Repetition and Repetition. 

e66b8f_481070c4be88464f82c3546b131012a2mv2_d_3171_1735_s_2

Below is a post by Levi Bryant. Part of my one-sided interaction with him is a sort of incredulousness towards the situation wherein Mr. Bryant has found his kind of Speculative Realism; whatever title he may want to put to it, it appears that all of these SR authors (or whatever Realist projects have replaced SR-in its wake) are involved in a project that, frankly, appears to me as an effort of deception or of ignorance. I get into more detail of why I make this accusation in my books, but lately, my simple explanation is that they have to, that due to their success (how ever one wants to define it) they must uphold a transcendental centrality in their efforts. They have to do this because that is the source of their livelihood; a priest cannot administer sacraments that dont adhere to the teachings of the institutional dogma. What I mean by this is they have to approach their speculations through the contemporary dogmatic proclamations of the church, as well as by its methodology, which is in this case we could call “the institution of philosophy”, what I tend to call “conventional” philosophy to denote that there is a cloudiness within the general philosophical mode that needs to be cleared up, this as opposed to lumping everything that is philosophical into one dogmatic category.

Also what I mean by this is not merely to be antagonistic; i’m not just being contrary to institutions. The basis of my incredulousness is that I read these SR people and then many of them, like Mr. Bryant, I find it difficult to believe that they put forth the ideas that they do; I find it difficult to read his premises and then understand the conclusions that he finds. To me there is a break or some sort of disjuncture occurring that, in the example of Mr. Bryant, he is not seeing. And I describe the situation as having to be one of either ignorance, insomuch as he (they) plainly does not see, or deception, and as much as he does see but that somehow he is not allowed to proceed, where he doesn’t want to put forth the actual meaning that should follow from his premises.

I come to this conclusion after a few years of attempting to engage with various people in similar type arguments and situations. It is apparent to me that certain people cannot or will not understand what I’m saying; it appears to me that at some crucial point of argument there is some barrier that projects or injects itself into the meaning of the discussion that we were having that makes this other person in capable of following the argument that we have agreed-upon up until that point. I have played with the idea of calling this point of rupture, a “partition”. The reason why I said there has to be a partition is because it appears that they are not doing it voluntarily. Though I can’t rule out deception, it appears that they’re not doing it voluntarily because no matter what argument I reapproach with, no matter how much I dissect, no matter what size or portion of clause that I wish to pull out and analyze with them, to thereby help them see where the disjuncture is occurring, at no point are they able to overcome the disjuncture. Every occasion that I’ve had with individuals in discussion of this sort,  at some point they simply cannot make the move and instead revert back into a point of discussion that we supposedly had already resolved earlier. It is as if regardless of their intelligence and regardless of the information or philosophical Library that they absorbed and the various arguments of various authors that they understand and can convey, at some point they have to leave the line of argument; it’s as if we’re driving down a road, a straight road, together, carefully taking notes of the landmarks the mile markers the potholes the various substrates that the road is paved with the different colors of the lines, staying on this road that both of us are allowing for in our discussion, A road that naturally unfolds in a particular direction and manner given the common understanding that we come to between us in our discussion and deconstructions a various issues — and then suddenly when were almost at the destination they grab the wheel and veer off, circling back into the unknown that is nothingness where through they will end up somewhere miles back on the road we are already traveled.

The understanding that I have gained through these types of experiences is that they were really all saying the same thing, they all basically agree with each other on a certain tenant of method but also a kind of “belief”, but we could associate with a sort of force, a sort of immovable tenant of what we could call a “faith”. We can locate this tenant by what is been called “correlationalism”, but this tenant really comes about through a type of misappropriation of philosophical statement that says discourse is all there is. I call this a “mistake” because it usually connotes a particular condition that is ignored for the sake of maintaining the condition. This condition is the central thinker, and this is why I say that any sort of argument or discourse that wants to displace the central thinker somehow through a move of discourse is really based in a condition of what I have called bad faith.

