Tag Archives: philosophy


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.

The Philosopher.

The philosopher is like an arrow cutting through the air.

or rather –


A snake slicing along the surface of a river.

The truth calls the philosopher.

But until it is found, she is like a pebble thrown into the water.

The wakes echoing forth, back and away in all directions, her presence the ripple for the moment, the significance like the rain drop, fades away in dissipation of the wash, while her self sinks and dissolves.

           A transcendental nobility.


Yet before this and after, but never while,

The Truth is found, and the philosopher is pulled up the stream.

She does not sink, but swims, floats, slips, buoyant.

The shallow draft carries small value,

with purpose, with determination.



The truth calls. And called.

The opinions vary in the concentric interferences.

She is not distracted and never beached,

The swells and rapids only occasion her indecision and resolve.

The rocks interesting siestas.

The shore never beckons.



c.2017 Lance Allan Kair.

C.S.P. is Doing it again… Interview with Lance K.


With the (soon) release of The Covert Sound Philosophy‘s second new album “Clausal Proof”, some of us thought it would be cool to print some more of the transcript for the upcoming podcast on the the history of CSP and philosophy, and the odd coincidence of Music and philosophy.

Click HERE for “Smoke n Butter”.

So here you go!


{Jonesey, the interviewer, in plain text}

J: So lets get back to the question; Why the Covert Sound Philosophy?

{Lance in italics}


            why the Covert sound philosophy…


…Because usually people who are in a band Want people to know of them…

…but the Covert Sound was like no other band…



So why the Covert Sound….


Why the covert sound ..


Why the covert sound philosophy… Did we ever really get into Why? Did I answer that?


Not really.

We wanted to be different, is what it is really. There was nothing left to do…


….everyone else is overt…

Yeah; right? I mean, every band you know of you know of, see, everyone else…rock and roll had lost itself in the music… in the scene, in the sene-ing, of all the coolness… it had been played out. Even punk rock had been taken up…


Rock and roll had lost its coolness…I think Im beginning to see…

IT had lost its coolness… rather, it had become too cool. Everyone loved it and everyone was cool.


And that’s not cool.

And that’s not….rock and roll. Rock and roll was about being different. A long time ago, being cool was different, but then it became about being the same… not different, just cool.


So, you didn’t want to be cool?

…I don’t know if we didn’t want to be cool, but we didn’t want to be too cool. See, theres a threshold of coolness  [laugh]. I think everyone knows that if too many people like something then something has got to be wrong with it.


Is that the ‘philosophy’ part?

No, that’s just uncommon knowledge (laugh) — its not the Sound Philosophy part. It is not the philosophy of the covert sound; not the name part. Just A part that everyone knows.


What part is that?

The part that if something is too popular then it must be terrible.


 I think Ive heard that before somewhere, but I think, it sounds to me like something cool people would say. Like, cool people cant be into something that everyone else is…

Well there you go.


…Its like what prompted the movie “revenge of the nerds”.

Well there you go again; twice. That movie was from the 80’s. And the representation of cool is a mis-cue.


A miss-cue?

See now were getting into the Philosophy part.


About a miss-cue?



A miss-cue?



So, what is a miss-Cue?

Well, I miss-cue is when a meaning of an event is taken to be equivalent to the term that is coined to designate it. Think of the term ‘meme’, for example. Do you know what a ‘meme’ is?


Yeah, its those pictures you find online that people do, and they put a caption on it and then people are supposed to get the reference as like a joke or a funny thing that everyone knows about, somehow.

Yup. But that’s the popular meaning. Its kind of like ‘radical’ was. In the Valley, north of LA, in the early 80’s, people (like myself and now I cant stop using it) started using the idiom “totally radical”, “rad” and such. But the idea of ‘radical’ was a philosophical notion that has come up in postmodern discourse, even though it had been around here and there for years. Somehow, everything in philosophy became qualified with ‘radical’ this and that, and it moved over into popular culture. But that’s not really a mis-cue. Its more like a mis-take of the meaning, a popular appropriation that has no pretense of what it ‘actually’ meant.


So then what do you mean by a mis-cue.


Take that movie as the example; Revenge of the Nerds. In it the cool people are the jocks and the cheerleaders, the ‘preppies’ is what we used to call them. Like the nerds are the tech and computer geeks, the smelly, weird looking, smart people who have no fashion, etcetera. And the cool people are the styley, good looking, some what regular people – if we can say that – pompous, privileged, etcetera. When we consider all the things around the movie, of nerds as a ‘bad’ classification, and ‘cool’ as a good one, and we think about how the movie even came about, how we could even have a context to find the movie not only entertaining, but indeed, socially provoking, as it was, the idea tends to fall into the categories that the movie promotes, like a implication, a Covert truth (laugh) , even though it was just a movie.


I getcha…

The mis-cue, though, is actually found right here.


Right here?

Right here in the interview. Because you saw the association between coolness and the movie.


Well, I Was just drawing a comparison, an analogy really.

Yes, but the comparison was valid; I understood it. I understood what you were referring to even though I am now categorizing it as a mis-cue. If I didn’t understand it, I wouldn’t have been cued and I would have had to ask you what you meant. In a way, we just struck upon a meme, in the original sense of the term, and not so much as the popularized and ‘low-culture’ idea (chuckle) if I am allowed to say that-  which is, as a sort of a ‘bit’ of cultural data that is transferred between cultural participants as a means to perpetuate culture, subconsciously maintaining and perpetuating the Culture as an established form, but through its own changes.


Wow. You are kinda smarter than I … would have suspected.

The name of the band is Covert Sound Philosophy. Who puts ‘philosophy’ in the name of their rock and roll band?


I thought it was more like, that the philosophy was more like ‘being covert’, like your sound is covert and that is The philosophy. I didn’t realize that there was some actual thoughtful intelligence that went beyond it.

(Both laugh)

Thanks! I guess maybe that’s kind of why we had to go ‘covert’. And Ironically why now CSP is… less covert. Kinda like another 80’s reference; Hewie Lewis and the News song “hip to be square”. If its hip to be square then we have to ask why anyone would be concerned with being hip.


Because youre smart?

Because rock and roll is dumb. (laugh) But please, all you listeners, don’t be offended because if you are getting offended then you’ve missed the interview. It is the nature of pop music. People just want to be entertained, the just want some background noise in their regular life, and then some more organized and present noise with some spectacle so they can ‘escape’ from that part of their life that was occupied with background noise. The most deep or intelligent music anyone really wants is stuff that ‘relates’ to what they are going through in the ‘background’ life. They don’t want to think about music. That seems kinds contradictory, doesn’t it?


That a person would want to think intellectually about music?

Yeah. But more: That the intellectuality of music would amount to a kind of pure experience, a kind of experience that most people never encounter, something that has nothing to do with intellectuality, but in bringing it up, people automatically think its some ‘really smart’ thing; but its really the entire opposite. With an experience that really has directly to do with philosophy, or that we can really only call philosophical, there is no ‘relating’. Would you say you relate to CSP’s music?


