•There is no intelligent defence for Trump’s blatant idiocy and general incompetence. #sadamerica
Trump supporters need to have a reality check. Maybe they should move to the country of Puerto Rico.
•There is no intelligent defence for Trump’s blatant idiocy and general incompetence. #sadamerica
Trump supporters need to have a reality check. Maybe they should move to the country of Puerto Rico.
For a moment, I am entertaining the idea that spiritual practice is not about finding peace through placating activity. Also, I do not distinguish between philosophy and spirituality except in as much as spirituality tends to denote some sort of process of finding an essential religious trends in dental truth. What is spiritual in a regular sense has little to do with philosophy, but philosophy is a spiritual practice, or at least should be.
Of course, one should notice that in order to shake things up effectively one must first have found peace in themselves, Else all they do is create chaos and reaction. I am considering that the point of spiritual practice is to create a revolution, not to cause people a reaction which lets them fall back into their comfort. But this kind of spiritual practice is also a practice k futility.
I am kind of meaning this in a direction towards philosophy. Despite all the various topics and various ideas that various philosophers put forth, my proposal is that every philosopher is talking about the same thing. But what I mean by this has to do with the two routes that I talk about in other posts.
I’m going to indicate, though, what I could mean about the difference between letting one stay in their slumber and shocking them out of their normalcy.
It is my opinion that we should not always resort to the lowest common factor. What I mean by this is that one should not alter a concept because someone doesn’t understand it; The process of altering concepts for the purpose of the most people understanding it is called “pop”. For example: Popular music is for those who just want a soundtrack to go with the rest of their lives. There’s nothing wrong with that but it does bring into question whether popular music is a legitimate art form over a commercial product. Sure we could say there’s an art to producing commercial products, but then again we are then reducing everything to the lowest common form. If you want to make a lot of money and be wealthy, if that’s your sole purpose in life, your main driving force, then more power to you, wewill let you go on your way. And if all you’re concerned about is establishing your identity, well, go for it.
So my first premise is that every philosopher is talking about the same thing through different terms, and that where the terms are taken to express essential and individual, segregate items — we might call these ‘real’ , ‘conventional’ or even ‘popular” items — there do we have the philosophers talking about different things.
In any case, we will go under the presumption that every author is talking about the same thing, as the basis or definition of the situation at hand.
There are two ways people approach things. One is to go in slowly steadily, and the other is to jump in.
Let’s take the example-analogy of a cold body of water. Conventional Philosophy puts their toe in first. They sit there on the edge of the pool with their big toe in the water and they write endless sentences of every sort of aspect about what’s going on with their big toe in the water, till they get used to the cold water. Then after many decades they slip their foot in.
Conventional philosophy proposes to be getting somewhere by this method of thoroughly investigating the cold body of water with their toe and then foot, to one day submerge their whole body and be able to swim in it.
But I submit that what happens is they never experience the body of water nor swimming. They never encounter the body of water for what it is; rather what they encounter through becoming fully ‘used to’ (for use) the cold water is essentially, in the end, nothing. And this is what we have found in contemporary philosophy; The “end” of philosophy, The ground of all metaphysical proposals for the most part, and every term of their description is taken to enlighten some huge significance about the body of water: It is nothing. What happens through the conventional route, is that the philosopher forms an envelope around himself so that by the time he has entered the water the water becomes non-existent, and by the time she is swimming in the water she has reduced it to a mere motionless body in a nonexistent pool.