It really takes a book to be able to divulge and explicate all the factors involved with this idea. Nevertheless, it comes down to the idea that there is a central thinker (subject) that perpetually withdraws or is void or is nil or is nothingness or is unsubstantial or is nonexistent or is only existent, but yet that somehow becomes or contains or otherwise enacts a certain power within a field whereby discourse manifests the totality of world, but not only this, but that due to the centrality of this vanishing mediator, this “less than nothing” nonpoint, this “due to” is taken as a given situation of power to alter discourse and thus to alter reality.

The power involved with this kind of meaning is evidenced by its religious hold, and the faith that allows for it.

We find over and over again, though, for at least the past 100 years, and particularly associated with the continental tradition, that this does not happen; discourse is not altering the real universe, or rather, it does so long as a certain view upon world is maintained. We see this kind of selective window in the Speculative Realist and (Harman’s) Object Ontological move; the move comes from a highly intellectualized understanding whereby the meaning of discourse, which is to say what they would (could) call “world”, necessarily brings a certain intellectual understanding that does not allow for what could otherwise be called random occurrences. Basically if the whole world and all of reality is determined by discourse that is manipulated by agents of …[nothing? Nil? Void?]… then somehow there is something that is occurring outside of this reality that is affecting the reality in such a way that the reality of discourse is not encompassing it. Hence we have the stuff about Lovecraft and chaos and all that kind of stuff.

But more to the point here; the post below is this type of orientation upon things like wise sees that terms are reflecting identities, which is to say that terms are actually reflecting things in themselves that are being manipulated, again, by these what we should more properly call “agents of transcendence”. In this orientation, though, such ‘appearances’  which are taken as ‘in-themselves’ Hegelian objects, are not appropriated in the same or consistent sense that they are taken to mean; in fact, they are taken to exist in a relative autonomy that we have an ability to affect or otherwise impose our thoughts or results of thinking upon. Here, ‘appearance’ itself is misappropriated for the sake of justifying a religious position.

The example in the re-post below is that Deluze uses one set of terms and Badiou uses a different set of terms, and so they must be talking about different things. D says that this is the case and B says this is the case and so-and-so says this is the case and so let’s compare all the various ways that the authors say that such and such is the case.

The question that I always ask is what the hell are they talking about? I mean, the assumption is that they’re all talking about the same thing, but yet somehow they’re not talking about the same thing; it is a philosophy involved in an inherent nonsense even while it is proposed to be talking about something sensible. My question is how is it possible to compare Delueze to Badou (for example) and to anyone else if they are not talking about the same thing? (Badou even addresses this, as well as Harman) I mean, I could be talking about trees and Joe Overthere is talking about fences, and then we get together and I’m talking about trees and he’s talking about fences but at some point we come to some manner of discussing things to so that we can actually have a discussion; it is this overlap that I ask the question about: many philosophers will not admit that they’re talking about the same thing. They will say that you’re talking about fences and that he’s talking about trees, but then I would say, what’s the point of even bringing them into the same discussion except to say “he’s talking about trees and he’s talking about fences”? The question is at what point does the Subject arise? If it is always the case of the contingency of discourse then of course we are always going to find some nil-subject, some subject that never occurs and that always exists in a state of void. But then again: these “nil-states” are actually occupying space: The space of void!

We thus come to the idea of the founding term, something that Deleuze talks about. It’s as if the philosophers would say that the whole state of existence in reality occurs to discourse manipulated by transcendental agency except this one term that we are going to call the foundation of all existence that never changes and is ultimately eternal and we’re gonna call this “void” or whatever negating nihilistic term we want to use. Then, to avoid the apparent logical exception of the founding term ‘void’, we then say that, well, its only this way right now, but in another time/moment there will be a different organizing discursive framework. The universe, and as well humanity, thus exist in a cosmological foundation of change in flux, a state of eternal unknowingness wherein we are utterly alone like Adam and Eve kicked out of the garden of Eden.

Wait.

Isn’t this what Bryant says in the beginning of his Onto-cartography book (I think he says it there) ?

