An example of the two routes appearing at the same time in reality.

Reply: routes

In reply to this post.

A route is a path. There are two routes in philosophy.

What are the two routes? I read to the end. lol. Good read, by the way.

A route, is also a retreat.

By “retreat” you mean a route of escaping from what? This is a metaphor that assumes something to escape from. I am not sure what yet.

—   A rout is a retreat.  From what?  does it matter?  The definition of a route is a disorganized retreat. 

One either has faith, or one doubts. But often enough, people think they are not having faith when they are doubting. But most often through their doubting they are really just upholding faith.

“… faith … doubt” Let us be clear here. Are we assuming just the Christian faith and Christian doubt? Or are we talk about all faiths, Judeo-Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Jainism and the other thousands of religions out there and therefore all doubts?

I am giving you a definition:  One either has faith or one doubts.  Thats what one has:  either you have faith or you doubt.  Definition of what one has. 

Faith is that which is already informing one to what they can possibly know.

Is it only Faith that informs? Can another faith inform? Can a non-faith inform?

‘…know …’ I am assuming Faith also means all that is to be Known in the widest possible sense, inside and outside the reality.

—–Again, definition: Faith = that which is already informing one to what they can possibly know.  Anything you can possibly know = informed by faith.  Definition. 

But if you must refer out to a resource: Kirkegaard’s notion of faith is that which allows for the leap; it is not a leap into faith, and it is not a leap of faith.     Faith is that which is informing that the leap occurs.

The leap which is into faith, as though one makes a choice about it, or where one hopes, is inauthentic, a leap of despair, sin. Modern. 

 

The operation of faith is based in offense. In our modern times, the basic offense of what we can call conventional philosophy is known as contradiction. 

What is the non-conventional philosophy that we are hinting at here?

—- Definition:  faith as an operation finds itself or is knowable due to an offense which is inherent to what is come upon.  

Definition: what is modern is defined by a routine offense called contradiction.

If you must again have an authority for what modernity is, perhaps read Habermas, or Benjamin, amoung others.

Non-conventional philosophy is that which is not conventional: definition by virtue of defining what conventional is.   This is part of the issue of the two routes.  

 

In this way, the modern religion is based in A foundational theological tenant that we call reason.

You are not talking of any religion other than Christianity, are you?

—-definition:  that which we call modern can be understood as a religion by virtue of the above definitions (postulates).  The offense inherent to the modern religion is held in check through a religious tenant we can call reason

Reason upholds the modern faith in reality by rejecting contradiction. Modern identity is founded in moving the other direction once contradiction is found. Contradiction defines the limit of subjectivity.

We need to define reason and contradiction clearer here. I don’t know if we are holding on to the same definitions for these.

—– again: you know what reason is.  and likewise contradiction.  No definition is needed.  I am positive when you read Aristotle or Socrates or Augustine, you do not ask them for their definition of contradiction.  But as well, you again could refer to those authorities if you need a refresher.  Or just ask your local mathematician.  But , as I say, you are just being obstinate, because you already know what those terms mean.  But, you could even look in a dictionary because that definition would suffice also. 

—- you are not thinking.  you are merely making arguments.  you are not thinking about the possibility involved in the definitions I am putting forth and their relationship to each other.  You are not taking what I am writing seriously.  You are taking what I am writing as a game where you are trying to win. In the sense of Heidegger: you have not begun to think.  In the context of this post, you are merely applying the modern religious theological method to argue away what is offending you so far as what you are considering thinking.  But nevertheless You are upholding the modern faith by implementing the theological strategies to hold off what offends your sense of truth.  But indeed, in the Heidgerian spirit, you have not begun to think.

However, these are not insults. On the contrary, they are just describing what is already there.  But in as much as you might see them as arguments to be rebutted or overcome, there are you implementing the theological methodology to remove the offense inherent in them.  To say “that is your (me, Lances) opinion” merely is an application of the defense against the inherent offense.  This is what is occurring, not an argument about the basic or fundamental nature of reality.  This is simply a description of what is happening. A way to talk about operations.  Not an argument about the metaphysical nature of existence. I am not exempting myself from these operations by talking about how you do them; quite the opposite.  I am describing the situation. 

 

We call a known thing which has parameters, and object.