On the other hand; we could jump in. What happens when we Jumpin is we have to swim and we know the body of water. We recognize that the water is freezing cold and that we are swimming in it. We cannot deny the freezing coldness, nor the vast Ness of the body of water, nor the fact that we have to vigourously move in order to swim and must move in a particular way if we are to continue to swim. Philosophy then is about the first thoughts that come to mind in the analysis that goes along with the actual activity of encountering a large freezing cold body of water in which we are not automatically suspended. The first few moments of frantically dealing with the freezing cold water in the coordination needed to swim goes on for at least a few years, instead of generations. And then our body does not get used to the cold water but more just become acclimated to the fact that it’s cold. We spend a few more years sorting this out philosophically. The coordination involved in keeping our head above water and breathing starts to become routine and we spend a few years talking about this philosophical feature. Some water gets down our throat we spend a few weeks talking about that. Eventually we get up the balls, and there’s probably a couple months of philosophically talking about getting up the balls, to actually dive and swim underwater. And we philosophize about holding our breath and about what happens when we can’t hold our breath any longer. We philosophize about being suspended in this freezing cold body of water. And we finally come up for air and take that first breath and we philosophize on that for a couple years. Eventually, and all of our philosophical talk has to do with this whole process, swimming in the cold body of water become second nature; even though our body is cold, we can swim in it, and we swim over to the side of the pool and we get out and then we spend the rest of our lives talking and doing about how we can jump in and get out and jump in and get out or step in or sticker toe in or do anything we want.
Know thy self takes on new meaning and we begin to have compassion for the people who’ve only stepped up to the knees, Who don’t even get wet and who never learn how to swim.
If you click on the link to the essay about humanism and read about three or four paragraphs down into the essay you will find the mistake.
What I mean by mistake is not that the essay is wrong, or that humanism doesn’t have relevancy, or that humanism is wrong, or that to say that humanism is wrong is wrong. I’m not even saying that to be a mistake it is thus wrong. To indicate a mistake is merely to indicate; it does not indicate that it is essentially incorrect except insomuch as there may already be a feeling that something is wrong, whereby then someone would look for a way to correct it. This is not a proposal about what needs correcting, but is rather merely showing what facts can be. In theory there is no right or wrong, there is only what can be argued to be the case; that we must argue through what can be right or wrong is a fact.
Here is a key premise of the proceeding essay in the link, on its side for your convenience:
I have proposed thatthese types of arguments are based in a kind of route. what I mean by this is that the world does not become meaningless; rather, a particular route of meaning in history has led itself to the point that it’s route is meaningless. A particular route of meaning has let it self to indict the bases by which it has proceeded along reason. and so it is not difficult to move over and see that God is not dead, but that there was a particular manner of making meaning, a particular substrate, if you will, a ground upon which reason was moving that has proven itself to be insolute.
it is not that we have to make meaning in a meaningless world, because the whole idea of having a meaningless world is it self meaningful.
So here’s another philosophical example of the particular route. The significance of this problem but more so of this notice, is that people still rely upon it to say such things as “God is dead”, or “the world is meaningless “. it happens everywhere and it is not that this route is incorrect as it is just another route due to the fact that it persists. there is no argument that can prove to people that this particular route is incorrect; it is only mistaken.
We might first like to notice that some cyborgs are dysfunctional, and I mean this in the sense that human beings behave cybernetically. but also, that just because human beings our cybernetic in their function does not mean that all human beings exist within a common class that can be identified do to cybernetics.
The issue on the table is whether or not a category can communicate across its breadth. Does the category necessitate the potential for communication at all reaches within its parameters?
Here is a video of a lecture that has something to do with silicon valley people, Stanford is Silicon Valley basically, asserting themselves to a category that I suppose that programmers and tech geeks have been historically left out of maybe. I don’t know; computer engineers to me or not interesting, there wizards they do spells and exist within covens. That is my super intelligent take on Silicon Valley type people: they do magic in a very literal sense, to the extent that I don’t really care what the hell they do, it just doesn’t interest me. They are all excited about messing up my life basically, lol. Their goal and indeed their passion is to make my life as difficult as possible all the while promoting a discourse that makes me think that something is wrong with me if it’s not making my life easier. 😄.
OK, enough of the gripe, that is not the point of this post.
