Yes, spiritual/ metaphysical but in reference to modern objects. So Deleuze, for example will take the modern object of schizophrenia and boil down its essence to the truest state of being individual. That can probably be reduced more. Modernism aims to define 'the soul' in a way that the object becomes easy to identify, order, and control/ use. Modern objects are thus fundamentally unstable metaphysically as their soul is apprehended using rational methods. So going back to the example of individual::schizophrenia, the modern definition of the soul of the schizophrenic puts them in a group implying, for instance, they are all the same and they should be treated the same. To extract an individual essence proceeds the opposite.

No idea, but

yet — Paine

is often a signal word for something ironic I have found. Maybe that is, but it is past my bedtime.

Irony is the opposition in Platonic duality: essence opposed to object, idea from reality, person from society, cause from effect, etc. The dictionary definition uses the fulcrum of expectation because one part of the opposing pairs gives an idea that the other part should be congruent with as they are the same, but part of the dual nature. Socrates feigning ignorance is ironic for a few possible reasons: he positions himself as an underdog, he self-depreciates, and he gives an idea that is opposed to the reality or actuality. In each of these there is an opposing duality: the underdog has nature where he should not prevail but does, self-depreciation is idea-of-self opposed to self, and in giving an idea that is opposed to reality or actuality he does a dramatic irony where the audience knows Socrates is adept but his opponent does not, which is another opposition of person from society. All this is interesting, but I think irony is more fluid in definition rather than fixed given that is a metaphysical essence that is merely reflected in forms, which can be confusingly disparate.

Rorty: Yes. I haven't thought much about his exact position on it, such as the implications of his interpretation of irony, but I think it is one of the fluid possibilities for it.

because women say they are harassed? It's not whether the control has worked. It's about how freedom is turned into something where control can be applied. In the case of women having freedom from sexual interference, they feel more free to dress provocatively. This is an intentional, but politically incorrect use of the word, but it serves its purpose here: men who are provoked into interfering with women will be controlled one way or another by self or by outside actors. It is all very free: women can feel and look sexy and men can look at them, but under control. So freedom comes with control from outside and makes you control yourself. Women's freedom from interference is guaranteed by control.

Pretty sure societies of control are mostly Western ones so far.

Anarchy/ism doesn't represent an ideal imo, but a negation of an ideal. It is to individualism as absurdity is to nihilism. Anarchy from my perspective is the negation of rule. This is important because it is reflexive and in opposition to rules. There are states of true 'rulelessness' that are affirmative of care, for instance, not following or denying rule but showing care for self and others.

Yes, that happens people are suppressed, and others who are agreed with are amplified. I am more concerned with more subtle elements of control in society. There is the implicit threat that if someone, say, has anti-government ideas, they will be targeted by the government in certain ways. I am certain that paranoia has a functional, and a dysfunctional expression in the mind/brain. To have antigovernment thoughts might involve functional paranoia where you, for instance, think about how things are set up to keep you powerless and moves towards dysfunctional as it causes distress. That paranoia is definitively stated as a symptom of mental illness automatically shifts paranoia towards distress. People will generally not do what is distressing. How much solidarity or integration a person has with psychology or psychiatry will likely result is being less paranoid in general on the high end and more paranoid on the low end. I consider a pervasive medical culture to be repressive of general disorderliness which only a critical thinker would consider bad, one reason being is that it reflects enhanced control.

Thinking in approximations, if Capitalism is analogous to schizophrenia, and postmodernism is analogous to schizophrenia, then the alt-right is an organic manifestation of analogous schizophrenia in the former and postmodern theory is an inorganic, mental construction of schizophrenia in the latter. In this organic analogous schizophrenia, there is a resistance to medical power like in postmodernism which has resulted in paranoid conspiracies, phobia, agitation, and disinformation to delude others. It is not rational, objective, or corresponding to conventional standards of Truth. However, it lacks the postmodern metaphysical analysis of the inorganic mental construction of the mostly French thinkers. For instance, it is now expected that people receive routine vaccinations. These may become as frequent as quarterly or biannually. In a postmodern metaphysical analytical sense, the vaccine is an antipsychotic. Frequent injections guaranteeing in the recipient that they do not harbor the organic analogous schizophrenia of the alt-right. However, the alt-right is not metaphysical analytical, they will not call the vaccine an anti-psychotic. Therefore, while it is analogously schizophrenic and postmodern, it is not postmodern.

I'm not sure postmodern metaphysics has any transformative power. Postmodernism is metaphysical compared to material science which dominates perception. Personally I think metaphysical arguments need to be rationally stated, which once framed sensibly, so they are not nonsensical, have been normalized. This represents one possible postmodern metaphysical concern where essence of the 'communicative action' is not subversive but is subverted by the communicative phenomenon.

Is not failing to move beyond a modernist understanding of postmodernism in education an assimilation?

