I had to let the Alan Watts post sit for a minute and let it soak in.
And then the latest from The Covert Sound Philosophy.
Its a different kind of passion.
For, what are we talking about?
I see two usual ideas that appear as foundational, and that constitute a basic and irrefutable reality. On one hand we have what we could call a primary experience, which usually falls into a humanist category, of highly to not even philosophical modes. From the every day activity and conception of being human, of going to work, of going to the bar, of having people over, of laughing, crying, struggling and celebrating.
On the other side, we have the usual explanations of this regular human being, what we should always call metaphysical, but that which often enough gets caught in itself to say philosophy in general. From idealist, to realist, to spiritual to analytical, to intellectual.
These two manners reduce to each other in an ever spinning and cyclical motion that everyone, from the least intellectual to the most, will say cannot be escaped. Everyone has primary experiences that work within their minds and thoughts to come up with various ideas of sensibility.
So I am not allowed to suggest that we can get outside of this confinement, what is formally known as Correlationalism.
Nevertheless, we shall consider the Alan Watts post as an example not indicating some essential truth of anything humanly common, but rather as one particular kind of experience, one particular manner of thinking that comes when a particular conditional criterion is met.
In other words, I am not saying that he is talking about some secret foundational reality underneath regular reality. I am suggesting that there are particular conditional situations of being human that arrive at certain junctures of meaning, that these meanings indicate only a motion of being, and not any essential human truth that everyone may access given a set of conditions through a contingent reality. I am saying that everyone does not have access to any related experience. And I am also not talking about the over-reduced ‘experience’ that would-be philosophers would say cannot be duplicated because they are (in redundant argument) primary individual experiences.
I am saying that there are particular and identifiable experiences, the category of which, when removed from the general real contingency of primary individual ‘worlds’, can be catalogued. Not to thereby create another hierarchy of religious ideals, of spiritual or psychological dimensions, though; we are talking about what are usually know as ‘esoteric’ truths, but such ‘truths’ that have been conventionalized and diluted for e sake of individual, modern capitalistic identities.
Such categorization is not likewise reducible to some common reality whereby people may then assert a further control of the ‘now understood’ humanity; this is the basis of the offense of real faith, and why people resist such true philosophical assertions for the more ideological and political case. As I say, again: there are two irreducible routes upon objects.
My work concerns describing and exemplifying these conditions and situations through art on the one side, and philosophy on the other.