The Sadness…

… is in people who think this is just a silly cartoon:

REPOST: 

Cartoon de jour — Business As Usual.

Originally posted on Becoming is Superior to Being: Calvin and Hobbes by Bill Watterson In case you think this is current, this cartoon was created ten years ago. “The more things change, the more they remain the same!” kenne
Cartoon de jour — Business As Usual.

Advertisements

The Extensions of Denial: Philosophy of the Real and Addiction.

unfinished notes…

On the possibility of philosophy:
Philosophy, which once seemed outmoded, remains alive because the moment of its realization was missed…

…This describes the same situation as ‘the philosophical revolution’

…The summary judgement that it had merely interpreted the world is itself crippled by resignation before reality, and becomes a defeatism of reason after the transformation of the world failed. It guarantees no place from which theory as such could be concretely convicted of the anachronism, which then as now it is suspected of.

Theodor Adorno. Negative Dialectics.

It is clear that certain philosophers have noticed the issue and address it head on. The question then becomes if our institutions are really serving knowledge. This is because we are left to wonder about whether or not this situation is being recognized. We have to wonder about how it is being addressed, or more pertinently, if it is being addressed by ignoring it.

There has to be a discernment in philosophy as to what we are doing, and this pivotal Mark can be described for those who already understand, but then also to whom only need an acknowledgement of their situation. But there are those who don’t already understand who then think that they understand through the description, and profess to understand through their questioning and gaining new understanding from other descriptions.

*

I am reminded of a problem in a persons spine. In the case of a pinched nerve or herniated disc or some sort of vertebral situation whereby people have pain or numbness or other sort of radial abnormalities along the legs and arms, tingling and numbness and soreness are symptoms of the early situation. Often these problems can be corrected through various types of physical therapy, stretching and strength training in various muscle groups can help the sufferer get the vertebrae, nerves and discs in their proper places so no more symptoms occur.

 For our philosophical situation, In this analogy I wish to touch upon here is the contingency where the doctor will say ‘”if you feel weakness in that arm”…then were into something serious that might need surgery’.  The question then is what is weakness? If I’m having muscular pain that prevents me from moving in particular directions or causes problems in my every day activity, how or when am I supposed to know when weakness has occurred such that I should tell the doctor that yes I am weak in that hand, for example.

I will bring up a further analogy of substance addiction. Common recovery rhetoric describes a process of recovery wherein one of the first events the addict must come upon is acceptance of her situation, but further and most significant, the addict must reach what the recovery community calls ‘a bottom’.

There are at least two aspects of this bottom:

  • There is the bottom that the loved one’s of the addict wishes upon the addict herself. These people are taught what addiction is and to enact a kind of enforcement of boundaries which is hoped as it is supposed to help the addict to reach her bottom by removing the ground upon which the addict finds her ability to keep using.
  • There is the bottom that the addict must reach.

A bottom is that point that allows the addict to reach out in an effective manner for help. We say ‘in an effective manner’ because if a bottom does not achieve the desired activity, which for the addict and her loved ones is a cessation of using, then it is not a bottom.

The question here, though, is what constitutes a bottom. This is not a conceptual theory about what psychological forms might be used or involved to bring about a bottom. The issue is what the difference is between someone who has reached a bottom whence that addict no longer uses, and this is to say, becomes effectively ‘permanently sober’, and the addict that either does not stop using, or ends up using again after a period of not using. 

The arguments and discussions around addiction and recovery are contentious as they are multitudinous.

Yet, We can thus come to define the usual and most true answer to this question, in these contexts, of what weakness is and what a bottom is:

These are moments of decisive significance.

 These are moments that divide those who know from those who merely understand through a discursive context. The issue here then is whether a communication accross this division can take place, and what is occurring within such communication. The issue also concerns whether contextual discursive understanding is sufficient for the purpose that is supposed by the effort communication.

In the case of addiction, the recovery community knows very well its limitations. Aside from the well-doer, on the one hand we have addict who has reached the bottom and thus succeeds in staying sober, who feels an obligation to try to help ‘the addict who still suffers from active addiction. But ask anyone in this situation how they actually achieve this (effective) helping, they will readily admit that they are doing nothing but being there for when the addict is ready, as a sign to them that when they are ready there is help. In effect, they merely wait for the addict to reach their bottom.

