprise that I have and then the resultant explanation that goes on in my head and then the juxtaposition of myself that I would never go to the mall north think of going to the mall the day after Christmas- all this that makes me say human beings are fucking idiots.

And then perhaps it is a kind of maturity that begins to see the real state of what a human being is. Maybe we can even equate it in a certain sense to the election of Donald Trump. I think despite all the intellectual applications that want to go into political causes in reasons and strategies of why such as surprising event took place, it really comes down to those of us who presume upon intelligence and some sort of progress of that intelligence as a sort of leader for the rest of humanity — it really comes down to that this intelligent isn’t leading anyone. In fact it could be that this intelligence is really only leading those who think their other certain intelligence to believe that they’re leading the rest of humanity, where as the rest of humanity really behaves along the lines of nothing of the sort that we call or want to believe as a sort of educated intelligence. It may be this reality that people of this so-called intelligence, what I tend to generalize as enlightenment, don’t want to admit. Which is really that human beings are nothing more than animals except that they have this thing called technology that seems to enforce this so-called progress of enlighten meant. Human beings when it comes down to it act stupidly and behave stupidly and come up with reasons for acting in such a way that really make no sense in light of what we might want to call intelligence. We call this common activity this common human being that does things, we want to extrapolate ourselves into this human being is common human being and say that there’s this intelligence going on somewhere inside of them, most likely centered and what we know as a brain, and intelligence that we can appeal to for their irrationality or their stupid Activity. But then you have people getting in a fight at the mall the day after Christmas. Call me simpleminded but whoever engaged in that activity is fucking dumb. Whatever we might want to call intelligence has failed. And whatever cause or explanation we want to put on that and those people as they are part of this common intelligent human being race of sorts, really just functions in the way I just said: it functions to deny that they’re idiots. It functions to include them in the humanity of which we cannot be idiots. It functions to justify my enlightened mind into the common humanity, because if there is an a common humanity then my enlightened mind is not so enlightened. But also, the irony in this whole situation is that there must be a common humanity that I am a part of that did not is that the people at who act in this ridiculous man or are not intelligent, because if they’re acting in such a random way that my enlightened intelligent thinking cannot gain access to nor caused them to behave any differently, then again it might mean that my enlighten mind means nothing at all.

So in a certain way, invested in this type of reasoning is the kind of aristocracy. There is a legitimate argument for the segregation of attributes. The enlightenment would have a common humanity that is able to be educated into intelligence. But what we find is that there are more ignorant then there are intelligent; we find that even as we make this mighty attempt to educate the noble humanity and the ignorant masses of potential, not only do we find that the ignorant masses are growing exponentially quicker than we can educate them, but we are also finding that our category by which we identify or move to promote intelligence fails quicker then we can rectify it into other sorts of categories. For example, I’m sure that there are many people involved in these so-called mall riots Who we could call educated and intelligent. Likewise there are many sports stars who are very educated but likewise do stupid things like beat up their wives or do drugs. Our ability to make new classifications that fall under the heading of the progress of intelligence for education do not develop quick enough to overcome the title wave of ignorance. We want to say then when these things happen too educated intelligent people that some sort of trauma occurred in their past, or they have some sort of physical neurological disorder; we want to say their mom died when they were five; or a Guy jilted her for her best friend when she was 15. We want to say people use drugs because they’re trying to escape something.

But none of these classifications that fall within the bracket of education and intelligence ever account for an aggregate a possibility; at best they are effective only within a small population of the whole. 

so it might be that we have to admit that the aggregate of humanity is in capable of leading itself towards any better future. This or Every type of humanity is capable of moving at south towards a better future, but a better future in reference to its own meaningful designations. Our particular type of enlightenment thinking may just be one of these types of cosmological ordering.

It may well be that the king and queen and class of aristocracy of any type of scaffolding cosmological order functions well in whatever situation of humanity whether it be inclusive andethical towards the lives of the common human being, or whether it be despotic and oppressive. Perhaps there is an a Historical oscillation that we cannot see or refuse to admit. 

But likewise it may be that and admitting of a segregation of a human attributes Mary leads to a sort of caste system such as colonial Europe discovered in India. Perhaps it was not that there was a ruling Brahma cast that subjugated the rest of the castes, but maybe more that there was just a segregation of human attributes and that each caste function within its situation of ability upon a whole social system where in Brahmas just function and likewise within their ordering.
More in a bit…