About eight minutes into that video he’s talking about how jargon is developed. I haven’t watched enough of the video to really get his point except that he is attempting to explain how some intellectual Oreilly person became what he did. Quite regular par for the course stuff. Ok.
What interest me is that he’s describes a situation where people come together and in the course of working with each other develop a type of language around the particular problem or particular area in which they are working together, and then this jargon becomes a way to allow them to get things done.
What jumps out to me is that there is a group of people who get together start speaking their own language that has specifically to do with the task at hand, outside of which regular people don’t understand what they’re talking about.
Btw: Despite all the practical implications about how things might get done, I’m not making an argument to say that the way we do things in the world is somehow incorrect or wrong or something; please remove that idea from your reading of this post.
It seems to me that he is telling us that people get together and create a privileged discourse. And then from this group there are people who speak this particular privileged discourse and then they move over and get together with another group who has developed around privileged jargon and together they then develop their own, what we could call a higher level, jargon that accounts for the two previous groups, etc.
This is a perfect definition of what I mean by “conventional”. And it is real. The functioning of this manner seems to be an end in itself. If we ask why a particular group is motivated towards a particular task they were ultimately refer that task to another larger task. With all the associated jargons and discourses and higher level learnings and etc., what occurs is that of a privileged state of existence. This privilege becomes more Xclusive as it promotes it’s general inclusivity of all human beings, as the end task that is never discussed is obviously in axiomatically human as a general category.
We are reminded of Delueze and Guattari and the machine of ideology. It is not so much that human beings will develop something that’s not human, such as AI, that will take us over and basically make us obsolete. No. It is more that this is what occurs and it is only in foresight that we become apprehensive and fearful, but the reality and fact of the matter is that the humanity that lives with this ever-increasing inclusion, that we could even call a kind of Orwellian 1984 totalitarianism, is taken as natural to the human condition of its time. There is never a revolution, the revolution has already been accounted for in the development of group jargon, already been accounted for in the group that is solving the problem involves in the fearfull future, The nonhuman future that human beings are somehow creating out of their humanity.
I need I mention again the “changing of the past” that goes along with this type of inherently inclusive jargon that is itself the state of being human, The feedback that is the human being looking for itself in something that is not itself is promoted by the task of the group seeking to accomplish its task without any definitive ends but the development of a common discourse redundantly wing informed by the (undefined, ungrounded) task: The ground is the ideological investment of the common category. . Hence the question of if a category can be communicated throughout it’s breadth.
The retroactive return of our thoughts to our animal origins, following as our thoughts do the puzzle pieces of history planted in the earth and time, to find our evolution and our present as pinnacle creation, is nothing less or different then our philosophical return to our biological origins of mind.
So we must say, beyond any argumentative posture, that we have found ourselves once again at the beginning of time.
The simple standard by which objects can be said to be ‘true’ objects, which is to say, the object that needs no other object against which to attain its object-ness, is merely to say that there is an independent object.
When we read the beginning of “Logical Investigations 2″, though Husserl was working toward a different point, we find, nevertheless, that he makes a quick and simple find that in order for objects to be dependant they must first have an independence; thus the mere idea of independence is sufficient to establish an object’s veracity and integrity of itself without relation, which is to say, without a condition of dependency. All I need to say is “Cup” and the independent object has arrived intact and complete. All I need to say is “independent object” and such an object appears and exists before I ever had to say it.
Postmodern apologetics is everywhere because modernity, as a mythological platform, is decaying. By this decay, a forensic procedure may be enacted upon it to find out what it was made of.
Every mythology can be defined by its beginning, wherein Truth is simply discerned, apologetics which arises at saturation of Truth such that it’s effective tenants are questioned within the scaffolding by which they arrive ,and decay, when the Truth begins to precipitate out from the semantic platform. Heresy is the act of noticing the truth of the effective mythological truth.