In the scenario of the herniated disk, the doctor will often tell the patient “you will know” when the arm becomes weak. The question here is always ‘how will I know?’ For the insecure patient, the question will always pop up at moments of the acute discomfort. Is this weakness? Is this pain significantly different than what I am being treated for such that I need prompt attention from my doctor (surgery) ? The answer is “you will know”.

Indeed, those who know have no more question upon the situation; they know. They have experienced the weaknessthe bottom. Until that point, the patient is only guessing, the addict, as they say, is only fooling himself. In addiction recovery, the common and typical goto method of recovery is the 12 Steps of Recovery, but everyone who knows also knows that if the addict had not reached ‘her’ (true) bottom, the Steps will do nothing for them, and often enough one will hear that to take an addict who is not ready through the Steps, or to accommodate the Steps to the addict who is not reached bottom, rather than the addict to the Steps, actually may hinder the effectiveness of the Steps when they Are ready, so that when the addict indeed is ready and needs the help, they may be disenchanted with the Steps, thinking that they didn’t work before and so won’t work this time. In this view, there is a miscommunication occurring at various junctures, and it is likewise the misunderstanding of the situation that brings about all sorts of untested and untestable disclaimers for the recovery method (here, the 12 Step Program). 

The analogy to philosophy should not he missed: What i shall call ‘conventional philosophy’ Is like the addict who has not reached bottom. In fact, it would be more truthful to say that conventional philosophy doesnt even see that there is a problem beyond the problem it sees. 

In addiction recovery, this is called ‘denial’ and it manifests through various sorts of reasonable distractions that seem quite plausible. For example. Addiction is understood to be a primary disease. A Primary disease is: “Definition: a disease that arises spontaneously and is not associated with or caused by a previous disease, injury, or event, but that may lead to a secondary disease”.

This means that addiction is not caused by anything but the interaction between the subject (addict) and the substance. Yet, becuase of the open nature of what we mean by ‘subject’ or ‘addict’, this primary designation becomes vague and elusive to the point of meaning very little for the method or application of treatment. 

This then translates into a rationale for a psychological approach to the problem. Therapists want the addict to search themselves to uncover hidden traumas and feelings; it is assumed not only that confronting these ‘hidden catalysts’ will allow the addict to stay sober, but that everyone who becomes addicted does so becuase of some dyfunctional psyche attempting to ‘escape reality’ due to some unconscious and denied trauma or ability to cope with ones ‘feelings’.

So we find that the treatment of addiction is placed in the lap of the addict herself, but in a dual manner that reinforces a chaotic confusion for what might work to solve the problem. The addict who is unable to stay sober quickly learns that she needs to address her ‘issues’ and that it these issue that are aggravating the addiction and making her unable to get sober. So over time she begins to behave in his manner, ‘telling on herself’ in encounter group meetings and psychological therapy sessions.

See that this is not a jab at recovery methodology so much as it is an example of not only how people behave, but more how philosophy and its conventional method functions. Similar to the conventional methods of philosophy, Addiction as a ‘primary diease’ is treated through methods that deny it primacy. 

Faith And reality.

“If I cannot rely on the world to be consistent (I do not mean willful consistency) I will not be able to function meaningfully in it.”

This quote from This blog is a perfect statement of what I mean as ‘faith’ that functions for consciousness as a suture that holds the consistency of reality together.

Faith functions as a counter to the truth of things; it holds reality together.

Love and the Truth Procedure (second try)

This post is my attempt to answer the question that Agent Swarm put forth in his recent post, which I reposted just before this post. 

Q: “Why is the truth procedure that includes love called “love”?, which should not go without saying. Why should “love” (the truth procedure) include psychoanalysis but not religion?

Q: “Why is “love” a matter of the Two and not one of multiplicities and metamorphoses?