Negative freedoms are 'freedom from' and positive freedoms are 'freedom to'. The out of control desire to be free to do anything and being allowed to do just about anything allows the positive development of the infrastructure where those freedoms play out. Free mobility, speech, association etc. The aforementioned have roads where there is set paths and traffic regulations, association has times and places and with specific people, and speech takes place within moderation or editors etc. Enhanced negative freedoms goes against the grain of modern society where people have much fewer demands of these kinds. Women want freedom from sexual interference, that's one that has worked because it gives the police powers to exert authority and purpose, but freedom from hunger, censorship, watched, etc. are not demanded. The reason for this is possibly because they are not things that can be allowed and controlled.

The tragedy of postmodernism is that it is far from being a point of departure from modernity, but has become a fascination, and has been assimilated into modernity. Ironically, postmodernism that aims for critical thought on objectivity, rationality and truth has become the object of study in which students are evaluated on their ability to understand it objectively, reach conclusions with its rationality and answer questions regarding its truth. Ironically still, I failed my studies in postmodernism because I erected a barricade at the university and lobbed a brick at a security guard for the former irony.

An actuality akin to madness where you are being watched, your thoughts are controlled, and they will be coming to get you. — introbert

I end that paragraph in this foreboding way, because I see the practice of psychiatry/ psychology as an extension of rationalization, and thus part of this steel shell formed by logias. Just as Calvinism became influential in theology, psychiatry has established itself on the rationalism of modern society: the science of industry. In this new rationalism which grew out of the hard work, discipline and rationality of Calvinism, a person is threatened to be reduced to ever lower levels of objectification if they cross thresholds of thought and behavior. These thresholds are established by identifying common disorders of abnormal psychology, but they are analogous to anomic states which manifest in a person who loses solidarity, integration and unity with society, or in this case the farm. A person in the farm gets an idea of the cosmology of this microcosm, the nature of the cause and effect of it's social physics, and these established thresholds on objectification are enough to keep a person behaviorally in line. Madness serves the farm by being made an example of itself as a psychology and its analog as a 'sociology' (to use psych and socio in the same sense). Ultimately these thresholds of thought and behavior are part of the steel shell of rationality.

If there was a point when pastoralism became farming, it was when Weber was commenting Calvinism gave birth to Capitalism. When urbanization and industrialization were taking people from farms and really turning them into objects that could yield the most value: in assembly lines, technical roles and even as fashion models. Pastoralism in industrialized nations is considered as farming under the umbrella of agriculture. Just as pastoralism, which precedes farming, became farming; pastoralism of the flock of humans became farming of humans. Things have proceeded this way for hundreds of years to today when the farm has been forgotten by the vast majority of people. However, the reality of industry is superimposed over the actuality of the farm. Likewise, one can place Plato's cave as reality over the actuality of the farm. It's possible one will only realize they were in a farm/ cave once they reach the outside, it is only then the full nature of their former surroundings will be apparent to them. There is the issue though of the hard as steel shell of rationality around the cave / farm that prevents you from seeing yourself as anything more than a dutiful worker of industry. Afterall, to transcend that rationality would be detachment from reality, even though truth in this case is actuality. An actuality akin to madness where you are being watched, your thoughts are controlled, and they will be coming to get you.

No, it is a philosophical exercise, perhaps one that, alas, I am not doing too well. In the Matrix, Neo wakes up to find he is being farmed which is related to Platonism. Being farmed, for energy in that case, is an abhorrent idea to most people. So in a sense I am applying a trope, but I am adding the layer of the steel shell of rationality which is connected to the pastoral logias, or what we can call the words that are used to farm people. It is merely a way of suggesting the abhorrent idea that we are being farmed and there is a rational shell that requires a force of intellect to transcend.

The issue is not so much what is illusion and what is truth, it just seems that the conditions of the cave are a reification like the shell of rationality around it. The conditions are not illusory, but they are artificial, they are circumstantial, situational etc. Escaping the cave is no longer a metaphor, the cave is urbanism, suburbanism, institutional.

This idea of reification of illusions where the solid state of the belief is a form of truth: a reality or actuality that is artificial or conditional etc. It is an ironic truth. One is the large population sustained by industrial economies: the farm. It is real, but the social is a construction in every aspect of what is, and what it does. To reject these masses is turned into an irrationality, an adhominem: racism, or misanthropy. To succeed in irrationality would be a breach in the steel shell, but you can test its imperviousness yourself. Not in reality, or actuality, but in nature, the conditions of the world are what matter not the masses. The illusions of the cave, create conditions in the cave that are artificial, unique to the cave, that are not those of the world.

The truth is that the world provides for living creatures, not an artificial political-economic system.

anarchistic only in relation to a kind of social order. There is likely a state of affairs where postmodernism would be at complete peace. That's not to say pomo philosophy represents any kind of compelling force against the State. My personal opinion of postmodernism is the same as Camus' philosophy. Anyone who actualizes pomo philosophy through action will simply become fodder for the forge fires of steel shell (of rationality) construction.

The most significant force of postmodernism is actually in NA conservative politics. There is a puzzle I set my mind to sometimes regarding the schizophrenia of capitalism manifesting a profascist pomo doppleganger that lacks rationality, objectivity or truth. The puzzle is if the form of french intellectualism is individualistic like conservatism but the content has an inaccessible complexity in contrast to low brow conspiracies, how the leftist schizophrenia will do anything more than influence art and academia.