The SR and 000 pretty much have said in various places that their philosophy is toward a want to bring us back to a pre-modern philosophy of sorts. And then I have to ask what the hell is this? And I cannot but answer that it is a religious apology. That it is not that the SR or the OO getting anywhere progressively, it is more that they’re taking the given situation, a situation that they are confined within that they cannot find their way out of, and they’re making an apology for it, they are making cosmological assertions based on limiting factors that is already been argued in the tradition that somehow informs this contingent reality wherein transcendental agents manipulate discourse.

Now; the point of this post is not to say that somehow they’re wrong, or that somehow they’re coming up with incorrect conclusions. To do so would be to propose upon them a certain kind of stupidity or unintelligence. They are not stupid and they are not not intelligent. We have to admit then that the problem lies within a particular orientation, as I say, upon objects.

**

Well; I’m not going to go on here about the overlaps between the various authors of the re-post below , We should see in the post below that D and B and Hiedegger are saying the same thing in different terms, using different terms to describe the same situation.

The point is is that there is no difference between reading text speaking text and going out in the world and doing anything that involves anything in the world. The point is is that where this description I just gave makes someone come to a certain conclusion that it means nothing and that everything is stratified upon an undifferentiated scene, therein do we have evidence of a missed understanding of the meaning of the phrase “discourse is all there is”.

It doesn’t really matter that much what Delueze says about repetition as opposed to what someone else says about repetition, unless we see that they’re both talking about the same situation. They must be using the word ‘repetition’ that is consistent with certain markers of meaning regardless of how they lay it out in various clausal structures or real examples. Likewise if Badiou wants to talk about the event, then it is only in so much as the event itself is a repetition of an idea, of a set of terms, of a clausal structure. Likewise, insomuch as we may want to talk about newness, at every moment of encountering B and D we find that they could be lumped together in one discourse called “Badiou–Deleuze” perhaps, then that they might not be arguing distinctions, arguing that one view is more true than the next view, but that then are indeed describing the situation: This is what is new, the example of what is new. Together having different views upon the same situation that we may come to certain facts of the situation, this is what makes or allows for us to see a particular methodological approach of philosophy ‘conventional’.To the extent that we see the two discourses in this example as saying two different things as though describing two different situations, two different things in themselves, so to speak, thereby do we have the space for the agent of transcendence that is caught in the religious faith of what we can call conventional philosophy, what we can thereby call, and not with too much explanation, modern scholasticism.

It is not wrong, though; it is what it is. Hence, the determination of divergence.

REPOST:

Reading and Repetition

A central claim of Deleuze’s Difference and Repetition is that we only ever create something new through repetition.  Here, then, we might encounter a fundamental difference between Badiou and Deleuze (or is it a proximity between the two?).  For Badiou the new is created as a result of a truth-procedure that is evoked through fidelity to […]

https://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2017/04/24/reading-and-repetition/

Advertisements

Death Sentence Opinion . 

As every one knows, we got an issue with the carrying out the death sentence. The Arkansas Death Sentence Problem. 

Why are we always trying to find a more humane way to end a convicted criminal’s humanity?  

I say, if the state has legally determined that a person shall be put to death, then take them out to a firing squad. I mean wtf; are we a bunch of pussies?  Maybe a little in your face death would be good for us? Though ive seen my share death from drug addiction, i know for one i could use a little reality check with actual results of our judgments. Perhaps we need get over our ‘enlightened state’ existence. 

If we are gonna, then lets just fkg do it! (Damn pussies). 

Some thoughts around that…

HERE is a repost of a recent post by ALT Exploit, that I commented on.

and here are..

Some thoughts around that: Chaos itself is a thought construct, of the same character by which we might say that we are able to intuit truths of the universe. But we should be careful as to what we impose versus what we intuit.

It would seem that the issue is whether or not we are able to form or otherwise have a link to this functioning universe by which to be able to come to true concept-experiences of it. In other words: Can we trust what we intuit?

