I was Reading a recent post over at Last Eden about the insufficiency of belief.
While I do have a large attitude in general, it is not so pervasive to my stature so that I can’t admit when I’m wrong or have been stupid. In fact my whole approach is one should be careful not to take one too seriously, Because when it comes to philosophy I’m very fucking serious and so I have to temper that with the persistent and constant finger poking in my side that reminds me to also have an ability to laugh at the statements I make.
In the case of the post I just read, my comment was basically his point, i’m pretty sure, but I read it too quickly and was too ready to be antagonistic to see that that was the point of this post.
But something did come out of it for me.
I’m pretty sure that Quentin Miellassoux was the one, in his book “Beyond finitude”,who coined the term “correlationalism”, yet while I appreciate his ability to come upon the issue, I still think that his thought was short sighted and incomplete. Not that that really matters, because he’s making a living on philosophy and so once you reach that kind of point of being a professor of philosophy it doesn’t really matter if you’re a complete idiot or what anyone thinks about it. Not that he’s an idiot, but that everyone talks about the big C in all sorts of ways that really just shows that what he said about it made no sense except the sense that everyone wants to make about it, which in the end, is ultimately real. What the coining of the term really shows is that everyone is caught within it and can’t find a way out of it except by confining the term to a particular state that can be transcended. And this then evidences the ‘magical thinking’ he is attempting to get beyond (beyond finitude).
And even though the term (his coining) is something like 10 years old now, I keep trying to find a better way to explain to people how they are idiots. (authors note: Lol). I think that’s my whole role in the philosophical world is to point out how most people are idiots. (author’s note:Even bigger lol). And I think that’s why I will get nowhere in the philosophical world, because my approach is pretty much “hey I think you’re really intelligent , let’s talk” and then I start to talk with them and then I end they do not really want to find any truth about anything and I leave in my head with “youre just a complete idiot huh? ”
They may be idiots but I’m a complete dork. And these philosophers have some pretty serious and important things to put down and they can’t have people, strange confrontative anarchists likes myself, pointing holes in their idiotic proposals. (authors note: did I mention I can’t stop myself? and Lol).
I mean all I ask is that people hit me as hard as I hit them, and it seems no one wants to play a real match of knock out. They all want to frolic in the sandbox and allow everyone to play in the sandbox with them. I kind of approach it more like we’re in a boxing ring and we’re getting down to the nuts and bolts and factual truth of situations, things that matter and so I’m going to hit hard, i’m not gonna play by the sandbox rules.
But again I’m a total dork so… i’m gonna try again to put down the meaning of correlationalism that really shows how there is no getting past the big Correlationalist reality.
To be fair, Miellassoux does account for a ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ correlationalism. But I would say that he must posit correlationalism within such frames because he cannot justify its True meaning in reality and still maintain his good faith in the institution that supports his living. As I have said elsewhere, “families are exempt from the repercussions of truth; theirs is firmly of reality, for reality and utterly and entirely Real.” People who make their living thru philosophical endeavor (as a professor) have a family which is the traditional-metaphysical lineage of the common humanity. They must argue political recourse; they are not allowed to find truth, they must stay firmly in Reality. (author’s note: yes; I am really the biggest wanker there is right now.)
So, aside from the fact that I am basically mute in whatever I might say, earlier in my blog I have argued a ‘hard’ correlational limit. The hard C limit might look like this:
The belief P confers the existence of P (the cosmological argument).
– Here we have a logical inference that cannot be displaced, because it is the route upon which every philosophical argument towards proving gains its veracity. This is due to the fact that if I am to propose a situation P, the most immediate question concerning the veracity of P is if P if True or if one merely believes it is True. Then the question inevitably comes to turn around what condition is evidenced in the situation of belief, and the situation of veracity. Can there be a truth that does not have a corresponding and correlational belief? Can I propose a situation without my believing that it is the case? I may say I know it is true, but then, if I am to stand by this position, I have no need to discuss it with anyone; on the contrary, I merely assert it upon everyone!
So it would seem that we are at a stalemate here. This is the Hard Correlational limit. And if our route of logic has any substance beyond merely definitions suspended in an ether of disembodied consciousness (do I hear echoes of Naropa? School of Disembodied Poetics), which is to say belief, then we cannot but say that this correlational situation, the situation that must ask into and thus separate belief from truth, is at root in the situation of this particular methodological route, and the unfortunate and usually offensive meaning that arises from this situation is that it must be true and not merely a belief. For if we say that this particular situation is one of belief, then we are bringing into question not merely some scaffolding of meaning, some culturally structured dictionary of real terms; rather, we are bringing into question the very basis of logic and rationality as well an intelligence, consciousness, and even other human agent descriptor there is that allows us to even have the argument in the first place, as well as speak about our situation in the world. In effect, the only way to get beyond or outside this situation is to completely discredit the very foundation of the universe as we know it.
Now; this is obviously not the case. The universe had not ceased to exist, and we have not stopped thinking using the same criterion of methodology for discernment of credibility, etc…
But it goes to the point that only two routes emerge from this situation: Either we continue on in the way we always have, or we depart from it. And, for the former (which is the usual real route of institution and religion), we behave within our centrally intuited selves as spiritual/neural selves, or we see that this method, the conventional (former) method, is faulty in as much as it views its products as necessary transcendental emanations upon a stratified omnipresent universe, where everyone has access to discursive meaning in potential. But because we can never get beyond this logical mode of constructing meaning, we have then a factor which reduces upon itself to allow a divergence from what has been prior, the foundation of all real-truth. We have a way to discredit the conventional method without having to cause it to fail in its effectivity. We have a way to find a science of what humans do without negatively or nihilistically effecting how humans go about having a reality.