We already know that any situation that can be spoken about always resides within what we could call a ‘phrase universe’, ala Jean-Francois Lyotard. There is no discussion about this; it is or it isn’t. If it is not then the person does not understand the notion. This is because the question is always “If there is something beyond discourse, then what is it?” How can there be something without using a series of terms (clause; phrase) ? If there is something outside or beyond discourse, then it is completely negligable and does not concern human beings.

Now, the misinterpretation of this maxim is founded in what we can call ‘speculative method’, which is to say, human beings get to use their imagination to come up with things that could exist outside of discourse. It misses the bare fact that as soon as we come to posit “that which is beyond discourse” we have collapsed the supposed realm of what is beyond discourse to discourse. This is why we can speak of ‘philosophical denial’. But more: It relies on retroactively appropriating the question of discourse for a central human agent-thinker who then uses this privilege for the purpose of placing all real things under this human privilege; in short, it places everything that can possibly exist (discourse) as a mechanism of meaning which can then, by default of a total inclusion of all agents, say that even the idea that everything exists as a function of discourse can then produce actual real situations that can exist outside of that maxim. It is a distortion as well as a deceptive act of production and a symptom of the decadence of conventional philosophy.

It is within this context we must find what I call the ‘founding term'(I think it is Delueze that also wrote about this very same idea; but it goes to my point that regardless of Delueze (or whoever) the issue does not concern what a history of tradition/conventional philosophical thought might have posed, because it is always available to anyone who already understands the situation at hand). Within any phrase universe there can be found a pivotal term whereby the whole argumentative structure finds its meaning. The whole of conventional philosophy resides upon a comparison of phrase universes, and the finding of the foundational term that enjoins (enframes) the two (or more) universes such that they may be compared in the first place. The mode of operation of conventional philosophy, though, is to deny the idea of the founding  term, as well as phrase universes, for the sake of its functioning; this is to say, that if the only thing conventional philosophy is doing is working toward the foundational term (the ‘end’ of any reduction), then such philosophy cannot be really discovering anything true, because upon finding the foundational term one is then left to find another universe by which to then reduce this ‘found’ term to a further reduction; this is the basis of post-modern multivocality and such. And, if this is all that is occurring then philosophy as an activity could be said to be basically spinning in its own slop. Such it is that the ideal that must go into philosophical work must be one of progress, and of establishing what is actually true of the world, in other words, reality. Conventional philosophy thus is so concerned with ontology, and thus we eventually find that philosophy must pivot from finding out what is actually true, to talking about what is merely philosophically real, and this then is nothing but establishing a metaphysical truth despite the emptiness that exists all around such argumentative descriptions. We find that there is a certain multiplicity that is concerned only with religious position and the identity of the acting free agent. We find then that there are two independent functions that collapse in the encounter with each other, and toward and within whichever effort would have brought itself to such a moment of contradiction. This moment cannot reveal itself unto itself, but only establish itself in the denial of the effectiveness of its dialectical opposite.

Badiou discovers and admits as much, and this is because he cannot but be involved with the dialectic. If we are to escape from the ever-presence of conventional gestures put to work for the dogma of ontology (religion), we must be talking about the bare Being in the world and not some special universal situation of ontological unity (cosmology of reality).

Further, we should not miss Badiou’s complicity with a Zizekian notion: Love is Evil. The whole dialectical appearance in history cannot contribute to a pinning down of its own irony. Hegel can never be underestimated and the motion involved that he describes will always yield the moment of contradiction wherein we must investigate (what I call ‘contradiction of non-contradiction’, and what Adorno notices as well). The method that would place a centrally stable conscious entity through which all things retain an ethical universal validity as well as veracity, will always miss the oscillation of ethical terms; i.e. what is evil should always qualify to ‘evilness’ under a strict objective logical application, and what is good likewise; essential categories must exist within a humanly identifiable matrix of meaning such that good and evil may retain means to be known as such; evil cannot be good, nor good evil, except as ethically justified, again, within a scheme that denies its own foundational terms. So it is not difficult to want to find a term that could avoid these ethical mandates yet while retaining the ideal whereby good and evil could be justified.

Hence we find the the foundational feature of everything that must ‘be’, could be called ‘love’, and at that, upheld within its own dialectically ironic theme that defies the perpetual want of philosophy to reify its ontologically real (and discursively argumentative) structures.

