Where to Start: The Significance of Outliers.

 

badlands1015-005

The ‘Hard’ problem of any philosophical reduction involves the situation reflecting itself. The question of any philosophical effort is where to start, which is really the question of where to stop. This is to find the issue exactly: If the question of where to stop does not arrive first in the series leading to the philosophical proposal, then we have already an indication of where the philosophy has stopped; that is, where it stops is already situated in the orientation from which the proposal arises, for simple terms, the central thinking subject’s consideration of the objective world.

If the issue behind what to write about is where to start, then the subject and the object is already established prior to the philosophical considerations. From this position, then, there is no shifting or changing one’s view, the view is that one can choose upon the things of the world; one can consider this and that perspective, is able to opt to have this view and disagree with that opinion. One can decide that she is going to take this position upon this issue because of this and this aggravating factors. This is what I call the conventional orientation upon objects.

Now; the problem inherent in the possibility of there being an orientation that is not based in this orientation is the fact that what we come upon regularly is most people are oriented in this manner. When we notice this, after we have attempted to maintain a behavior that coincides with this normalcy and find that it is indeed odd, that we are in general not able to keep ourselves up to the measure of this standard, we might then begin to understand the point behind Jean-Francois Lyotard’s the Differend. (Keep in mind that the category is aesthetics that Wiki uses to summarize his book, is itself in dispute). The issue of that book is the limits of communication; namely, is there communication across a common category, and specifically, can a case be made to a court that cannot understand the issue.

The problem we find is not so much about where to start a discourse in an arena where everyone is attempting to start discourses. This problem is easily communicated; everyone is doing things in the same arena, speaking about things in the common universe, everyone is coming from the same human considerate space, doing things within the common sense of place that can communicate differences of space within.

But where to stop, and thus start? This holds significance; this is the hard problem. When this is the issue, then the arena itself has come into question; reflection becomes no longer a dialectic which involves what is common of the potential in all human beings, and the medium of communication, instead, is found to be lacking. The ability to communicate is not the issue here. Yet, when such a problem is noticed, the default for the common Being is to indicate a problem with that individual human, so when this is relied upon, when this subjective reflection is the automatic reasoning, the reasoning that compares one’s veracity of Being to her ability to communicate, there do we have the indication of conventional orientation. In one instance, the science of psychology, with all its mental and psychic diagnoses, becomes salient. In an other, The person attempts to communicate,finds they are not communicating and takes this as a personal lack, rather than seeing it a s a lack in the medium that she is using. This is Lyotard’s issue: The medium is the problem, not the psyche; ironically, it is a mistake of the psyche to view it as a problem of the psyche: How does one communicate through this? In fact, when we look back at historical philosophical figures that we still discuss after hundreds of years, we have pause because we find that for many of them this was also not only their issue, but the very reason why they are known so ubiquitously. And the odd and truly significant thing to say about this is that they are still discussed because they could not communicate this issue I am speaking of here; which is to say, that most people do not understand the issue for it was not communicated.

If discourse holds a potential across unitive categories for communication, then all we have to do is figure out how to use the correct terms, the correct clausal ordering and contextual signaling and the truth of what is being said will resonate with everyone and all will be good. But the signal of the modern religious apology is that such communication did not occur, which is why we can say that despite what people may think what Enlightenment is, the very notion of it is not some saving feature of the ability for thinking that being human has by virtue of the category of human being, but is more a facet of the human consciousness to behave in that manner, a culmination of semantic symbolic relation involved with history and its scaffolding, to build ever more conceptual scaffolding that confirms the progressive evolving of the higher sythetical thought that is is blessed and chosen singular creation Human. Despite what sensual or perceptual evidence might be presented, the human consciousness will always see it with reference to its own preeminence, even as it might develop causal structures to say that it is not, because even, for example, as we might say that God does not exist, such a statement relies upon the very ideal of God existing by which we may use our eminent ability to think its non-existence; everywhere we turn, the use of terms to negate, what we might call resultant concepts, which are similar to Kant’s synthetical a posteriori.

This is how consciousness functions: The use consciousness and discourse is similar to a hammer and a nail. The common and usual manner of using consciousness is to perceive, concieve and appropriate the tools as necessarily correspondent with each other: e.g. “the hammer pounds nails into materials”. Terms (discourse) are understood axiomatically and automatically (commonly) to indicate their correspondence; for example, the history of Western philosophy has moved in such a way through logical reduction and comparative analysis to bring society to the realization or knowledge to the condition that terms do not indicate anything but themselves. This statement is taken automatically to not mean what it means; the contradiction involved in this statement, however true, necessarily defies its meaning and so is used by philosophy (the mind; consciousness) for the meaning that does not contradict itself, which is, a meaning that has not appropriated the true meaning of the statement.

Yet keep in mind, that this does not concern conclusions we may come to in other types of thinking such as whether I should make oatmeal on the stove or the microwave. This is only concerning ideal synthetics as a category, as this category does not communicate across parameters of domain; its domain is automatically taken to be able, in potential, to include all possible invited or inspired ideals.

Nevertheless, it is this compensation for incomplete or failing modes that continually call for a reconciliation of the modern semantic scaffold. One does not find this inadequacy in other scaffoldings. This is what post-modern attempted to account for and thus include, but ended up in just reaffirming the mistaken operating mode of modernity, again, the effort under the ideal of enfolding what was falling apart back into the common sort, albeit, a colonizing discourse that feigns its intent upon non-colonizing trends. Scaffoldings that do not require a reconciliation can be said to be solute; Modernity is one such scaffolding, but it is in the context of its own dissolution that we find a need for reconciliation, aka post-modernism. We can, of course, look to other scaffoldings that likewise do not need to be reconciled for what they are; we call these myths, but for a more proper modern term, extrinsic mythology. It is this through an actualization of human categories, including the category that can be said to be insoluble, the category that does not communicate across its parameters, that we might end out what human beings do, or for a more precise activity, what philosophy does. Instead of the “category that can be said to be included in no other category” (reality – Badiou), we thus locate that same category that fails, that which we can only describe as not-real, the actuality of the functioning category that perpetually rein scribes failure into its successful route.

The actuality of the situation realized is what we can call the outlier; it is what is not included in the study, which for our purposes is reality, and is what Lyotard talks about as the post-modern condition: Knowledge is no longer a ubiquitous feature of a common category, but is rather a quality that becomes automatically assumed to be conveyed, but now, a quality that is validated by experts as acceptable in the category that we call knowledge, the exclusive feature that is imposed upon humanity for the purpose of maintaining or upholding the modern principle of its truth.

But again, this is not to say that all knowledge is applied in this way, but only that knowledge which bridged the gap of what we tend to call synthetic a posteriori and a priori knowledge: the communion of the agent human being with the transcendent of a thousand names.

We thus always start in the middle, and the decision of where to start is a decision of how to present valid knowledge gained from the agent’s communion with the transcendent; this is to say, where to start is a question that does not begin to express an outlaying knowledge.

The problem lay in communicating a human Being is involved but not circumscribed by the ideal of the unitive category we call Being that shapes itself around what is modern human. The problem is how to communicate to a person that they are not ‘intact’ as a unitive character in reality. Because the act of such a communication is automatically routed into the real arena, along a conventional route, and to communicate from an area that is not located entirely in the united arena appears as a contradiction in terms. Thus we speak of two routes that are not reconcilable as the feature of the universal object, but the human object in this case.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s