Without going into all the facets involved here, I skip to the punch:

If the universe as a totality is outside our concept of function, either finite or infinite (for these too are intuited), then it is possible that the universe functions in such a manner to allow contradictions; this would seem to be the case since we also intuit contradictions but our usual manner is to reject the resultant contents of contradiction; we say that there is no content within contradiction. It is possible, though, that the universe has contradictions that hold content.

It would seem then that if this be the case, due to the fact that the possibility has been intuited, that we can also have a knowledge of the content of contradiction. This content could then be understood as a kind of field, perhaps of the sort of ‘subtle form of non-locality’, as actual wave understood in its waviness, but one that does not then reduce or have further interactions (as a function) with other waves, other fields (Im totally expressing my layman ship of physics ;)). For, the interaction between such fields would then itself be another field exclusive from the derivative two except in as much as we develop another function; each instance implying a whole could probably not be understood outside of its particularity (particle), what Francois Laruelle might call ‘corpuscular’.

Wave as wave (qua) would seem to denote that there is a possible universal structural operation that develops a thinking being (human) as part of its operational function that functions primarily ‘within’ contradiction, within the event whereby particles arrive, as such sustaining and recording the unfolding of random occurrences of particles as a sensibility, a history. Similarly, due to the non-local aspect of wave functions, but also quantum entanglement, there are also possibilities of being human that do not fall ‘into’ the necessary particle designation of contradiction, but that, by real definition, exist in a state that is ‘different’ than what most human beings reckon as human.

The possibility of this discrepancy thus might be evident in certain religious figures, but also philosophical figures, such as Hieddgger, Badou, Derrida, Delueze, Wittgenstien, Laruelle. For these authors evidence a certain irreconcilability that they sustain even while contradicting themselves through the common discourse.

Oops (title: Here).

REPOST of THRE-POUND-BRAIN’s no results for ‘Cognitive Psychology of Philosophy’

and reply and reply, of Baker question, then my answer…
(please check out his full essay and the comments if you are intreated in the whole thing)

sbakker
April 13, 2017 at 9:30 am
“I don’t think I get it. So the racial theories of the Nazi’s were appropriate to the particular kind of being they were interested in?”

REPLY
landzek
April 13, 2017 at 11:00 am
“The issue is not whether there is ethical value. Of course there is.

The issue is involved in the arena where I am not disagreeing with you. Don’t get me wrong; I live for disagreement and argument; I work to be shown where I am incorrect; to me, that is the point of discussion. But the point of contention is how it is that I can agree with what you are saying, yet, somehow, you defend against me having that understanding of you, as if how I am agreeing with you is based on an incorrect appraisal of you.

I am playing with the idea around how Foucault says it in the intro to “The Order of Things”. Basically he says in one of the last point there, that he rejects the idea of some transcendence, some sort of spiritual or consciousness that resides apart somewhere. He thus is one of the first (I think) to actually say that he looks at things as upon a horizontal plane.

I agree with his sentiment, so far a existentialism in the larger sense goes (not necessarily as the academic category goes). Discourse is all we are dealing with; there is nothing outside of discourse that we are able to deal with. OOO and SR and such are good religious apologies, but I get into that elsewhere.

So, if this is the case, if there is no getting outside of discourse, then there is the problem of agreement. We get into the PMs then.

See, I notice that you are and have noticed the same things and issue that I have. and even much of the conclusions you come to are so close, but then I find that you fall into, what I might call, a kind of dogmatism that excludes me from understanding you, that it appears you place as a condition upon your rhetoric so to keep me from you, or to uphold a kind of exclusionism.

I think PeterJ could be onto something with his latest comment.

But I think it is more that meaning itself, discourse itself, does not unfold or present itself upon a inclusive plane. Discourse itself may set upon such a horizon, but then we get into (as you have noted here and there) heuristic problems. But I think it is in this moment, at this juncture that you may be pulling the ‘non-transcedntal’ clause down to blanket and protect your ‘personal heuristic’, so to speak, As if, to use a non-phil idea, in the last instance you deny all that has come to you to bring a certain ‘open-ended’ conclusion, and ‘close’ the meaning.