Likewise; “Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”. Religion (real ontology; cosmology of real things, their organization unto the totality) should be left unto its own devices as real estimations should be left to its own method of negotiating real (politics, ideologies, etc) situations because –and this is the idea where everyone gets pissed off and offended — such people who are involved with using metaphysical truths by which to situate contingent discourses to thereby discover real (social, cultural, political, ideological) solutions de facto are not involved with what we loosely may call ‘psychoanalysis’, for they are involved with functioning though these operations and cosmological structures and behaving within them as omnipresent and immanent truths (zizek: frames): They react within such real structures because they are incapable of understanding anything else; as we say, they behave within the tenants of their faith. Yet they cannot simply decide to step aside from their faith to thereby consider psychoanalysis; only in the destruction of their faith are they able to begin to consider if their faith was the problem. In most cases, their faith was not destroyed, but is again used to justify the distracting event into the total reality20140103-000828.jpg that is their religious faith.

I think I have put forth a good general proposal of why Badiou talks about things the way he does and have justified such postures: It is because he is involved with the dialectic despite whether or not he speaks of traditionally dialectical issues.

Note: Of this dialectic, I am not excluded from They.  

REPOST of Agent Swarm post on Badiou and Love.

There is no absolute name for a generic multiplicity, any particular name quickly becomes associated with a predicative multiplicity of which the degree of apparition is greater than the minimum. Badiou has increasingly argued that the actual history of the name “proletariat” has made it less generic and more predicative, and so increasingly defunct as […]

via ON “LOVE” AS GENERIC NAME: Badiou de-sufficientised — AGENT SWARM

All is Vanity, for Real…Kant, Latour and the Pass, part 2.

220px-allisvanity

Ok; here is the post I meant to put:

So we come to Bruno Latour, and his notion of the pass. What is it that allows for the repetition whereby self-fulfillment is denied? This is the question of ‘what happened’. We will never get to answer the question of what ‘is happening’ until we answer the question of ‘what happened’. This is because if we do not find out what happened, then it will happen again. We are then keen to Kierkegaard’s “Repetition”, for the question that most everyone wants to answer is the subsequent question, the question of Being, “What is happening”, why is there what is and not what is not? This question, though, denies its own bases and so asks upon itself without ever even looking for, let alone being able to see, what it lacks. What ontology always finds then is itself, or an other (an other and self are constituents of the real state). All is indeed vanity.

Further; philosophy as an ontological practice cannot escape the political, ideological and in general social dynamics. It is a simple thing to see the reason why I call such conventional philosophical method real. What is real is what is happening. But because thinkers, as opposed to Beings, but consistent with being real, take the products of themsleves as indication of the potential involved with other beings, and take this as evidence of not a whole, but actually The only whole, they thus always (1) take everything real as a product of some sort, be-caused of some thing or other, and (2) take as an automatic demand upon all things within their field their proof toward what is happening, and this, even to the extent that they demand that the question of ‘what happened’ must conform to the state of Being that is happening.

*

Bruno Latour begins his book “An Inquiry into Modes of Existence” with a description of what a pass is with an analogy. I don’t have the book right with me, but he writes about a mountain trail or path that goes from the base to its peak. Note that I will not here follow his description exactly; I am not putting forth a strict analysis of his book and what it means in this post. It is enough that he came up with a pretty good analogy, a good term that can indicate the issue and the way it is dealt with. What is significant with Latour, at least in his AMIE project , is that he sees the need for an opening. It is clear from visiting his webpage that he understands the problem of a multi-vocalized reality similar to the type that Lyotard suggested in the conditions of the post-modern moment . Namely, the problem of communication between worlds. The salient question of every significant philosopher worth considering is “Is communication taking place?” For it is from this pivotal question that the world manifests in its ways.