I will go with this. But I am not sure again, if your ‘know’ is the same notion as my ‘know’.

—I can say this because you know what I mean by the word ‘know’.  You would have no ability to even be able to ask me this question if you didn’t already know what ‘know’ means.  You are dredging up argument for the sake of argument without even attempting to consider what I am saying.  If you do not know what the term ‘know’ means, then you would not even be able to read this sentence and have any comprehension whatsoever. That is just a silly question in this context.  Simply poking holes in terms is not philosophy; it is a postmodern misappropriation of the Socratic Method to assert your modern identiy.  Nothing wrong with that. It just is.  I am just describing, not arguing the something is incorrect.  What you see as incorrect what is offending you.  Simple definition. 

 

If we can define one parameter, we have found the beginning of an object, …

An object has not begun, then, until it is defined by a parameter. Until that moment the object does not exist.

—Ahhh. Hey!  So you decided to start to think, huh?   Hmm, yeah.  How could I know anything about anything until there is a parameter by which to have knowledge of it?   Yet, this then does not argue that “everything exists in mind”, but it does stem from the maxim that nothing arises outside of discourse. 

 

… because all we need is one fact of an object and that necessarily leads to all the facts which constitute an object.

Fact equals truth? What is a fact? — A fact is an object, as well as a part or an aspect of an object.  I use fact, object, truth as definite terms,  foundational terms of the universe because everyone already understands those terms in the context of such universals, and despite how we would define them under particular conditions.  I could go anywhere where where the word ‘fact’ is used, and everyone would know what it means.  If they dont use ‘fact’, then I would be able to (potentially, as I might learn to fluidly use the new language) find a corresponding term or phrase which would mean as much in the context of the discourse that is Being used, even as it may not correspond with the English context and use of the term, because I would be enmeshing in the context of that particular language context, and not some ‘universal human’ context. 

All of the facts are what is knowable.

Because we know that the subject of reason rejects contradiction, we know one parameter of the modern subject.

What is the definition of subject? I honestly do not know the meaning of subject in this context.

— you are not wanting to paint yourself into a corner, is what is happening.  You know exactly what I mean by the subject.  Again, if you need another authority, check the multitude of philosophers, or psychologists, or even the dictionary.  But if you need a definition: a subject is a subject of discourse.  

 

Because we know one parameter, one fact of subjectivity, one true thing which establishes the modern subject in the real world, we likewise know that subjectivity is an object that we can know.

The difficulty in understanding this kind of knowledge is founded in a theological tenant that we know as philosophical phenomenalism, or what we could call the phenomenal subject. The modern subject becomes fully defined once the postmodern Version of phenomenalism arises.

When we see that the postmodern subject is really the completion of the modern theological subject, then we have all the information we need to begin to understand the object of the subject.

You have lost me here. But I may be lost because I do not have a theological tenant s my starting point. And also our uses of modernism/postmodernism is likely different, both idiosyncratic in their own ways.

—- it is because you are oriented upon things through modern subjectivity.  I am defining  again what the case is, not making an argument about what could be the case. 

The two routes is the way that we understand a subject, as an object.

Again, are the two routes taken by one person or taken by two people.

—definition.  Not argument. Two routes = definition.  the two routes is a way to understand the subject as an object, as opposed to understanding the subject as the basis of everything else. 

It doesn’t matter what one believes about a situation. …

I am glad to hear that … but it seems to me that you are continually projecting a faith and doubt onto me that I do not have, a kind of “Poor fella. He doesn’t know it but God will Save him.” You may feel the same of me, that I am projecting an emptiness or a nihilism that you do not want.

—-Indeed, I am not exempting myself from my proposals.  But again: definition, not argument. definition: belief is not relevant in this proposal.  Belief = not relevant.  But because: there is nothing outside of discourse. The content of belief is more discourse; the content of belief here does not refer to something outside of discourse. The ideal that belief is referring to something substantial is not relevant to this proposal.  Because it concerns only the nature of discourse. 

… What we find of the subject, by its parameters, is true, despite subjective knowledge. Because only subjectivity concerns belief, and belief is that by which subjectivity is upheld in faith.

Language, or an orientation upon discourse in particular, is the means by which the theology of the subject Upholds the modern religious faith. Faith is that which grants reality, because it is operating to inform us what we are able to think and know.

I don’t know if we have the same notion of language also. For in the beginning wasn’t the word. It wasn’t with God. and it certainly wasn’t God.

—- you are caught in the faith of modern subjective reason.  That is one route upon things. Indeed, you and I are constantly interacting through this one route.  But I am not arguing that this is incorrect or needs to be corrected. I am merely describing the situation that is before us: two routes which occur at all times, but which do not function do reduce to either One route, that is, exclusively.  so: AND,  not EITHER/OR. 

I am not misquoting this because I want to poke fun at Christianity, but because I feel that language like this misleads. By Word=God we have no escape (retreat, if you will) from the narrative, the discourse.

—- of course.  The word was and was not with God, and was and was not because he existed or he did not exist.  It depends in the context. Whatever anyone would argue, God was inherent to the discussion in its existence and its nonexistence, depending on what the discourse was presenting at the time. Again: is there anything that arises outside of discourse? 

Philosophy arises in simultaneity as a thrust forward, and as a retreat. The view which sees a choice in how to proceed, is always a move forward, a real move. Hence the reason which finds truth is retreating.

I highly recommend Metaphors We Live By as a route to understand how metaphors like this work. Lakoff would label this an [X IS WAR.] conceptual metaphor.

I might read it, (I am in school though, lol…the time!). but I am likewise pretty sure I have a pretty good understanding of the depth of metaphor in language for achieving reality and meaning. 

x

15 thoughts on “An example of the two routes appearing at the same time in reality.

  1. You know, you’re looking into Harmons work. But if you check out the work of his mentor, Alfonso Lingis, I think you might find a more convincing basis for what harm and then I went off of or towards.

    Like

  2. My point really is that it doesn’t matter whether we have different experiences. But that there is no communicating this experience into reality. And yet, where we believe that we are actually communicating and experience into reality, there is required faith. Because there is no ground of knowledge which extends beyond the present moment. And yet, that’s exactly how we experience things in reality..

    My life has been great. If I speak of my wife is fucked up. As I had a fucked up life. I’m only doing so from this present moment with a certain look at things, and for a certain purpose, within a certain context. But my life is not fucked up. It was actually fucking great. I had an excellent life. And then something changed. And now I’m having another excellent life. I can speak about that life in whatever way I want to. And it is all consistent with the “actual” experience of my life. I can speak of it as fucked up because of this and that and this. Or I can speak of it in terms of how great it was and all these wonderful experiences life and how much I achieved. It’s not being dishonest in any respect. Because I’m being totally true to that which is and has been my life.

    But in reality, you can’t talk about things like that because people think you’re crazy. Or they think that you’re denying something because you’re really hurt deep down. Or something like that.

    This is why I am in the counseling. Because I see mental issues, depression and anxiety, etc., as real experiences, people viewing themselves as though there is this actual thing, this actual person that has had such and such experiences that are actually true and having difficulty reconciling the truth of themselves to the reality of themselves.

    Anyways. Back to the posts!

    To the objects themselves!!

    Like

  3. I shall reply with a post. It is about what we have been talking about here on objects and my questions to you. I have been reading Harman’s OOO intro book and see why we have had difficulty in understanding each other. It will be a description of OOO’s ‘flat ontology’ and my position on this plus where I agree and disagree with Harman and DeLanda. After all this is the fundamental base of Harman and OOO. And what you described to me about the unicorn as an object seem to match Harmon’s ‘flat ontology’. Am I at least correct in this?

    Like

  4. But way back when I started reading your posts, you were proposing a kind of structure of language, you were proposing more of a theory of objects. That’s what I’m interested in. I’m not really interested in how language does this and that, because I pretty much agree with you everything you might say about it. I’m more interested in what you were talking about back when I first started reading your posts .

    Liked by 1 person

  5. I was using a hypothetical analogy, I kind of anecdote, to help you conceptualize how some thing may not be real but still be true. And that we are indeed dealing not with a unitive reality, not with some sort of overlaying or underpinning actual objective truth of the universe that our minds are able to have any sort of opinion on. Because our minds are ultimately determined by the conditions of the universe through which we would understand any sort of mind or ability to have any of those decisions.

