As enthralling as that forum is(!) the air element in me is forcing me to do that zoom-out thing

“That’s for rookies, watch this”

No no no no you want me to end up in a padded room? One level at a time here.

You never know if you’re being deceived about ultimate abstraction so you have to relax and rise out of yourself in a way.

We’re going to die someday so we should strive to maximize “what can be thought”, is my thinking. Anthropologists watching anthropologists watching anthropologists.

I feel real “E. T. brained” when I see something like this – you too?

The people who participate in “disciplines” are sorts of objects. When you zoom out like this, you might get the impression that the ones studying the objects are objects themselves that can be studied.

And yes, it’s really really easy to get in trouble if you apply this sort of thinking to–use your imagination. And yet, it’s arguably one of the ways to be most human, most subject. “Real subjectivity has never been tried.”

And for how sophisticated these “double-disciplines” are, the kind of double-discipline that can get you in trouble for talking about contains these first double-disciplines within its horizon. Think about that. In other words I’m saying that the people who study the people who study objects are objects themselves in the sense that they live in a political order that determines their activity.

What a digression, we were supposed to be talking about the philosophy of anthropology, let’s say “social sciences” in general. Which is to say it’s not purely empirical. There’s math, then there’s what can be called natural science like chemistry, THEN there’s social sciences. And that’s why it’s important to recurrently return to the philosophy of social sciences, because it isn’t as objective as math and thus needs to be perpetually refined.

Uh oh, I’m already seeing a glaring warning sign with this book, can you guess what that is, dear innocent reader?

Did you possibly have the thought that reading this book might prompt one to be a “philosopher of the philosophy of social sciences”?

My attitude is contrary to dogmatism, kind of tells you everything you need to know about our order. Hostility to the abstraction from the “known” is one of the key meanings of halb-asien.

genealogy noises

You want to know the truth? The philosophy of social sciences is dull to me because “Zionology” or “elitology” I implicitly perceive as a higher domain of intellectual activity. In other words, Zionology is already the philosophy of social sciences, except in a more authentic form that I’m not going to find in “their” books. That’s my understanding of “the disciplines” anyway, and so far I’ve only seen Elista and a couple others agree. It’s difficult to find many who agree because most are operating within the horizon that Zionology has as its object of study. From my perspective, someone like Elista has the “natural right” to be the dean above deans of the academy. We don’t live in an ideal world though so…

I’m tempted to close this textbook and go right back to that forum, then I see this – maybe it can be helpful

In other words, an egregore. Was this book itself written from the perspective of the conscience collective?

The mysteries of all the Abrahamisms are endless. How did we get a neo-catholicism out of protestantism?

Protestants, whose religious life fails to produce strong collective states of mind with as great a consistency as that of Catholics

Maybe that’s what American individualists yearned for in a way? And they got it with the cathedral? I yearn for a certain kind of collectivism too, just not a godless one like we have now.

In this general context I’m reminded of that Iranian Heideggerian I quoted a while back who said that Muslims should only learn from the Western social sciences, only use them to take their own path. The West itself could do that with concepts derived from the prewar atlantean ethos. “Why don’t you do it?” I’m one person, that’s why, and I try to demonstrate that a foundation to build them on exists. Have to start from square one. And that’s Zionological, which no one wants to touch, indeed wants to pretend doesn’t exist at all. Two foundations, two immovable objects clashing against each other – most prefer to avoid the stress of that. Alright, then you live in a lifeworld that you didn’t even try to create for yourself. Delayed spiritual development. “Thank you, thank you for handing me what I should believe.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: