Monthly Archives: January 2018


Issac Asimov’s “Foundation” is to the philosophical issue “of the two” as Gilles Delieze and Felix Guattari metaphysics is to “the multiple”.

The distinction is the difference not only of investment, but of orientation upon objects.

Metaphysics, while definitely involved with real occurrences of political and ideological dimensions, outlining a certain real description of how institutions arrive and the consequences that entail for subjectivity and identity, is, in every case, a religious outline. D and G thus describe the course that inscribes humanity to its universal (catholic – not Christian in the narrow idea) religion as a teleological prediction to ontological surety.

” …[The] ..description and thus utilization of religious inevitability does not rely solely upon such metaphysical constraints like the adherents of congregational knowledge. Rather it arises outside of the religious function to occur within it as contradictory and heretical, as knowledge invalidated by the experts (the priests of the theological dogma). Hence, democracy finds its limit through a reflection which reveals itself but projected outward to have the world, while what is not adherent to the theology uses the reflection to determine what the democratic limits define, how the democracy is structured, and what it will be used for. ”

What we find is a difference between those who admit and acknowledge their own lack to thereby work in the mind of others, and those who uphold the certitude of their view, who only see their own mind as the unity of proper world.

Each has its own advantage, but on opposite ethical fronts.

Metaphysics is the manner of the latter, of the colonizer, the Freirean oppressor, G and D the insightful description of what happens due to this always-aggregate and indeed real popular orientation.

Of the multiple.

The reason why authors are heard to say that the issue is “of the two”, is because once the issue becomes “of the three” we must then consider what this third might be or in what place this third must reside. Of the two we do not need nor do we have an ability to consider where either must reside because it occurs already. Once the issue becomes the place that the one or the two occurs (identity) then we have ultimately made the issue “of the three”, because then we have begun to decide and choose where we are to place these conceptual identities.

This is the reason why Deleuze is so prominent nowadays: because reality, what is common of humanity is what is real. And by this simple statement most people who consider themselves thinkers will have to ask into these categories that I have just set out there so plainly. They would have to ask what do you mean by “real”, or what do you mean by “humanity” or any of the various terms that I set out in that very plain statement they would ask into because they’re coming upon those through “the three”, which is to say of the multiple, the impossible situation of reality.

Everyone is so overly and insistently concerned about reality, or more properly, what reality is. The aggregate of people base themselves by discerning what is true with what is real as a common category, A common basic foundation. And when we begin to understand how not only this situation becomes defined but how it is already undefined, we have this situation of the two and we have the situation of what Delueze call’s “the schizophrenic”.

The schizophrenic is a being that must partition off identities. And yet it is by this real imperative that the “instigator” or perhaps “catalyst”, or maybe even “impetus”, or any sort of non-that we Might want to or feel obligated in attaching to those terms due to this real imperative of definition – it is by the insistence for the concern of real things and the question of what is reality that we find the first category set aside, that is the issue of the two, in the “body without organs”.

The body without organs relied upon is what allows for the concern with real identity; it allows for a certain organization of real categories that we generally call metaphysics. This is why D called himself a metaphysician.


The key may not be one common solution. For children, or at least adolescents, the goal might be to get them to see beyond their immediate circumstance. While the goal for adults might be to get them to come back to the present, beyond the childhood glories and traumas of the past.

Instead of suspending ourselves in an eternal flux whereby we don’t know quite how to appropriate future ideals, nor come to terms with what might actually be occurring for oneself in the present moment, reconciliation of these two aspects might indicate the problem that we face. Spirituality, and the ideal that goes with it in modern circles, could be the highly improbable goal of reconciling two aspects of being into the wholeness that is the human life, from birth to the present moment. This could be the problem. Perhaps there is no reconciliation, and the ideal of reconciling this common whole to a common holistic perception is it self the problematic, The never ending opening to issues and problems of self, to stress to anxiety to anger to failure of government and systems; this is to say perhaps our current paradigm by which we define a democratic society is the aggressive Assertion that wishes to overcome the emptiness that lies within an appropriation of a whole unitive being . That the way of Capitalism is the way of being eternally unrested and discontent: the global state religion called Capitalism, where all beliefs reduce to the nothingness involved with the reconciliation of capitalistic identity.


Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.

If I’m not mistaken, though Maslow could speculate about a top tier “self-actualization” and see it in certain people, he never succeeded in being able to bring it about except through the ‘already occurring’ theoretical observation of certain individuals.

I have never read any critique of his theory, but it is a popular psychological base. I do like the idea that we should not formulate the human psyche upon negative examples such as those with disease and issues.

If we consider that the lower strata are fulfilled automatically, then we might understand that the theoretical extension is non sequitur. People are drawn toward nourishment and shelter/security; not all people are drawn toward self fulfillment. Fulfillment appears are a kind of intellectualization that is applied to the human category after the fact, imposed upon the category as a view may function as a catalyst to see. Perhaps we might even understand that the lower strata without the theoretical extension toward self-actualization yields an idea of humanity that is distasteful for most people. Like, somehow, if we do not include this extension, if we do not include what it operates upon ideals such as faith, hope and transcendence, then humanity as we know it does exist. And, maybe what we see in the downturn of a society or civilization (at least our current one) could be the implicit yet unacknowledged  truth of the human animal. Hence, epidemic proportions of drug use and addiction, depression, anxiety, stress, etc…

Yet, then if we also do not exclude our proposal here, we might see that this is merely how the human animal operates; that is must posit transcendence and hope even through the slow revealing of its fantastic ideal.