So, if we can understand what this question means, which is to say, if communication has taken place through this one phrase, then we have found a common pass (a given ontological base). It doesn’t really matter too much if we identify it with Latour’s scheme (supposedly he describes 15 types of passes, 15 ‘modes of existence’; hence the book’s title “Inquiry into Modes of Existence”). What is significant is that he saw the need not so much for another reconciliation, not another philosophical reduction to some essential truth for which the author is trying to gain traction for through their communion with the intuition god, but rather some way to relieve the reduction from being the responsibility of one authors’ intuitive argumentative assertion. What is significant is that he sees that the method is at issue, the philosophical reductive method and its associated (and invisible) givens are at issue, and that the only way to get past this method is to somehow poke a hole in it! Instead of giving into the nihilism that arises in conventional minds, we need to create an opening whereby people can begin to communicate.

In my upcoming book, we might get into the complicity of needs that relates François Laruelle and Bruno Latour’s works; I am getting off the track of this post. The upcoming book probably will answer all the stray ponderings and vectored analyses.

For now, it is enough to understand the simplicity of the idea. First off, ontological foundations must be admitted given. If a traveler does not admit to an already given ontological truth that has already been explored, then the significance of the pass will make no sense; the trail will be missed and avoided. In order to pass, we must set aside the want to apply redundant deconstructivist techniques to every clause. This is because only once we understand the ontological foundations of existence, only once we admit to that truth, can we begin to see the passes. While I see really only one effective pass, Latour sees this pass as expressed in different ways.

The first kind of pass (probably not in the same order or number that Latour notes) is just this: Where a particular methodological application accounts for all that is allowed, a pass has occurred in the scheme of meaning that accounts for real estimations. We might even call this kind of pass a ‘given’, because it functions to allow reasoning to grant reality despite the problem it poses upon that reason to attach to real things. For example: If there is a question of the truth of Being, for which a particular formula answers this question, whether is be God, or whether it be a series of philosophical arguments, such as Deleuze’s Rhizomes, or various ‘arrived-at’ states or situations that we can associate with metaphorical ‘plateaus’ – where such an explanation of what is happening routes all occurrence back into its logic or reasoning such that every event is account for or deflected within that scheme, a pass has occurred to ‘miss’ the meaning of an alternate suggestion. The person effectivly ‘passes over’ the situation where someone is expressing a different reality because everything is making sense to the logic of the first person’s ‘total’ explanation of the situation. This is the post-modern condition.

But lets back up. Latour uses the analogy of a mountain pass. The meaning of the forgoing paragraph is that first we have to admit that there is a mountain in front of us. I show you a mountain and say that we are going to hike that mountain, and I start to walk. But you don’t move; you stand there pondering whether or not there is indeed a mountain. I tell you to come on, lets go, there are great views at the top of this mountain. But you stand there and reflect upon the possible aesthetics involved in being at the top of an epistemoloigcal situation that we cant agree upon.

This is the very problem we face when a philosopher will not admit ontological foundations as true. But I am not going to go into all the ramifications of this discussion here.

Again, enough to say that Latour’s analogy is of a mountain and a way to hike to the top. There are all sorts of dangers on this trail though. We will have to cross some fast streams and climb some crazy rocks, some steep terrain, but it is navigable, we just have to follow the route.

Now; the problems that Latour comes across and discusses in his book are due to the issues of this same type; he is still justifying the situation ontologically and thus has to address, and or finds, 15 types of passes that represent 15 types of manners or ‘modes’ that account for reality for the various types of people (various people use various modes so reality stays ‘whole’ –for those of the particular modes). This is why his gets sticky; because as soon as he attempts to justify something that is passing ontological constructions, he then has to use a pass that somehow avoids any of the passes he lists, or incorporates. Ironically, the need he notices gets set aside as another ‘religious’ dogma, another philosophical reductive scheme, accepted by some and rejected by others.

The point that he himself misses (and we will discuss somewhere the duplicity involved with conventional significance) is that in order to be able to see a pass one has to admit that ontological justifications rely themselves upon a pass. Simply speaking, Latour is attempting to answer a teleological question through ontological justifications.