In fact, I don’t know if I would put it in those terms.

What do you get out of it?


I just think its great. Its like a musical journey, but more; it is an experience.

Do you relate to other music?


Yeah, Id say I can relate at times to other music, but actually, I can relate to CSP at times, to the lyrics, but I don’t really know if that’s why I love CSP.

Would you agree that most people just want to music to relate to, or that they like music because they can relate to the music, I mean, in a confessional and overt manner?


In general, yes, Id agree with that synopsis of music and people in general. Confessional? I don’t know if id go that far –

 -Confessional in the sense that they feel that they have to say they relate to it, and this is a reason that they come up with as something to say.

Sure. Sometimes, in a certain sense, it is more about being seen for what music you like and then, in a way, how you speak about it.

Well Id agree, sort of, also; I can relate to many songs and I like various songs and music because I can relate to what it talks about. But the music I really love, I wouldnt classify my relation to it as ‘relate’. But, I would classify it as a kind of intelligence, like, there is an intelligence to the music that is not intellectual, strictly speaking. Our current popular music I would say is not intelligent and that way, but is more intellectual in so much as people want to relate to a songs’ ‘deep meaning’; not that that’s bad, you see though…



I suppose. But what about Rush? The band. They had some pretty intellectual lyrics, and they were not hipster like part of todays bands, and Im sure there are other bands –

…And what about classical music? I definitely would not say that I relate to classical, but I do love a lot of it. And Jazz… definitely don’t realate to anything Jazz sings about, but I love Jazz…


…I cant right now think of any other band…but what about Rush?

Sure. Yeah. Rush for sure was more on the intellectual side, and not hipster in the sense of having an audience that relates to them, or at least as I’d classify them. I could be wrong though… But not to discount anyone’s professed philosophy of life or living; CSP, the title name is not really about some sort of ‘philosophy of life’ kind of stuff. Its more in line with actual philosophy, or involves it, the heady stuff, ontology, the hard questions, with the big names and big ideas, even the small names, and big words, that kinda BS.


Its kinda funny that you would call it BS.

Well it is BS. I mean, do you like CSP because its philosophical?


No. I had no clue really.

 And Im gonna get Real philosophical here and posit something and then take it away in the same sentence.


You said ‘posit’. How philosophical.

Ready? I actually just said it.

Ready. What’s that?

That the most philosophical of things is the intellectuality that requires actually very little investment into what we traditionally think of when we think of philosophy. Hiedegger puts it in terms of “What is most thought provoking is that we have still not begun to think”.


Whoa.  That’s deep. You said Heidegger.

Yeah. It’s a strange thing, and I wont get into all the verbose theory here – This is the Covert Sound; if people want the whole theoretical bag they can look into the Philosophical Hack.


That’s your other half, so to speak?



You play with the idea that there are two sides to a person. The Philosophical Hack is the intellectual side and CSP is the artistic side?

Yes, but they are complimentary, more like an ‘either/or’, and not mutually exclusive and in fact cannot be removed from one another, each informs and describes the same situation …but we don’t need to get into that; like I said, that a topic for the Philosophical Hack.

 Ah. A nod to Kierkegaard. I’ve heard of the guy, ‘the father of existentialism’.But how do you discern the sides? Which discussion goes where?

Yes. Sartre came up with that idea; Kierkegaard had nothing to do with it.Well…ok…we can touch on it…


Do. Please.

Probably the same way that everyone else does, but I do it more cognitively, some may say with a certain intentionality, but in this case the subject and its predicates are already determined, so we might say that the categories occur with perhaps a more, or maybe, with a different kind of awareness of whats going on. In truth, one cannot separate out aspects of what is occurring here for dissection; the aspects inherently enfold and involve the others. But we can describe the situation; here then we begin to get a total view into the history of philosophy, really, without much thought on it, because we just lived it, or perhaps are living it. As I say: Once we understand the point of contention… For the example of Philosophy: it, In a way, it is the failure to be able to discern how such discussions get sorted, in this manner, that amount to the over intellectualization of philosophy to the extent that it excludes most everyone automatically even before they begin to think about it. It is the success of the idea of the Whole person by which we get hierarchical discourses, of earned access, agency, etcetera. But then we get into the discussion about religion…


Right. So… where does CSP fall in here?

CSP is the Covert Sound Philosophy.

Ok, and…

What is covert is due to or comes about as the cooperative result of what is established as overt through the necessary routes. The necessary routes are not contingent, but rely upon the contingencies for a kind a view that is not contained in contingency, but is, in fact, determined by it. We cant merely Decide that we are going to hide something. I mean, when we decide to hide something we are really making an overt gesture, a choice of how to behave; the question posed by CSP concerns what is hidden automatically, what philosophers say is ‘always already’, what is, not underneath or in some sub-consciousness, rather what is hidden in plain sight but then also ironically is established and maintained through a sort of coercive politics as prohibitions and taboos, ethically incorrect postures. Most everyone just wants to ride the politics of Being; they never get to what is hidden because for most people, what is hidden is already accounted for in what comes to their mind politically to the extent that there is only something hidden in as much as the rational agent gets to find it, uncover it, and, as the ‘simple mind’ relies upon the hierarchical structure of rationality to categorize, again, establish and maintain their identity through a sort of ‘shadow government’. The ‘institution’ by which an agent finds its identity in a contingent process … but more pertinent to Rock and Roll: There was a kind of assumption of covert-ness, of coolness…


Um…We already went over the problem with that…I think…

Yeah but its true. This all has to do with access, of potential and success; we were challenging and were questioning in a big way, what is real. And this could not be taken as a ‘life choice’ but again, Im trying to keep it to the Sound Philosophy, on the Sound end of things, on the accessible end of things. The point of CSP was a response to how screwed up we were. We were responding In kind to the situation of ourselves but without a recourse to the possibility that we were never screwed up. We were always already screwed up, and so we were never screwed up. This is the point of access itself.


Ah. Kay. I think I am not gaining access here (chuckles)…So CSP came about because you guys felt there was no way out? How postmodern, if I can say so.

Yeah but the difference is that kind of postmodernity was made within a context of escape; the “No Exit” was made in the context that the escape was made through the vehicle of having no exit from the situation. Philosophically, that was the modern irony which this ‘postmodern’ art resided within for the purpose of marketable complaint. No one could really understand what anyone was saying and this coalesced into a kind of alternative reactive discourse…lalala…And the end run was that we were no longer postmodern, because we could no longer rely upon that dishonest route.


What dishonest? The artists?

