[atreestump]

Coming back to this…

The cover information for Nick Land’s Fanged Noumena tells of a radical exit from academia into ‘theory fiction’ or ‘speculative realism’ – so this hyperlogical, crazy philosophy should really only be in the hands of artists and writers of sci-fi, but he seems to have been welcomed and adopted in the hyperreal community of the alt-right.

Irresponsible bastard if you ask me, I find him fascinating, but @”Rubsy” was listening to an audiobook of his last night and it isn’t pretty, race realism, anti-equality etc, although his critique of democracy is spot on.

[atreestump]

One always pressuposes the other, to have ‘my’ pressuposes ‘yours’ and therefore ‘ours’. You cannot have raw without first cooking.

[atreestump]

All our deeds, emotions, thoughts, creeds – and whatever else we are trying to relate ourselves with

This is all social and hence to do with power relations, will and desire, discourse.

When you say consciousness, are you talking about basic self-awareness, or of something more fundamental, something that is not only of our experience, but part of Being?

[atreestump]

that excludes mind which is known to have its own ideas

How does it exclude mind?
[hr]

treating them as a psycho-somatic entity

I usually use the term ‘psycho-physiological’, psychosomatic is a medical term usually.
[hr]
From the paper:

8. Contextuali ty and Mind There has been a wide debate in philosophy of cognitive science on the question “where is the mind?”. Apart from people whose context leads them to say that the questi on is malformed ( i.e. people that restrict the word “where” to physical p lace s), the literature has been divided mainly into two streams: people defending that the m ind is on ly in the brain (individualists, e.g. Butler, 1998; Adam s and Aiza wa, 2001) , and peopl e defendi ng that the mind is in the brain, body, and world (active externalists, e.g. Varela, 1994; Clark, 1997; Clark and Chalmers, 19 98; Haugelan d, 1998). We would explain the arid debate be cause, b roadly, the people of each band are in different contexts. The main differe nce between them, is their concept o f mind. If, a ccording to our context, we understand that the mind includes only lo gica l r easoni ng, higher order processing of informa tion, deliberation, etc., then very probably w e would agree wi th the indiv idualis ts. If, acc ording to our cont ext, the min d involves also
sensorimotor coordi nation, a ctive pe rceptio n, enactio n, etc., the n we would a gree with the active externa lists. I f our context co ntains bo th contexts and we do not ha ve any preju dice for contradi ctions, we would agr ee with bo th. The refore , the problem of “where is th e mind” can be reduced t o a differenc e of context. If people understand both contexts, then in some conditio ns they can s peak abo ut the mind in one sense, in other conditions in ano ther sense. And the problem just evaporates.

[atreestump]

Here is the direct link: https://ontic-philosophy.com/attachment.php?aid=126

What happens, is it takes you to the PDF in a new tab and you use your browser options to download it. It does not instantly download.
[hr]
It’s a large file, so may take a while if not on wifi.

[atreestump]

Then the proposition will be tautological- or true by affirmation or negation. The problem is, if it’s described everything, then it’s nothing.

It will, or will not rain tomorrow.

I think you are looking for a kind of heuristic approach where we throw out conclusions of true and false and just see where it goes.

It might be better to ask what consciousness is, it certainly isn’t a substance, it isn’t an essence, as it requires many other things for it to emerge, we could say it’s an illusion of sorts, that qualia is only our experience of kinds and qualities but is not consciousness itself, which cannot exist in isolation- it originates dependent on other factors.

[atreestump]

http://www.feministcurrent.com/2016/08/10/coming-non-binary-throws-women-bus/

[atreestump]

I might add that if we explain expressions, this does not describe what something is.

One similar example is the new age ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ “energies” – we get lots of descriptions of what they do, like say, art, dance, fights, or bravery etc, but when asked ‘what is it? what is masculine energy?’, we just get more of the same.

The problem is, ‘energy’ and ‘consciousness’ can become bucket terms, everything can go in them, we can catch all reality in the bucket, but after a while, an abstract can be as empty as it is full, the term becomes meaningless.

Consciousness, as in self-awareness, seems to be something that appears with language, so we could say that language is also being expressed, as language can be shown to have a materiality of its own – if I die and you find my shopping list, it still has use value, my intent does not have to be involved.

It may be a mistake of philosophy to think it could ever get the right answer here, we can propose that interpretation is never fixed (which is not to say we advocate ultra-relativism), it just means metaphysics has always been a mythology of sorts.

[atreestump]

It seems to have done a lot of damage to YouTube where drama is the commodity and feature.

[atreestump]

What are the consequences of such a proposition? What is consciousness?

[atreestump]

How come you copy and pasted this from the blog? Is it your material, out of curiosity?

[atreestump]

So what is it? Is it just making your experience ‘better’? What is a vampire?

[atreestump]

It is said he had nothing much to live for at that point though, considering his wife was a shrew or nag according to tales, the people generally hated him save a few, and he was old, fat, and ugly apparently

I do recall some anecdotes about how Plato was probably the only person present when Socrates died, so the paintings of his death are entirely of Plato’s imagination.
 

You may want this for a separate thread but, if you had a final lesson to teach, what would it be?
Final words, final lesson, and in Socrates situation, what would you do?

I like Keirkegaard’s last words: ‘Sweep me up!’ hahahaha

Last lesson, that’s a tough one, only cliches are appearing at the moment.

[atreestump]

Absolutely, totally right again, that is what those ideas tended to refer to in their original context and it connects very much to Greek Platonic thought and Gnosticism as well. Excellent posts! I’d love for anyone to explore these ideas and write about them here if possible.

I don’t think we can say there is such a thing as an original meaning for a concept, all is supplementary and constantly conjunct.

[atreestump]

And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music.

[Author]

Posts