I agree that reiteration alone, doesn’t necessarily equal an overall, theological closure, of any kind, whether actually ‘theological’ or not. What I’m suggesting, is the extent to which fetishisation might be going on; my impression, is that, in the contemporary era since the 1990s, it is the case.
My other implicit point, concerning “additional didacticism”, and its “burden”, referenced of course the general obligations of communication; but more particularly, the seemingly endless task of pointing out the habitual closures of knee-jerk positivist surface rhetorics, forever in thrall to unconscious substantial assumptions, whatever those assumptions may be, and where the fixation with which, constitute problematic blockages of thought and conception.
Running along with a positivist line (of thought), and then simply switching to another, whilst always susceptible to the celebratory image of bricolage; if done whilst under the spell of a blocking, unconscious substantial assumption; is forever condemned to unknowingly circulate around the economy of that blockage and it’s assumed configuration.
Back in 2009, I wrote this YouTube message to the poster of a Heidegger video.
“It’s kind of like this:
All metaphysical terms are like train tracks, the lands are converted into territories, epistemic dwelling zones, the stations are the points of validation, and/or categorisation, the points at which the territories are legitimised as realities.
The problem is that all metaphysical terms have their origins in the general lebenswelt or sensorium of anthropic experiences, experiences which are largely informed by common understandings pertaining to anthropic utility, so to speak. This bias, whilst not necessarily damaging in and of itself, is the vector by which all the ignorances that doxa is prey to, come rushing back in.
The lust for the final object or “”ground””, for thought’s resting place (the “”topos of repose””, the throne of ultimate authority), traverses all relations hierarchically- order is conducive to “”understanding”” and “”substance””. It dreams of a final substance or theory: God, Unified Field Equation, etc., the “”head”” of the hierarchy. But every “”thing”” is constituted by relations, even, especially, nothing.
Your experience of this “”nothing”” is perhaps of-
Richard Rorty calls it “”radical contingency”” and prattles on about Wittgenstein saying we didn’t need a foundation anyway. He has university funding, a best selling book that domesticates Derrida for American pragmatism, etc..
Buddhist “”sunyata””, but you are freaked out by an ingrained and conditioned need for an objectified position. British culture, especially, is inimically hostile to that which it cannot practically manipulate (handle, grasp). “”Keep it real””: the folk wisdom admonition that polices all exercises of speculative imagination.
You fixate on the possibility of “”Absolute Nothingness””, admit its “”identity”” with the “”Absolute””, but simultaneously alienate yourself from both.
Each of these three terms are essentially questionable. As is “”necessity””, too.
Of course, “”necessity”” has its application, in the calculus of cosmological forces structuring “”physicality””, even there, though, it is beginning to be readjusted and recontextualised.
You are not allowing yourself to think. You allow the stock Pavlovian reactions of your culture to prevent you thinking past the tradition of metaphysical emotionalities.
The map is not the territory, the territory is not the land.
Every journey is driven by some purpose.
If you lose the way, whose purpose is it?
Nietzsche said that he sometimes felt like he was a pen that was being written with.” 19 December 2009 00:34 (GMT-8)
Although it’s questionable, in many ways, it serves as a kind of rough filler prose, to further delineate the issues at play. I hadn’t yet got back into philosophy; was constrained by the comprehension limitations of my interlocutor; so it was an example of the “additional didacticism”, and its “burden”, that I refer to, here. At the time of writing, I felt that it didn’t really communicate precisely what I was getting at.
Over the years, I’ve noticed the philosophy blogging scene circulate around the same network of substantial assumptions, without showing any awareness of its effects. Instead, there is only positivist emphasis of metaphysical insularity, shown by the still prevailing preoccupation with notions of ‘reality’ or ‘the real’, conducted in largely antiquated ways; an antiquary of lazy ignorance rather than exploratory insight.
One has to acknowledge the truth! On the whole, people would rather argue over contrived trivialities, as long as they are sufficiently consensual, than work towards personal insights. This, it seems to me, is as operative in philosophy (or ‘non-philosophy’), as it is in electoral politics.
The exclusive preoccupation with the positive rhetorics of traditional substantial assumption is always weighed down by strategies of fixation, as configured by the limited horizons of ‘preferential belief’.
Both overt and covert, this socialisation of metaphysical possibility results in ghettos of l.c.d.* habits of reflection (*lowest common denominator/liquid crystal display) chaotically circling around uncertain, substantial commitments, and displacing their logical considerations. All this, largely as a result of futile attempts to appease the populism of utilitarian relevance, and its traditional imagery. Entire industries of reinscription are needlessly created, between unnecessary and equally insular, fashioned contrivances. This is merely philosophy (or ‘non-philosophy’), as consumer appeal. The destructive business of substantial commitments, of substance addictions, remains entirely unquestioned and unthought.