The artistic efforts were not dishonest inthemselves, I mean, look at punk rock, to be most extreme, but also disco had no qualms about getting high, dancing and partying. But the attitudes that went with such segregating musics and ideas: Pure reaction. And actually, the academic efforts in themselves were not dishonest, but in so much as they were supposedly academics and not clerics, we have to assign a certain kind of blame. So on the whole, the results, the manifest appearance of what was occurring was dishonest, because it always has the appearance of desperation on one end, and in certain cases of calculated description of desperation where really there was no reason for such desperation at all. I mean, from a pure kind of view of agency, as in free will and choice and all.  


Whoa. That’s kinda hard core. But aren’t you kind of overgeneralizing, over simplifying?

Isnt everyone?


Well, I don’t know… I think my brain is starting to hurt. Are you saying then that there was a certain kind of dishonesty that used the conditions of its times as a means to do something, but at the time this something was to assert that people can’t do anything about the condition, and so this activity was dishonest.

I guess.


Arent you kind of arguing in hindsight and condemning the people who actually had to live in that condition, accusing them of actually having a way to be honest and yet choosing to be dishonest?

Maybe. Maybe it’s a question of civilization, of whether civilization is dependent upon being dishonest. But Im not accusing anyone, because Im talking about times that I myself was in, that we were in, and the condition from which the Covert Sound arose, and then Im not making any excuses.


It sounds like you are accusing people, in fact, a whole generation or era of people.

You asked how the Covert Sound Philosophy came about; or actually you asked ‘Why the Covert x. Sound Philosophy’.


…So … are you saying that, as opposed to every other band and artistic achievement in general from that era, the Covert Sound was the only honest enterprise?

Maybe… but not really… but yeah. I mean, how could I ascertain the honest intent of anyone else? I gotta take them at their word. Im not excluding the Covert Sound from anything; Im giving you a context by which to understand how the Covert Sound Philosophy came about. Im being philosophical, but Im trying to escape it, but you keep bringing me back.


Ok. Well…

Basically, the Covert Sound Philosophy was in response to everyone else, other bands, being overt, but overtly overt, but all the while acting as if there was some special coolness that they were privy to that was somehow covert. We just said were not going to be duplicitous.


But aren’t bands trying to be noticed? I mean, isn’t the whole point of playing in a band to be heard, to promote oneself? And ultimately to make a living playing music?

It is now because everyone is already gone. Perhaps promotion was then also, but once people could find a space to be honest, then we had something. In a certain light, CSP allowed for those bands to relieve their conscience. To be at ease with their duplicity, they could let us have it. And then we let them have our songs, but under the conditions, the ‘clause’, if you will.


The clause. Now that’s a trippy song for sure.

One of our early one’s, when the LSD was creeping into the punk rock.

I always thought that song was about sobriety. I mean, wasn’t your first bassist an alcoholic?

Yes, and he became a street junkie. To this day, no one knows where he is.


David Ramunngetit.

Yeah. David Ramagunagettit.






Davidada Ramamamagonanagitittit.


Wasn’t his name ‘David’?

Yeah. We called him David.


Was his name longer?

All of our names are longer.


Mine isn’t.

Sometimes, people’s names are longer. What’s in a name?


So, but, that song wasn’t about him?

In a way, it was.

In what way was it not, if I may ask?

Well. It wasn’t about the birthday party.


The birthday party.

Nick Cave’s first band was called ‘the birthday party’. In a way, ‘the clause’ was about ‘the bad seeds’ part, the band that he’s more popularly known for.


Nick Cave did a lot of heroin; ‘heroic’ amounts they say.

Didn’t’ we all?


I’ve never done heroin.

I mean didn’t we all do ‘heroic’ amounts?

I’ve never done any amount, accept maybe when I got in that car accident, the doctor gave me Vicodin. But I wouldn’t say I did a lot of it.

I’d just say that we get what we do. And that this ain’t about large cars and big houses. Neither about some sort of Western Karmic concept. People in the past used to do heroic things. Nick Cave never did any more dope than any other heroin addict; neither Keith Richards; money permitting, I suppose. Have you ever heard of Nick or Keith overdose?



I doubt either of them ever did heroic amounts. They did the amounts that dope heads do because its great and then they can’t stop and then they gotta do more. Its only for the people who want to be famous.


Doing heroic amounts of drugs?

Yeah. I mean, take Robert Downey Junior. He woke up in another person’s house because he was so high. (Laugh) Now Id say that was a heroic doser. (laugh)


Are you really glorifying people who overdose?

No. Im saying that its pure rock star propaganda that, say ‘the toxic twins’ –that’s Aerosmith, by the way – did huge amounts of drugs. And then Im saying that everyone who does drugs – strike that; rather, who get addicted to drugs or are destined to be, does heroic amounts. An alcoholic is able to reach .5 blood alcohol content and not die because hes been drinking for that long. Some people can take one hit a crack and die from it. Others smoke an eight-ball and are pissed off because it ran out. It’s the whole ‘rock star hero’ phenomena of modern small thought; but not that everyone doesn’t think, but those who glorify one particular drug user to his or her ‘heroic’ amounts of drugs they use, I gotta, say, are caught in a particular kind of mind that we could characterize as ‘small’. Think about that guy Seal and his song “Crazy”. What did he write that song about?


You sound almost…like you care.

Well; Im offended and then really kind of careless. Did we mention the ‘why’ of the ‘Covert Sound Philosophy’ yet?

So anyways…is ‘The Clause’ about getting clean, getting sober?



It is? Is it about… David Ram? …(murmers:) Ill leave it there.

Why not?


But didn’t you say it was about him?

It could be about him.


Did you write the song (laughs)…man, dude your so elusive. Did you write the song about Dave and his alcoholism?

See, that’s the problem now days, and a good reason why CSP is coming out from under now.


What’s the problem?

People gotta know “what was that about”. Every one is so ‘deep’, but then in having to ask it only shows that their depth is, well, kinda superficial. Not so deep. Its like no one wants to go deep, no one wants to be heroic; they want to just call their manner of reckoning ‘deep’. Now That Is a postmodern abuse of meaning right there.


What is?

That reality is constructed around what people want to say about it….






…We allowed many good bands to “get away clean”, you know what I mean? Kinda like Pilate in the Christ story: he washes his hands of the guilt of presiding over the state sanctioned killing of an innocent man.  


That is kinda…weird. Really? We’ve all heard the stories that CSP wrote many of the songs that became popular in the 90’s, I mean, that many of the bands ‘covered’ CSP songs but then said they were their own. That always sounded odd to me; I always thought that CSP just did cool covers of other people’s songs. Did you really write those?

We play all the songs we wrote.


So you are saying that…

We are the Covert Sound. Im saying that we are, or were, the Covert Sound and that we came to a conclusion about what art was and how to employ it. Totally anti-Worhol in one sense, but then also totally complicit with his mind. People can’t understand this kind of integrity anymore…but thats ok, you know. And that’s why it was time.


Time for…CSP to make a commercial album?