Maybe it is not the “self-actualization” that is the need, but merely the ideal that there is such a possibility: the religious ‘saviour’ is what is needed. Maybe, it is not the ‘being saved’ that we need, but only the idea that we need to be saved.

We Love Drugs. And other extraneous solutions.

Everything you know about depression is wrong from The Guardian.

Seems to me the simple problem is that no one cares to look to themselves for the answer. We are taught to look to what is outside for the answer to our problem. Perhaps when it comes to personal happiness and contentment, this method does not work so well, whether it’s that I’m told I need drugs or whether it is that my needs are not being met. At some point, perhaps, in another 40 years, when the ‘needs’ solution isn’t working entirely, we will ask just what is a ‘need’ anyways. Blame blame blame. Maybe that’s the problem?

Materialism: The Stuff We Have to Work With. The Revolution will not be Philosophized.o

Immaterialism book.

Berkeley’s Immaterialsim.

The revolution will be watered down and absorbed into institutional dogma.

I propose an alteration to history and philosophical reckoning (a proposal that will be set aside):

Materialism is the view that all we have to work with is the stuff we have to work with.         We have material to work with.

Yet, when we look at what philosophy has to say about Materialism, we come to a striking conclusion that they were talking about something rather regular and then confusing it.

So when Harman (maybe?) and Berkeley say “Immaterialism” we have to think: What?

the philosophy that is immaterial?


Well. because of the convoluted and overcomplicated manner that philosophers have distorted simple things, Berkeley had to say ‘immaterialism’, but it is really nothing much more than the definition I just gave, so:

the conventional philosophical ‘Immaterialism’ is based upon the view that we have only this “stuff” to work with, and whatever it is, there it is, and we work with it. It is the material we work with in philosophy. Whether it is a table, a computer, a quark, a vacuum, a singularity, a skyscraper, a museum, a painting, a mote, a speck of dust, an anteater, a word, an object, a subject, a God, an atheist, a universe, a feminist, a philosopher, a person, an angel, an alien, speculation, practicality, ideal, forest, duck, electrons, space, density, think, thought, act, chair, blanket, act, activist, set, setting, setter, langue, parole, term, blades, bladder, piss, fuck, sex, happy, sad, rape, abuse, power authority, religion, philosophy, carpet, dog, pond, park, warm, cold, heat, hearth, internet, small mind, offense, sin, punch, intelligence …

its all material. But due to the general abusive authoritarian density of conventional philosophical method, they had to come uno with a different term: immaterial. But its so stupid; it should be called material, but this point, for now, is indeed, immaterial.

We can’t really complain; it does no good. Nevertheless.

So, we just have to go with it. We have to wonder not merely what people are talking about, but why they are speaking the way they do. When we begin to see why they use the term immaterial, we have to begin to wonder why. And this is not to say that we have to launch another investigation into the proposed progress of philosophical history of ideas because then we have not gotten anywhere. The more significant question is why would ‘material’ indicate anything else besides the stuff we have to work with? It would be like saying “please turn on the TV” and the person brings you shoes, or goes to find a pencil. What is this showing us about what humanity does? There is no irony here; the irony shows where the problem occurs.

Variability of meaning that goes into a statement such as what I’ve just made, The insistence upon the individual appropriation of clausal structure is exactly irony, and is what amounts to what people 200 years ago going forward called “enlightenment”. That we can continue, infinitely, to extrapolate into this clausal structure ‘inspiration of the truth’. The problem is not that we come to various meanings about things, it’s more that we feel that these meanings have a certain significance or that are somehow better than or more inspired despite what other people may have intuited. In other words, capitalist individualism.

Though the poem below does tend to route one’s picture of what is revolutionary to a particular time in Modern history, and as that to particularly social issues, the meaning is pertinent to what occurs all the time. As evident in “Immaterialism” perhaps being a fashionable idea now, as if 300 years ago they weren’t worried about the same thing…what is different is the operative mean.

Like Harman’s question: How do we get back to the thing in-itself?


It was Fifty Years Ago Today

It was fifty years ago today

Revolution took to the streets.

In Grosvenor Square and Paris

Students sang to different beats.

In Prague too they were coming alive

Digging the jive as establishments swayed,

Responding with an iron fist

As those rebellious songs played.

They used tanks against the Czechs

And armed guards in Ohio

Tear gas in London

And swung clubs in Chicago

Give Peace a Chance

For the Street Fighting Man

As the Unknown Soldier

Asked what was the plan in Vietnam.

Fifty years on from that protest and change

Now the psychedelic colours are muted.

What is the legacy of the great revolution?

In simple terms that can’t be refuted?

Environmental movements and Women’s Lib?

Or just fashion, music and wind?

The establishment’s firmly back in control

And revolution’s been binned.

via It was Fifty Years Ago Today — Opher’s World

Opher 2.1.2018

But, the revolution was not a lie, it just already happened and people missed it!