    And yet, we still choose. We still believe.

    Those two situations do not further reduce to a unitive truthful situation. Because any reduction to a unitive measure, whether it be subjectivity, self, consciousness, thought, whatever idea you want to have, whatever you call your being that gets in the car and drives down the street, Is constructed on a fundamental denial of The truth of the matter: Reality.

    Like

  6. We have had different experiences. And I will not take away from yours as I hope you will not of mine.

    While I understand why it important to talk about this I have nothing to say about it because I am not a counsellor or anything remotely like one. Likely I will say something that will anger and make the situation worse. So let’s leave it at that and return to a common ground – philosophy.

    Now I will write up another post as I do not want to stay in comments. I will stay as neutral in my language and keep to the subject/object at hand.

    To use a tennis match analogy, yes, we do need to keep on the other player (if he is at the net, lob, etc) but we also need to keep track of the tennis ball as well.

    Like

  7. In reality, I could, and indeed people and science and whoever, could say that I’ve had all sorts of issues from my upbringing. Emotional issues, identity issues, Relationship issues,drug issues etc. Indeed one could say that I was pretty messed up individual and probably still am.

    In fact this is probably what would resonate with most people about what is true of my life. If I was to tell you about all the things I’ve went through. How I acted. All the strange and wonderful things I’ve done in my life. I am pretty certain that you as well as anyone else would come to some sort of question of “why”, and then we could talk about all these psychological things, we could talk about all these societal things, etc.

    For sure, those things and indeed some sort of life I lived somewhere in someway, it was real and Israel. It is the reality that we must deal with.

    But the truth of it was none of those things. Psychology didn’t touch it. Emotional issues had nothing to do with it. Etc

    Now, from a real standpoint people would say that my second answer here is some sort of fantasy. Like, I am being defensive or I’m justifying it in some sort of way to dismiss how fucked up I really am as a person, how fucked up my life has been.
    And the thing of it is, there is no thing I can say that would convince people that they are incorrect. Because typically any patchouly everyone would continually think to themselves, at least, that I am denying some truth of my existence or something.

    But they would be incorrect.

    So here again, we come back to this idea I have of two routes. Because it explains the truth of the situation. Namely, that if I try or attempt to explain what has happened in my life, how I am as a person, how I became to be, all this stuff, I inevitably have to re-course, default, to what “most people think”. I invariably have to default my existence to this idea that is true only because there is an enforcement of it. Only because we can get eight out of 10 people to agree. Say.

    But it is indeed an enforcement that in force is that all into the standard of “truth”. This “reality”, this true reality to which everyone refers whenever there is some sort of situation that comes before them. So indeed I call this way of reckoning “reality”. Because it is indeed a situation that I have to deal with regardless of what I want to think about it. But then there is also the truth of the matter through which I understand the actual truth of the situation as it is against which no argument or no other person would ever be able to convince me of two have been any different. Have any other explanation. And so in a way where I am driving these two truths from. Is in fact the true experience of existence. It is not “my truth“, because my truth refers to what is necessary of reality and how to reconcile myself within the social norm. It is indeed the truth. And the truth of the matter is described as philosophy.

    And it is evident everywhere at all times.

    lol

    Interesting anecdotal conditions, huh?

    How would you make sense of that?

    Liked by 1 person

  8. A little different:

    Now I make choices all the time.

    The truth of the situation is that there is no ideological concensus which sufficiently explains what existence has been and indeed is.

    And,

    There are real philosophies (and explanations in general) which sufficiently describe existence. These explanations are real. But they are not true.

    The truth is in the description of the explanations. Lol.

    Like

  9. “Two choices.”

    “One choice.”

    I understand what you are trying to say – everything else you do now is no longer a choice but a continuation of that one choice.

    So what are you doing now? What is the continuation of that choice? Does it include everything you do after that choice?