Sure. But I don’t know how commercial it will end up being, in the sense of America’s Top 40. (chuckles)….We’ve gotten by just fine. Now is the time…

For Under the Holiday Tree..

Two ground breaking philosophical books would be an excellent present for your curious minded philosopher !

The descriptions of the books online are not very good, so here are some better descriptions:

“Non-philosophy and Philosophy” is a short essay that speaks to the simplicity of the philosophical underpinnings of a few big-names in Western philosophy. It suggests that authors are not so much arguing various points as they are indicating a particular experience that I call ‘the philosophical revolution’.


“The Moment of Decisive Significance” is an alternative journey through the Gospels.

What the Introduction calls an ‘object oriented’ reading of the Gospels beckons to Graham Harman’s Object Oriented Ontology or Object Oriented Philosophy but is more an indicator of a difference in approach, what one could call a non-conventional or un-traditional approach.

Bringing in authors from Kierkegaard to Harman, Kant to Laruelle, Feuerbach to Zizek, Plato to Badiou, the use of philosophical discussion is not viscous. This book goes straight through the story in the Gospels explaining and detailing how the pieces and events of the Gospels can adhere in a manner that appear cogent and sensible apart from the explanation that relies upon a theological Oneness. And yet, the book is not an argument against religion; it suggests that there are ‘two routes’ upon objects that do not reduce to anihilate each other, even if one of those routes always works toward annihilation.

This essay is not saying very much about religious belief or an ability to have faith; rather, it suggests that Jesus is speaking to a small minority of people who are having a particular experience of world. By this revelation, it suggests that the Gospels, and indeed the Bible, is saying something much larger and much more significant than another proposal about God; The Story of Jesus exemplifies and reveals how the human being functions by giving us a view into not only the variety of experience that consciousness allows for, but actually into a particular mythological moment that is kept shrouded by the idea of religion, indeed beyond esotericism, albeit, for the purposes of having a particular kind of world. It is thereby a discussion about what philosophy and religion do, and as well an exploration of consciousness itself.

The book is written for the layman and scholar alike.

I hope these less haughty descriptions will entice your curiosity.

Analogue vs Digital Philosophy.

Sound and Philosophy.
I am a music producer so I have some knowledge about sound and signal. If you are interested in what sound processing entails as a block of concepts, I imagine I might do a little bit on sound and philosophy in a post later. Or you could look on line.

But here’s just an intro into how sound and knowledge might be similar.


The issue of communication is not merely a conceptual exercise. It is an actual lived experience that has been conveyed into philosophy with an interesting outcome: Some sort of communication is occurring, but in particular instances, it is difficult to tell just what kind. In some instances A is being communicated as A, and in other more usual instances, A is being communicated as B C or D…, depending on who you talk to, but with an odd sort of occasion where the ‘receivers’ of B,C,D still think they have been communicated A. This phenomenon is similar to what Zizek calls “changing the past”.

Since the mid-19th century we have found that there is an attempt to communicate something and that this attempt is not always successful, but again in an interesting manner. In the 1960’s Martin Heidegger spoke of this peculiarity in a series of lectures made into a book called “What is Called Thinking“. There he speaks of thinking in terms of a progress that is not made in time; that is, the progress that is the successful consummation of this philosophical communication does not occur as a proper historical phase, but rather involves a moment of thought. The theme is this book is “what is most thought provoking is that we are still not thinking”. It is interesting to note that this occurs after World War Two, because before the event of the engagement with the Nationalist Socialists, it was thought that this “thinking” was indeed linked with a historical progression of the likes of Hegelian “Historical Consciousness”. Now, in 1965, Heidegger is telling us that he (and many philosophers as well as a kind of cultural knowledge) was wrong.

But this somehow has not deterred people from thinking that they have begun to think, as a historical motion. We find traces of this in the Frankfurt School (the final solution has not arisen yet and, in one manner of looking at it, they were pondering what could have gone wrong in the “historical consciousness” that lead to WWI, attempting to find out what had been misapplied), and then Sartre, and Foucault, then the postmoderns, Lyotard, Derrida, and Delusional Guitar Player (Deleuze and Guattari). Then we find it in, what we could call the ‘post-Postmoderns’, Zizek, Badiou and Laruelle. Of course this list in not exhaustive, but there is seems to be something at work that has allowed those authors to be listed primarily, even if it is a presumptuousness on my part. All of these authors come about within a context of not still not thinking, for they indeed have begun to think. Graham Harman, I think, finds a significance of which Im not even sure he himself put his finger on particularly, namely, that while all these thinkers may have begun to think, and are thus involved with a certain (out of time) historical movement, Heidegger was at least correct in as much he noticed a problem against which he could not help but hold out hope for. This hope that extended from at least Nietzsche, had brought him to have to say that we have still not yet begun to think, even as those who would want to think that they are thinking by “…offering an overall exposition” of Nietzsche’s work . Harman has the philosophical acuity and balls to realize that “we” will never begin to think. We can find this implication in the assertion he made in the Harman/Zizek Duel-Duet, that we have always been dis-enchanted. The point here being that indeed the reality has been that the enchantment that Heidegger was involved with in his “still-yet” was exactly that: a fantasy.

But this fantasy in not what one would think. lol. The significance of this fantasy, this enchantment, is that it is never communicated in its truth. This could be said to be what the Frankfurt School was just beginning to notice back then, and after a time, this is what why the issue of communication came up with the postmoderns, because the fact is that such enchantment occurs, people do begin to think, but the truth of the Same (Heidegger) is lost in the attempt to communicate; this is an apparent fact. This fact is what brings the post-Postmoderns: Zizek with his complete capitulation to the paradox; Badou pointing out the issue of the two: Laruelle holding firm in the historical consciousness as a communicable situation.

There is a reason why I call Deleuze and Guattari “Delusional Guitar Player”: While the Frankfurt School was trying to make sense of what this ‘saturation of the signal’ was exactly, Deleiuze and Guattari 25-some years later mark a point when the ‘distortion’ of the ‘philosophical analogue’ (see below) signal was noticed as distortion but likewise being taken to be readable (see above video), such that whatever would be communicated as the distorted signal would be accounted for as indeed part of the communication, as accounted for in their philosophy: This is enchantment par excellence, and is why we have all the subsequent run-off Deluezian philosophies that have eroded more or less into “philosophical fictions” at one end and pure admitted fantasy at the other. (Laruelle’s version has likewise been commandeered by such ‘distortions’) with some people in the middle still debating over what is really going on.

We find this because we should not rub it in; we cannot continue to yell at people, like Nietzsche, anymore; its like beating a dead horse, we need let it be.

The continued attempt to communicate how what withdraws from thinking which then gives something worth thinking about might be communicated is failing, indeed has failed. This is the significance of Harman’s move (and perhaps the Speculative move in general) into the Object. A completely new way to speak about the situation at hand without having to retread over and over what had already been retreaded so many times and will continue to be. A clean break was called for. And even still, a divergence.