If you think in terms not of what may be logically possible or probable, but rather in terms of the structure of particular meanings enacted through such logic, then we can have an idea of what might be meant when we say “not allowed”. What is heretical is what is not allowed. In this case what is not allowed by any human being is to extricate themselves from the effective mythology, from the mythological scaffolding.
Such an extrication occurs only in the significant moment; The opportunity for such a moment arrives with contradiction. , two routes. Where no significance occurs, which is to say where the contradiction maintains a constant semantic level, then no extrication can be made because there has been no manner or purchase upon where such an extrication might occur. This coincides with religious offence, because where is such a significant has occurred when communicated to one where such as significance has not occurred, a break in the potential of communication is evidenced. A communication across this kind of partition never occurs in truth but actually gives rise to the reality of infinite relativity.
Count that as a cite reference, and here is the post, which sounds quite similar to My post on Anslem’s Arguments for the proof of the existence of God (it seems people are catching on):
1. Can I reject a god if there was not a god to reject in the first place?
What I am rejecting then is not a god but the notion or the concept of a god. Theists want to know how you can reject a god or God by positing its (or His) existence first by naming it then asking you to how you can reject it when it exists. What the theists mistake for a god is its name.
There is no proof of existence of a god other than by its name and the actions based on the belief of its existence, not on actual proof of its existence.
I do not believe in God, a god or gods but I do see the concept of God, a god and gods all around me in the form of human behaviour and nothing more.
2. An atheist, then, should not be a rejection of the existence of a deity, anymore than I should not reject the existence of, say, Donald Trump. By rejecting existence of Donald Trump I would be considered a lunatic. This kind of thinking is what theists uses against an atheist’s rejection (the “how can you not believe in the existence of God?! That’s absurd!” argument).
The very term atheist relies on (or presumes) a positive term of (or a presence of a god) to reject in the first place. The terminology dupes us into a double take on whether there is a god to reject or not. Agnostics, in return, tried to play the same game, being drawn into a competition of verbal trickery. This will no longer do.
3. Undoubtedly, I believe in the existence of the concepts of deity and deities. This is what we like to do as humans. It is natural for us to broadly paraphrase Mary Midgley to want to be given a reason to to live. We are scared to live in a meaningless world as Jean-Paul Sartre might have said.
It goes right to the heart of the problem with the whole dispute over the existence of God.
I can say with a certain honesty that I understand what he saying and if I’m able to believe something then I believe his argument is sound, but also I agree with the reasoning why it is pointless to argue over whether or not God exists.
But we can’t leave the issue there. The reason for this is that such a logical reduction still relies on what we can call the “object-term identity”. Shorthand for this is called identity politics; regardless of what Fox or CNN wants to discuss in the context of identity politics, the more rigourous use of identity politics is reliance upon the term-object identity.
It is not enough merely to make an argument. For any argument that a person would make falls into the same logical fallacy as the person in my reblog is saying about arguments of God.
And so that is where we have to leave it. It is a Mark, a notice, of the parameters of being human. No further statement can be made upon the truth of things, because any such statement would thereby have to rely upon further arguments as to empirical truth or material truth or actual truth or physical truth or ideal truth or any sort of argumentative structure and proof, all of which ultimately fail unless we erect an ideological umbrella over the universe and say or proclaim that everyone must fall into this ideology. At some point we have to make an argument and then if everyone doesn’t believe that argument then we are left with either the fact that the argument means nothing more then what was argued, or an enforcement of the truth that the argument states.
So, if we are to get to what is actually true of the matter then we should see that these statements indicate what human beings do and that is their place in the universe, rather than such statements indicating themselves some ‘essential’ place, some central place, or some pivotal place.
We begin to understand that it is just as possible that the Christian God is true in the same way that the argument made of this re-blog is true, because if we ahhere to the conditions of the argument made in the re-blog, then the condition of truth ultimately lay in the argument itself, which then completely defies the position that is argued of the argument that is making this argument.