Another kind of pass, a good one, and I think one of the first passes that Latour notes, is: Say we have a map of the mountain and the route leading up to the top. We mark our progress along the trail by markers in the map that indicate, like ‘when you get to a big dead oak jetting out of a rock, then you go east for two miles until…’ or symbols or pictures that say just as much. How are we able to transpose or translate the actual mountain to the map of it or vice-versa? The map itself looks nothing like the mountain, and in fact is nothing like the mountain. Yet there is some sort of resemblance between the two, and indeed, provided that something has not happened to have changed or altered the actual physical landmarks that the map notes, we are able to stick to the directions on the map and get to the top. In this kind of transferal there is a pass enacted in our understanding of reality. While I am not here addressing all the peculiarities of the situation, it is a simple thing to see that there is an obstruction in the actual Being of things to get around or past, and this can be analogous to two Beings attempting to communicate. In order for us to be able to follow the map of the course up the mountain, there has to be a sort of pass that allows us to ignore the problem that occurs in between the actual physical mountain and the small paper drawing of symbols that describe how to get up the mountain. This pass thus marks a particular manner of coming upon reality, a particular ‘mode of existing’.

The significant point, though, of noticing this situation is that in order to get beyond the dead end that is the modern-post-modern obstruction where no communication takes place (again: what do I mean by this? Read my past posts and my books to find out!, (and maybe check out some killer tunes to boot!)) is that an opening is needed through which people can be free to describe, what frankly amounts to, the ‘insane realties’ that actually occur in the meaningful life, but without fear of judgment of reprisal. Yet, this is not so much some sort of auto-biographical non-fiction or something, nor some authorial-fantasy of artistic license. It is more a manner by which we might be able to find out some facts about what reality really is.

At least, this is the idea behind Latour’s vision.

While I do enjoy the idea and see the need for a pass, I am not so optimistic as Latour.

Kant, Latour and Others: The Pass, part 1.

Kant, Latour, and others: The Pass.

2/8/2017 Part 1.

Sometimes, one is lead back into a certain truth that does not again circle back into various truths. For example; this computer that I am typing this essay on functions to allow me to make this post. But we will not yet, right this second, get into the Kantian syntheticals and analytics because those are an example of the meaning of this essay. So; the fact that this computer functions to allow me to write this essay and post it so that you are reading it right now, is true. As an analogy to my point here, It is a singular truth, yet some philosophers and theorists would want to knock this down through, what we could call, “The Method of Treachery”, which, basically, is modern-post-modernism wrapped up in a painting called “The Treachery of Images”, by Rene Magritte. Such game players would often come back to say that the statement ‘this computer functions to allow me to write this essay and post it so that you are reading it right now’ functions as truth, but is not, in itself, true. My question then would be, how is it that they may make that statement and have any meaning whatsoever? How can we say that everything is just propositions, just statements? If something is functioning, then how can what it functions to do be anything but true?

In this we must now address the instigation of Emmanuel Kant. In his “The Critique of Pure Reason”, he states what prompted his investigation: He was attempting to account for what we generally know as superstition, or superstitious beliefs. The motivating assumption was the common human being involved with the common ability and capacity for communication, education and intelligence; in short: enlightenment. He was attempting to account for how it is that something which seems so foreign and silly to him yet still functions for people; as well and by extension, how is it that ignorance does not know itself as ignorance.

If you are not able to see the connection I made; I am saying that indeed there is a computer here and I am typing on it, and you are probably reading this on one also. Some of the people that we have come to see as great thinkers and philosophers would say, no; the so called ‘computer’ there is just that, “so called”, and the computer itself we have no clue about what it may be in itself, so the statement I made about it being a truth is not so true, and could be false. So then my rebuttal is how they are able to come to such a conclusion? Specifically, if the true situation I point out is only true within a certain condition of proposal (I am staying away from using the term ‘discourse’ here for now), then how does the rebuttal have any veracity? I could say the same to your statement; for, are you not using it in a function of truth? If it is only probably or possibly true, then what we are talking about is utterly nonsense, and we should just shut up right now.

So it goes for the next 80 years or so until we fall into the pit of nothingness out of which a new humanity is hoped to outcrop from itself to become something new or different. We have the compendium of arguments and assertions of nihilism and then ‘new realism’.  And then I ask: If it is all based on nothing, why hasn’t the world imploded? Why isn’t the world just gone? Here is Kant’s problem extended out of the hegemonic and colonialist righteousness: How is it that we could be wrong?