The noise made by this event thus brings me to think (lol) about analogue and digital communication. The significance of digital (it seems) is that it can communicate accurately over long distances. Perhaps, what is being communicated through time that is actually outside of time, is something that is being communicated “digitally”, where as conventional philosophy is more like “analogue” communication, where to longer the distance traversed by the signal when the signal is read, the more distorted the signal.


Post Text:

When are we still not yet thinking? This is what the whole thing pivots apon, yes? For we know Heidegger; he loves a turn pf phrase. All along we will have been thinking, yes, what I quite bit of thought to ponder, this “still not thinking” as the most thought provoking thing. But it is! For everyone is obsessed with thinking; who is thinking best, who is helping the most people with their thinking, who is making the most money… So ti is that we might have bank of ideas that we disseminate to the students. But Heidegger’s teacher does nothing of the sort; all these thinkers thinking about the food for thought that is not thought provoking, but is merely thought promoting! Thought is that which is central to man, and man cannot be anything but the center of the universe in the many possibilities of ideas and concepts.

So it is that what is most thought provoking is that we still are not thinking…for we are not thinking at all. 

It is the distortion that is thought. In all its precision and ability to choose on various things to talk about and how to talk about them. We can’t undo this. The signal itself, though…well; that might be another matter entirely.

An Attempt at Discussing Some ‘Disparities’: Terrorism, Religion, Truth and Belief.

Taking a cue from Amorinblog, I am making an attempt to speak to the notion of disparities. Lets see how is goes.


What is terrorism?

When we think about the activities of terrorism, a marginal view might situate terrorism in terms of truth. What we have with the possibility of terrorism is a function of truth, or “true-Being”. In the consideration of what human beings do, we should not ignore or set aside this aspect of truth: Truth is Being truth. To set this function of human consciousness in terms of ‘belief’ merely reifies the Western colonial construct of subjective centrism, a construct that posits free will and choice in an absolute context of the ability for the subject to align itself with a transcendent course, such as we found in the American context “manifest destiny”. This is to say, we ostracize such “pre-terrorists”, people who might not have becomes terrorists yet they did, through the ideological matrix of the self-referential ethics of choice to say that the one who is a terrorist is choosing unethical behavior;  the native tribes of the western northern hemisphere were for most purposes to the early American government, terrorists in every light, even though we understand now how the American “post-colonial” period was an unethical act (still we do very little to repair the wrong). ‘Choice’, and correspondent terms such as ‘free will’, can be understood as a Western liberal code for creating antagonism in the world, an aggravating aspect of Western capitalism and its war machine.

Yet see that the question is not one about an essence of choice. It is practically nonsense to suggest that we do not have choice. But at the same time, if we do not recognize a dual aspect of consciousness, then we always stay within the ideological paradigm of an absolute ethics despite how we might want to situate or define any other liberal ethics of inclusion; we will routinely stay in the unity of consciousness that is able to consider parts of itself, parts it conceives, the unity that appropriates plurality to its uses. Reflection, in this way, is misunderstood axiomatically to be witnessing something outside of itself. As part of the liberal ethical front (and I mean this to describe a kind of Western impetus, a certain manner of coming upon reality) we should not worry so much about what others are doing, in fact, we are only able to understand such ‘other’ through this antagonistic orientation that is first and foremost based in worry, fear, and philosophical resentimentOurs is based in a contradicting antagonism, and our plight, as well as our ability to act, is based upon a cognitive platform of reconciliation in knowledge. We have then, as we are, to deal with our own BS if we are to ever stop jutting forth to then recoil in the usual modern oscillation of the war solution. In an odd sort of reprimand, the very idea of enlightenment typically does not translate into domination through war; no wonder colonial-exploratory Europe had to see other non-Europeans as ‘less than human’.

Two things here: This is not a argument against war or that we should not have war; this is not an argument for pacifism. Neither is this a suggestion that we should (somehow) withdraw from interacting with others; the point is toward an ability to be honest with ourselves about the situation at hand. As part of an ideological situation, we indeed have a front line; we cannot but be involved with a partition, of sorts, whereby we face and have confrontation with those aspects of the world in which we find ourselves. To move this understanding into any sort of utopian theme of ‘universal peace’ would then be to set aside our moment, our modernity, to basically negate our moment into a whole past to say then that all wars and conflict in history arose due to these constraints, whereas the truth of the matter is that which arrives only within our modern situation as wars stemming from these defined antagonisms: Basically we identify our moment by establishing the contradiction in this context. If we are ever to realize (which is to say, understand the truth of) our situation, then it seems the manner must take place within as the contradiction that is outside of the ideological or mythological construct, a situation that is not accorded to the construct to be thereby abstract (it is indeed occurring within the norm) but, is rather marginalized to the extreme, actively being withheld for the purposes of maintaining a particular kind of reality (ethics).

This is no longer a critique of meta-narratives; such a critique was still occurring in the antagonistic space, a space that could only be resolved through various ‘faiths’ that resolve the modern contradiction (the Deleuzian “Zen”, the New Age Spirituality, the Eastern Karmic cosmos, the “Christian” denominations that are not properly Protestant nor Catholic, and other discourses that take place in ironic suspensions). We have found that the critique of meta-narratives was how a particular ideological state perpetuates itself through ulterior colonialist motions. The Postmodern (but particularly the subsequent ‘method’) thought itself as an exception to the metanarrative, and used irony to suggest its difference, but we found that it merely supplied the ‘final’ narrative to substantiate Capitalism as the ground of real discourse (the “postmodern methodological platform”; see Lyotard “The postmodern condition”, and “The Differend”: The demand for a ground of real veracity, a limiting of irony, calls forth the criterion of ‘efficiency’ that brings about ‘experts’ to define what knowledge is valid, which knowledge is allowed to be considered as true, as well as the reparations that will be made to that aspect of knowledge that was excluded in the interest of efficiency.) But we were not done with irony, that is why definition is insufficient to bring about decisive changes in ideology; hence the various philosophical reconciliations for identity that we find all over the internet, and hence the instigation of a divergence in philosophy.

(Note: The question for divergence seems to be noticed. What others have been trying to do with ‘non-standard’ ideas and such, I simply address directly and say I am a philosopher and this ‘other’ manner of philosophy is still true as it can be identified thus conventional because the orientation upon objects by which it addresses things to gain its veracity. We do not speak from the unitive philosophical paradigm but rather admit that such a paradigm exists at least in parallel. Only one kind of argumentation exists which can reduce all signals to a single matrix, and that is the conventional philosophical route; it does not propose that it is capable of doing this, and that is why we are able to identify its mode with nothing. As I have said elsewhere, we are dealing with the instance of what stays static while something else changes, a calculus, of philosophical reckoning. What has withdrawn has indeed withdrawn beyond all argumentation: It has already been established. As well, any further argumentation is superfluous, redundant but indeed real and valid.)