To me, this is a methodological maxim, a procedural constant of what is ‘philosophy’. It, as Laruelle, ‘relies upon a prior decision’ in order to establish identity.

Perhaps this is why I wonder about your science. Science, as a pure kind of endeavor (never mind Latour right now), just ‘does’. The identities is deals with are not philosophical argued but are grounded in a different kind of ‘substantiating material’ than that of philosophical identity. This is why philosophy is not ‘wrong’, it is merely ‘doing what it does’ and is also why I call for a clearing up of philosophy, its domain, and what problems it is capable of addressing.”

And, yes. The racial theories of the Nazi’s were appropriate to the type of Being they were interested in, which we could say, is the Being of the Spirit which is now destitute in its approximations.

Discourse may function upon a horizontal plane, but it is downright Un-ethical and offensive to understand Hegel in his more blatant presentations.

The Sad State of Speculative Religion.

Like many of us, I did like what the Speculative people were getting at, but also as we know, they really failed to come full with the promise.

But the horse is already out of the gate, and the nature of our reality, which is based in the developing of identity for the purpose of generating excess capital, just tells us that they are merely doing what everyone else does. Nothing wrong with that. But the problem with their philosophy is that they are now trapped in their identity they proposed to do away with through Objects. They are already on our list of great philosophies, so any critique that would poke a real good hole in there foundations of their start, is usually useless. They are laughing to the carnival bank. “$5 a show!!” or “$130 a book for this most significant piece of philosophical chicanery!!” If we take it as what is really is, entertainment, then maybe some of them are worth $100. But not for its substantial philosophical content, in many cases.

the main critique Ive heard of the SR (and extensions) is that they are merely repeating old phenomenological tropes in different terms, that we aren’t really hearing anything new. I think I got a more significant handle in a critique, but I doubt any of the career philosophers will address these issues regardless of how sound a critique it is. That is the beauty of SR and our day for the production of philosophy: As much as they might ask, our modern media prevents them from having to hear any valid and good critique. Maybe in a few years they will. But I doubt it.

sideshow-alive-on-the-inside

In particular, Harmans’s Object Ontology is about objects’ Being only inso far as he is involved with the topic of objects, this is to say, the Speculative turn is one based in an apparent misunderstanding of the issue, and this is to say because :

1)the argument that says reality equals discourse.

2)discourse is affected by human agency (the thinker)

3)continental tradition is constantly proposing that we can therefore change the situation of Being human itself by addressing the different terms of discourse.

4)Specultive turn thereby proposes to change where the human being is positioned in the universe by changing the focus to objects.

5)what happens is that indeed discourses change, but the human being stays right at the center of it.

6)the Specultive turn is based in a suspension of credibility, and deception. Like a magic show that people like to be entertained by. They are no longer involved with something foundational or basic, but quite suspenseful and speculative. Like a modern movie that never resolves, they merely precipitate out in a quite noticeable fashion the ‘sand-like’ nature of much of philosophical activity, falling through ones fingers as they attempt to hold it, washing away and shifting with the tide. Like a façade on a building that advertises the business, but in this case, a façade that is proposed to be actually occupying and representing the substance of the building itself — even as Quentin Miellassoux talked about the problem of ‘magical thinking’.

7)this goes well with out current Capitalist state because it proposes that the idea as well as reality of change breaks through the correlational cycle into actual substance (chaos, super-contingency). It therefore not only relies upon capitalist maxims and operations, but uses it to support capitalist ideological foundations.

8)this is not wrong or incorrect, but inherently either based in ignorance (in so far as they see the manner by which they come to their arguments and how they use them as achieving something philosophically different or progressed), or deception (in so far as they see that the manner is based in a denial of what should be obvious).

The Speculative turn will go down in history as a marker of philosophical division, a division that I don’t think any SR will expect or approve of.

>>>

I should say again, they are not wrong in their way. I actually enjoy much of their stuff. It is only that they could not produce what it seemed was promised, in a manner of speaking. And I wonder if they just went with it despite knowing that their ideas were – can I say it?? – kinda empty.