    ….you know. I was thinking about my reply about publishing: we can’t dismiss ourselves from reality. But neither truth
    One might say from a certain perspective anyways—
    I told you that really I’ve only made two choices in my life up till just recently.
    No, typically people would read that to say that I was actually making choices, but…. psychology this, behavior that, whatever else people would want to justify it with.
    The fact of the matter is that I only made one choice. And from that one choice I just followed wherever my life lead me. And during this lifetime of having no choice. I was also observing what was occurring.
    And the end of that. Of having no choice whatsoever. I was given a choice to have a choice. And that’s when this part of my life began.
    To reduce my life to some sort of “common human psychology“ or whatever scientific or, I don’t even know what label people would put on it except that it would be filled with judgment—- whatever anyone would want to decide upon me what happened to me, what I was going through. Ultimately I know for a fact that I only made one choice, and it was a choice that I couldn’t make.
    There is no amount of convincing, no amount of proof, no about of rationality, irrationality, discussion, nothing that could ever happen to me which would make me understand the context of my life in a different way. I know exactly what happened.
    And then there is this new way that I’m living life now.
    There’s two types of lives do not argue one another. Even while I can say that this present life is a continuation of the past life. And I can also say that my newfound understanding in this life easily describes in incorporates my previous life. But ultimately those two ways of thinking about things are completely and utterly different and do not inform each other in anyway whatsoever. They do not inform any decision that I make now, because before I had no criteria upon which to make any decisions upon what to do in my life
    any proclamations upon me to say that “this and that must be the case”. Is ultimately a complete disregard of the truth of the matter, as well as a complete misunderstanding of what is happening.
    And so in a way, philosophy is just like that.

    Like

  10. ….you know. I was thinking about my reply about publishing: we can’t dismiss ourselves from reality. But neither truth

    One might say from a certain perspective anyways—

    I told you that really I’ve only made two choices in my life up till just recently.

    No, typically people would read that to say that I was actually making choices, but…. psychology this, behavior that, whatever else people would want to justify it with.

    The fact of the matter is that I only made one choice. And from that one choice I just followed wherever my life lead me. And during this lifetime of having no choice. I was also observing what was occurring.

    And the end of that. Of having no choice whatsoever. I was given a choice to have a choice. And that’s when this part of my life began.

    To reduce my life to some sort of “common human psychology“ or whatever scientific or, I don’t even know what label people would put on it except that it would be filled with judgment—- whatever anyone would want to decide upon me what happened to me, what I was going through. Ultimately I know for a fact that I only made one choice, and it was a choice that I couldn’t make.

    There is no amount of convincing, no amount of proof, no about of rationality, irrationality, discussion, nothing that could ever happen to me which would make me understand the context of my life in a different way. I know exactly what happened.

    And then there is this new way that I’m living life now.

    There’s two types of lives do not argue one another. Even while I can say that this present life is a continuation of the past life. And I can also say that my newfound understanding in this life easily describes in incorporates my previous life. But ultimately those two ways of thinking about things are completely and utterly different and do not inform each other in anyway whatsoever. They do not inform any decision that I make now, because before I had no criteria upon which to make any decisions upon what to do in my life

    any proclamations upon me to say that “this and that must be the case”. Is ultimately a complete disregard of the truth of the matter, as well as a complete misunderstanding of what is happening.

    And so in a way, philosophy is just like that.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. So, I am not discounting what you’re saying about language. I think it’s great and I think it’s cool and I think, from what I understand of it, with limited version of it you’ve given me, I like it. And so I think there’s some sort of application, some sort of way that both of our notions both of our philosophical ideas, I can work together. With the problem has been, I think, as we have not developed a common ground. That is really what we’re trying to figure out. What is the common ground upon which both of our philosophical ideas, can work with each other.

    Because, like I said, from what I read of your philosophy, it feels to be very similar to what I’m saying.

    Like

  12. Yes, and so am I. It is the route through it which I make all decisions. It is where I argue a position. Etc..

    And, it is undecidability. As I have written in the moment of decisive significance, it is a choice that cannot be made. And, it is undecidability. As I have written in the moment of decisive significance, it is a choice that cannot be made. It is the choice that is based on having no criteria to make a choice: The two routes out of the absolute solution to The contradiction between being ultimately determined, and contingency.

    Because both are going on at the same time, but we are one understands both, there the view upon the situation, the actuality, changes.

    Zizek: to change the way we understand change. That is the issue

    Liked by 1 person

  13. I would call two routes undecidability.

    Yes, I am using one route which I feel is necessary for this particular topic. And so I am using conventional philosophy (unabashedly) for it.

    So we agree.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s