So this is also not a critique of such identities. It is a describing of how humanity functions; we should not expect such understanding will change our behavior. It indeed will bring about or be involved with some sort of change, but the change will be related in a particularly real manner that seems to be able to avoid the truth of statements and yet likewise be able to argue effectively for how the truth is not what originally was there (a mistaken intension of intentionality). Neither is this a pragmatics, nor a promotion of a way into praxis. This is analysis, a possibility into a beginning of a science that has been brewing for some time (time is not the issue). The fact of atomic interactions is related to the war machine only through incidental, circumstantial yet real discussion, negotiation and argument; the science itself dealt only with the interrelating of factual situations, itself as a founding term that actually departs (instead of merely feigning departure). When we rely only upon a determination of human activity through this former method (of the circumstantial discussion) we arrive at never having the bomb built in the first place, no nuclear energy, no astrophysics, no understanding of our sun or the solar system, etc. No wonder there has been an effort to get back to the “pre-modern” Real thing.

We thus have now reached that point of discernment, an ability to deal with the being of human without recourse to incessant mythological justifying defaults that reify the free intuiting agent of transcendence. Thus far, we have not had a scientifically philosophical way to gain access into what human beings do because we were too busy doing it, busy using the manner; as an analogy, we’ve been like astronomers who have been looking at ourselves looking at the stars thinking we were actually looking at and discussing the stars: Through this approach we can only get so much information about the stars. The most recent of this manner is what we could generalize into a category of ‘Enlightenment’, but other categories that need be sorted are ‘State’ and ‘Capitalism’, among others, and “Neurophysiology” is not one of these primary aspects at this moment. We do not know yet how these function for human beings; we have only been using such categories in a proposal to find out how we might Be, indeed, using them to Be. In our finding this out, then, we have reached a kind of apogee in mythological function: Coming upon such self-reflection there by understands such knowledge as a means to enact, what is now/then seen, as a Truth. Only when this occurs does a moment arise by which to view through a larger frame of what has occurred. It does not occur through any choice in the matter, but indeed functions to begin to detract from itself.

From this moment we might be able to understand what ‘Terrorism’ might be. The first order of business, though, is to dismiss oneself from the reflection of identity, and this does not occur through any choice of free will. As I noted above, this is not a suggestion to indicate that terrible things have not occurred throughout human history, or that we can identify some essential human attribute or psychology to thereby alleviate us from such terrible occurrences. This is a description of what role Terrorism is playing in the reality of being human: Terrorism, in a large sense, is the antithesis of free will and choice; quite terrible. Psychology, at this moment, is too overdetermined in solution to be able to ponder a fact that does not move toward choices of human solutions; there are too many human issues in the world for an institution to consider bare facts; all such facts are ideological and political arguments that function as platforms by which to enact a possibility of real solution. It does no discredit to such psychological method to point out what it does, though, but the reaction that would take such a description as indicating a fault of psychology, or as suggesting that psychology is incorrect or wrong, is missing the point of fact for the sake of its ideological purpose, which is to rely upon the self-evidence of its teleology of real solution. Science concerns facts; real solutions are of a different order, of a different moment. And such moments are not, or at least do not have to be, at odds.

We thus make a proposal that seems almost a truism: Terrorism is the act that takes place from an ideological point of exclusion; terrorism exploits points of access.

I have suggested above that the idea (ideal) of human ‘belief’ is a manifestation of an ideological lack, a founding term that is supposed by the constituents of the ideology to account for what lay outside its purview. It is a colonizing ideal: Belief. Again, in this conceptual moment, we need separate ourselves from the notion that human beings all throughout history have been having beliefs. We are not concerned with what history might have to say about what human beings might “have been” believing (for indeed they were); that is of a different order of analysis. What occurs in terrorism is that the open door, that is supposed to be welcoming and inclusive of various human capacities and manifestations of belief, is not being taken. There is something about the welcome that is understood intuitively and innately to not be welcoming; to wit, the sensible response: My belief is not a belief, it is the Truth. Regardless of how we wish to emphasize our open ideal, in the case of terrorism, it has not worked, that’s why such acts are “terrible”, because they make no sense, they occur outside of our sensibility, our ability to make sense. Our sense of it is 1)that it is terrible, 2)unethical, 4)insane, 5) inhuman,6)of a ‘bad’ sort of religious fundamentalism. Perhaps we even make sense of the people’s acts patronizingly; they are ignorant, they are delusional, they are uneducated, they have been raised in an intolerant culture, they are the product of ‘bad’ ideology or psychology, they have been brainwashed. We cannot dismiss that any of these disclaimers may be the case, but for the act itself, especially individuals who willingly and with intent sacrifice their own lives in the act of terrorism – how else are we to make sense of such acts but through the unitive aspect of consciousness and its humanity that has good and bad psychologies accompanied by ethical mandates ? One cannot choose to escape their reality.

In these kind of reckonings there is no consideration of, as Alain Badiou has said, “difference as indeed different”, in other words, there is no considering their position for what it is in actuality, which is to say, as indeed a Truth that does not reconcile or fit snugly and comfortably in ‘our’ ideological nest. Indeed; I recently heard of how Donald Trump approaches foreign policy in a way that is different than what America has historically: Instead of attempting to defeat authoritarian regimes or dictatorships, reprimanding them with trade and alliance penalties, like the monarchy of Saudi Arabia, Trump approaches other nations on their own ground, allowing their political organization to function in whatever way it does so long as it does not interfere with American interests specifically. This appears very much like a situation where what is different is engaged with in its difference. How ironic that the person who so many in America see as contrary to American interests would be the person who would take an approach that can appear philosophically sound? I doubt Trump is that smart or educated, but it goes to show that we are not speaking about practical reconciliations of thought and action, but indeed a scientific description of the situation at hand. Could this be an indication of a possible beginning of a philosophical science that does not answer to conventional philosophical method?