What appears to me to be missed in this whole history of depression and
“self-imposed tutelage”
involves the question of this kind of redundancy; namely: If every statement of truth is at most only partly true, then why are we hanging on to that one part of the truth of the statement (to sum) “Its all propositions” that is true and setting aside the probable 99.98% of the proposal that is not so true? It seems to me that there is a whole generation or two of ‘profound thinkers’ that will sit there and argue over the inclusivity and limitation of statements (that they are conditional and contingent upon unrecognized given meanings that are encoded into the means of the proposal), bring up the ‘proofs’ of Delueze and Guattari, and Derrida and such, and yet never even consider how that very situation they argue has very little of the veracity that they suppose for it in its use. If I may: Through all sorts of manner of avoiding their own condition of Being, they will reference other author’s ideas, as if the sense they have of these authors thus accounts for their Being is a world because is ‘makes the most sense’. Again: the Issue of Kant.

It seems to me that such a line of discussion, while metaphysically and therefore religiously very interesting, is practically nonsense, despite if we can use it for anything but creating problems and justifying one’s faith. (Im not getting into the discussion about faith and discourse here; see my second book of the series, The Philosophical Hack , called “The Moment of Decisive Significance”. ) Keep in mind also that I am making a distinction here and that it is always possible that any author can miss the significance of her or his own work; as I suggest in my first book of The Philosophical Hack, Kant’s thesis of propositions allow for us a distinction that carries through to perpetuating a cloudy philosophical arena, and at that, apparently on purpose; the conspiracy is maintained by repeated reference to what is common and lowest: That which reduces must always consider one more that is lower, to then include it, raise it up to the reductions horizontal plane, to justify one’s raised position by asserting that what is lower or less is not but equal (Note: This is the opposite of the Ontological Argument). In this way, the insecurity that always accompanies denial (again, see the books of The Philosophical Hack) is justified by imposing a potential of intelligence upon the lower who otherwise would not know of its lesser state, but that he exists in a potential defined by his superior. This is all to say that Kant’s claim was based in a particular moment, and that once the moment plays, he must then not be saying anything about propositions, but that propositions evidence a particular division in the accounting for human existence.

*

Kant is not saying very much about how propositions establish worlds, nor how to find a world through dissecting propositions. The academics that would learn and teach Kant’s method (Again: see the first book of The Philosophical Hack) as a kind of means to find out something about the addressor or some world is perpetuating a particular kind of world in the process. I have argued that this kind of world is real, but also that Kant was talking about a different kind of world.

So, at this point we find at times that one does not always realize the true meaning of what one says; others tell one the meaning of what one said. We find, further, that we cannot always rely upon an ability for finding out just what people meant by what they said; that no matter how they try to explain to us what they meant, we simply do not understand. The idea that we can reference an author herself and in all instances, as her original intension can be discovered, find out what she really was saying, is, as I say, a real occurrence, an occasion of real faith. My question is, if what someone said is true, then why are we still discussing it? There is a whole ‘world’ of great thinkers that have no idea what this question might entail, even while arguing with me about the meaning of it. The meaning is plain: If discussion is the only thing that establishes the ontological foundations of reality, then why are we still arguing over what this is? I call this the real principle of redundancy.

These notions describe an aspect of philosophy that, further, we could put under, say, a principle of veracity. This principle would point out only two possibilities in the nature of communication: What is true; and what is misunderstood. Yet in as much as there is an indication of a divergence, a point or moment where or when the idea behind, say, (as our example) Kant’s notions of the proposition actually define such polemical situation (of what is true and what is misunderstood), we are capable of understanding that what is misunderstood constitutes the aggregate of cause for further discussion, and due to this predominance, this overwhelming normative aspect soon comes to be understood as the omnipresent situation, such that we begin to understand the default ‘given’ which informs all (conventional) philosophical method, so that it must and could only argue itself to that state of nothingness which underlies all things, and to further thereby be able to argue (as speculative theory is a real operational mode at all times despite what definitions are in place) the truth of reality founded entirely in discourse. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

*

more in a bit….