Terrorism occurs at points of access. (Side note: The paranoia that often arises out of the consideration of an actual Artificial Intelligence develops the very point of access that an A.I. would be able to take advantage.) Terrorism is the revealing that access is not automatic nor guaranteed by any sort of discursive item, and that access now must be authorized (by experts). This is not homicide or murder, in as much as those events target individual people for specific identifiable reasons; e.g. Sam hates Pablo. Of course, we could see some similarities breaching this codification in the U.S. legalizing the corporation as an individual person: The experts tell us now that the human being is an incorporation, and not the other way around. It is not that corporations have become people, its that people must be incorporated to have ‘free’ access. In this sense, then, “in the name of (the True) Islam, I kill a number of symbolic representatives of the Christian West” is murder because this individual is incorporated (with an institution called ISIS, Boko Haram, Al-kaeda, Neo-Nazi, Free-Speech Movements, Pro-life, Black Lives Matter, whatever.. ). The irony, and the evidence that such terrorist groups see themselves through the lens they wish to destroy, is that they are asserting their freedom of access, pointing out the contradiction inherent in the (Western Liberal Capitalist) liberal mind set. This is the divine beauty of Capitalism: Its apparent omnipotence. Those who are not terrorists are those who are definably and axiomatically free to access: They are born incorporated: Nationalism has ‘bred’ itself into an offspring. Of course terrorism is insensible: How does one make sense of an act of assertion that positions itself against something that is already inherent to the act itself? This is the contradiction as well as the blind spot we find also involved in the critique of race relations. How much more non-sensible can it be for those who must behave through such ideological mechanisms? But this is not an issue of knowledge and education as much as it is what is occurring. The fact that such marginalized groups would have to speak about how to gain for themselves basic and inalienable rights is just about the most ridiculous thing that could occur given our ideological ground. Might the ‘terrorist’ actually be more sane??

This is not my position, necessarily, by the way, nor am I arguing anything about what sanity might be. But, an analysis of a situation must be able to point out facts about the situation if we are to get anywhere: Speaking about or describing what is offensive should not be taken as an argument for that which offends. A person of color is not asking me to change my skin color, reject my heritage nor deny myself as a human being in the world; she just asks me to be open to facing some harsh truths that come from outside of my ability to reckon on my own.

Identity has been taken to a further extreme, perhaps as a counterpoint to the extreme absence of sense that the act of terrorism evidences. I am not going to make an argument against that kind of reckoning, but only point out that such situations are about the political order. As to facts, if I may take the Islamic Terrorists as a case example (though we could put this analysis to any so called Terrorist), the suicide bomber is not targeting specific people, in fact, the hatred is entirely ideological (as I said): It is not Burt that I hate but that Burt is American, and he is not so much an American, as I reestablish the Truth of my sense, the sense of Truth, and re-appropriate to assert the Truth, as much as he is an Infidel. The point of access is a symbolic act against symbols, the scheme of which, on the part of the Terrorist, functions to reclaim conceptual territory (see my REBLOG post about conceptual territory) through lumping the antagonist into the counter-partial founding category by which a closing is understood as an opening (an act of faith); the corresponding ideal of the West is ‘belief’. The point of access is exactly the gap that opens up with murder without personal motive; the personal motive is the successful attack upon Truth. It is no secret that the opening for belief allows for all sorts of ethical compromises that brings into question every ‘belief system’ that functions under its umbrella. Only in the “blasé” attitude (Walter Benjamin ?) that accompanies the pursuit of real identity may someone have a valid ‘belief’; one must suspend their ideals in ‘nothing’ in order to ‘really believe’ (or to have faith). It is this kind of nihilism that is terrified by someone who is willing to die to destroy even the smallest piece of the antagonizing ideological leviathan; the transcendence that accompanies the modern nihilism is of a different sort than that usual Western ideal that places religious thinking in the category of concern with a transcendent ‘creator’. The Western religion of nihilism (the state of belief) cannot bring itself to have any sort of passion strong enough that would allow itself to willingly kill itself; how ironic. Here we even have the beginnings of a philosophical explanation of addiction, as well as the reason why it has reached epidemic proportions in America; but as well, a possible explanation of China and how it becomes present in the West.

The point of the terrorist act is to destroy the antagonistic state, the state that directly confronts the Truth through the ideal of human belief (the ideal of ‘belief’ is a singular ideological Truth). The terrorist act thus is an act that is already admitting what it is losing; like the Kamikaze fighters of World War 2 Japan, Japan had already lost the war, but would not admit it. Slavoj Zizek speaks of this kind of ideological instance in the analogy of the cartoon character, say, Wile E. Coyote, chasing the road runner off a cliff, running out into the air. Coyote does not fall until he looks down and realizes that he is standing on nothing, and even then, he has time to wave good-bye to the camera. The interesting part of this, though, is that the terrorists are already a part of the ideology that they are terrorizing, because they are already admitting that this antagonistic state has a claim in their Truth: They are fighting against the ideal of belief, an ideal concept –like that which is unstable within Anslem’s argument for the proof of the existence of God, — that they already and inherently understand; we might see the contradiction suspended in the terrorist act in as much as they destroy their own lives in the process of attempting to destroy the whole of the antagonistic state: A ‘not-life’ for a ‘life’.  Likewise, they know that their act will not actually destroy the whole of the infidel’s kingdom, but perhaps (who really knows) they ‘believe/know’ that their act will cause some sort of cascading event of collapse, as their disruption in concert with the ongoing series of disruptions will inevitably achieve their ideological goal, which is to dispense with ideology (as belief). We might see again a similar ideological activity in the events of Helter Skelter, ,where the murders of Hollywood celebrities would instigate a race war. Such antagonisms supply the fodder that ironically sustains the Capitalist ideology.

Terrorism could be marking that point when Capitalism has run out in to the air; perhaps it is now waving to us, but I doubt it. If I have to summarize the point of this essay on terrorism, perhaps it is that terrorism is an ideological construct that has its basis in nothing, an irony, because while it destroys people, actual lives, it is already serving Capitalism as a source of capital, of “magic”, of supplying energy to the ideological fetishized commodity that is identity: Terrorism is understood effectively, axiomatically, automatically to be identifying a real-true thing. Disgusting ethical juxtaposition really, but again this is why Capitalism could be said to be the umbrella Religion of Nothing, because people have to have faith in order to be able to ignore the incredible depth of the nothingness in which such events, and their labels, induce.

It is within such determinations that we find necessarily that I am not speaking of a unitive situation, but indeed, I am speaking about how such a unitive situation operates.




I could go on, and there is a further bit having to do with explosions, but Ill leave it here for now.

We Can See That We Are Blind; Forensic Philosophy.

I was re-pondering my  recent post “Principle of sufficient discourse. “.

The example given there of the native peoples of the Western Hemisphere not seeing Spanish ships caused me pause. It had not before today. This illustration is supposed to speak to the power of discourse to establish worlds, and I have always viewed it within a certain paradigm that up till this point, I think I was blind to. Interesting that a post I myself wrote would be the occasion for a rethinking, and occasion which was embedded in the post itself without my fore knowledge.

The point I am making in that post is that people cannot see what they do not already know of, what they do not have a context for, and that all knowledge, indeed all that may exist does so by virtue of the context that is implicit in the understanding of world. By extension of this facet of being human, we are able to attach our ‘Beings’, our sense of self and world, to a lineage of thought that we may call traditional. We can understand this in the context of a common human sort such that then both the natives and the Spanish are/were both human beings. The significance of my post is found when we see that we indeed are all human beings subject to the same capacities as well as limitations.

What I do not elaborate upon, though, what I did not see, nor explicitly indicated, is that we, upon enlightenment, understand this situation usually and commonly as a directional imposition, of the ‘enlightened and intelligent’ Spanish upon the ‘in darkness and ignorant’ natives. In short, this anthropological situation is most often taken to mean that these uncivilized and primitive people are the ones who are subject to the limit of discursive context but the Spanish are not, that the natives could not see the Real Truth that was the Spanish ships.

This last situation is what I call religious, requiring of faith. It indicates what I mean by ‘faith makes true’ because when we look at history, and indeed the possibility of this encounter of “old and new” worlds, we are inevitably convinced, prior to our consideration of the situation, by the occurrence of the subsequent and actual dominance of the Europeans upon the aborigines, that progress in the sense of “The Good” has occurred, and this sense of goodness can only be expressed apart from the limitation of context in the context of the progress of history, led by the Europeans, in this instance. In other words, no matter how we slice it, “God”, by any other name, including the name “No God”, is the reason why we have ended up where we have, the history the way it did. Even if we say “rationality”, or “contingency” or “random” or “luck”, in the context of how it was that we are able to not be included in the limitation that we have placed upon the ‘uncivilized’, ‘primitive’, etc.. people, which is to say, that we are not human in the sense that we know what we speak or imply what is common of being human.

This is what we call Colonialization. And it doesn’t matter if we say its bad, or what reparations we attempt to enact because of some “colonial era” atrocities, because everyone has already been colonized, and everyone has just gotten used to it.

For, when we turn the situation upon the common human sort, then we have to ask if both parties were having the same limitation being placed upon their respective ability to have a view. Then we can ask:

What did the Spanish see? Primitives? Uncivilized people? People living in the Antipodes? Potential Converts?

Why is it we never ask ourselves why it is not the Spanish who were not seeing what was really there in the natives?

The problem we find then is that such an analysis places both parties on equal grounds, and yet this ground that we find is based in the actuality of the Spanish Europeans imposing their sense of truth upon the natives, for such a ground was not present in the lived situation of that period; it is a ground that only exists in our reflection upon it, which again is a reflection that is gained through the already having been colonized natives. We then come to the meaning of (eastern/Hindu/Islamic) Indian Post-Colonial critiques that discover that the only way that the colonized have to express their identity is in the terms of the colonizer.

Yet then question that remains suspended in this post-colonial condition is how it is that the oppressed (colonized) are able to draw from any cultural purity or essence if the manner that they are able to frame such native experience is through a non-native discourse? How is it possible to even frame reparations to the abused?

These paradoxes thus reveal how capitalism functions, its manner of self-perpetuation, as well as indicating a feature possibility that is not included in the ideal of capitalism itself:

If we are able to understand a past where a particular cultural-ideology becomes dominant such that through this imposition all contexts are structured, then it is possible that capitalism is not to blame, but that capitalism is merely the manner by which we identify the world within a contextual scaffolding, or sorts. We might begin to see that the view that we presume whereby we gain all sorts of analyses of social relations and power formations is not unique to capitalism, but that the category itself (as a founding term) organizes meaning in such a way so that it becomes paramount and ubiquitous to sense, and such that all other political-economic systems are likewise sub-ordered. We may see then that every moment is thus organized in the same fashion to thus yield the possibility of an analysis of individual objects as indeed developing relations which do not sway under a tendency for temporally designated political fashions in the unitive context (objects withdraw from view; all objects exhibit certain relations between them). This is to say that a transition would be in play; by the mere fact of an inability to isolate and identify the unitive principle, or at least one that does not fray and disintegrate under the eye of its own perspective (capitalism, for a term), a perspective that requires an extra-conscious force by which to hold it together (the transcendent and its concordant inspiration and effective faith), we should say that our efforts to find such a unitive principle through assertive agency and philosophical argument is contradiction in action. This can be the definition of transition, so much as we might need to find a solution to this ideological problem. For the solution for such a state is the solution found, which is, the functioning itself of such a state, whereas capitalism is founded in excess, that is, a functioning in suspension, of Being not found. Here is one arm of Slavoj Zizek’s disaster..

It is thus that capitalism may indeed not define a segment or period of empirical time except in as much as such a definition must be ‘forced’ into play (eternal order imposed upon a chaotic situation –just as “chaos” is likewise imposed by the order); we find similar capitalistic subsystems in the likes of all the philosophical turns, such as the ‘linguistic’ turn, or postmodern, structural, etc…; all these juggled in a semantic circus where what is Modern precipitates out at times to give a baring, only to pop out of view again to let us talk about the various political, epistemological or ideological historical states.

But this is all nonsense, really, because such a condition cannot be reconciled with the currents of capitalistic identities. But we know what this is: We find analogies in computer science; namely, there is no segue between the expression and the language of expression, for example, Windows and the code by which Windows operates. We like to think that there is a segue in the Being of human, and indeed we activate a segue as part of the regular operation of consciousness; I call this activity reality. But, at the end of historical analysis, any attempt to reduce one to the other yields a crashed system (I think Three Pound Brain had an idea about a crash space); either the code must contradict itself through being its expression, or the expression must fall apart in the reduction to its language. At any time, each behaves as a proxy for the other, and never do the two meet except in, as above, what we must call, real space. What we may be finding in our transition is that we in philosophy (what Im calling ‘conventional’, just to begin) are hanging onto the expression; we are only looking at the Window, through the Window and coming to all sorts of truth about what is ‘underneath’ through the view allowed by the Window. This orientation is so prevalent and insistent in its assertions that in some instances the ‘experts’ argue that there is no ‘deeper’, that it is all a plane, all occurring on a horizon; this is the same argument that says its all political. Sure: Its all political when you are involved with maintaining a certain fixity of context, but then most of these political reverends would totally miss what Im saying here to overdetermine it and proscribe some collapse of civilization if we were to turn to such a nihilistic ideal. Did I mention how the two routes do not reconcile to one another?

They indeed may be true for real determinations, but the problem is compounded where capitalistic-political identity maintains a contextual hold over the occurrence of the horizon, as though it is always the same non-contextual horizon, the non-transitional horizon that is always with us, in this case, as a mythological ground, or exchangeable (with modern, and capital) founding term. the example, here, might be found in the situational analogy: Is there a True Object over which terms move, or do terms identify particular and individual, and potentially temporal, objects.

In any case, we inevitably come to that which necessitates a forensics of being human, over a conventional philosophy. Maybe I should call it “Forensic Philosophy”? And then we should remember that when one does an autopsy on a person, all human beings do not suddenly die or cease to function, so likewise a forensic investigation on philosophy, while indeed requiring the state of the particular body to be deceased, does not destroy all philosophical states; indeed, it requires that philosophy does not reconcile all things unto itself. But we are speaking of what offends here aren’t we? (Did I say religion?)

At least its some food for thought by the Philosophical Hack.