Fight fascism. Transcend the futurist utopia. Act ironically to the code (mostly discursive). Have fluid identities. Be conscious of what you are cooperating in constructing in terms state philosophy etc.

Rationality and irrationality are not mutually exclusive, they can exist at the same place and at the same time. Someone can be rational to an irrational extent. Someone else can be irrational but express themselves perfectly rationally (that's what I aim for). My interest in rationality is related to this idea of "iron cage of rationality" which is about social control. When I read the discussion topic 'questioning rationality' I automatically think of becoming free, not necessarily pondering 'what is rational?'. Was Socrates rational for challenging ideas that could get him killed by an irrational society, or does rationality always correspond to the society and its constructs that we live in? In the latter case Socrates was irrational, but super-ironically became the rational example of Western Civilization. It is a complicated question that I wont solve. My bias is that rationality is socially constructed, Socrates was irrational, and of course, that irony prevailed.

My concern is not to reform psychiatry. I see this as purely a philosophical exercise. Psychiatry is like capitalism, by association yes, but also just by virtue of how economic, in the case of capitalism, and social institutional, in the case of psychiatry, practices and ideas have developed in relation to a natural state that is exploitable as a source of profit, manipulable by technique, and fundamentally in a state that is opposed to the rational and predictable demands of modern humans. My concern is to simply encourage a critical mode of thought that transcends the logic of capitalism/ psychiatry with the far-out intention of getting people to develop insight into collective madness.

I agree on both points re Michael and copper

Oppressed and not knowing why: C Wright Mills wrote of men feeling trapped in their lives. I do feel this way, maybe it has something to do with deleuzian societies of control. Could be the central banks, but my concern is if in a moment of weakness I told a Dr. that I feel the central banks are oppressing me and various other paranoid thoughts I would be given an antipsychotic which once I discontinue it due to weight gain, erectile dysfunction, and a host of other adverse effects I will suffer a rebound psychosis that will officially initiate me into confinement.

Well, there is probably a few ways of looking at it, but I like using the ironical lens. Looking at irrationality this way, you see a contradictory dual nature in people's actions. For instance it is rational for people to have adaptive thoughts and behaviors to participate in the economy and be good workers, but ironically they need to do so because they are too irrational to do things to become independently wealthy. In this example a fundamental irony underlies a common rational behavior. In psychiatry a practitioner will look at someone's mental capacity and ability to function at work *unironically*. The irrational nature of people is subverted in their assessment by normality, and does not have power to subvert this normality as it is considered marginal. However, to someone like me who has an irrational, ironic mode of thinking, I mitigate the offensiveness of disorderliness and amplify offensiveness of orderliness. This itself is ironic, but to me is justified by the aforementioned unironic mode of analysis of the psychiatric profession. There are other ironies that I am loathe to look at unironically as psychiatrists do: They persecute those for the speculation they could cause harm to themselves and others, but psychiatric practices cause harm to others and themselves(reputation); detachment from reality is considered a pathology they try to treat, however, they are detached from the reality of the pathology they try to treat; the profession claims to be scientific in method, but their most significant discoveries have been serendipitous; they claim that delusions and hallucinations are not reality, but false theories and misperceptions of phenomena as mental disorder have been the reality of psychiatry for hundreds of years. You'll find these examples are not only ironic, but underline the rational/irrational dual nature.

My concern is not to revolutionize psychiatry, therefore I do not intend to create new ways of understanding the etiology of disorder. My concern is the fundamental irrational nature that underlies all human activity, and express disgust at the denial and persecution of this in the practice of psychiatry. In my view it represents an encroaching modernity in an increasingly rational but insensible world. This type of argumentation that psychiatry is irrational and the world is increasingly rational but insensible is an ironical mode of thought.

I appreciate your effort to transcend conventional understanding, but my position is to focus on the analogy between detachment of reality in psychosis and detachment of reality in understanding it. In both cases the result is absurd, potentially harmful; however, the difference is one is negative sanctioned individual behavior/ thought and the other is positive sanctioned collective behaviour/ thought. My position is there will always be some discrepancy epistemologically especially when the mode is objective.

From my perspective, and I suppose a dialectical one, psychiatry represents a host of things that to formulate arguments against it situates you within irrational, individualistic, nihilistic, antiestablishment, antifascist, transcendent, ironic, subjective, skeptical, contrarian, critical, analytical, anarchist, primitivist etc. If any of these are aligned with your own interests psychiatry is a good dummy to beat up on.

I'm not certain defining any object of human inquiry is about 'everything' or is saying nothing about it. Cells were not objects of human inquiry before 18th?century and as such they were not real in the sense he uses it. It's a viable definition to define only what is known as real, as in practice referring to what is not known will be doubted as unreal. It is also debatable whether only objects of human inquiry are included in 'everything' as certainly any speaker of the word doubtfully has all objects of human inquiry in mind, so if they are not thinking of all things they also allude to things they are not thinking about including what they don't know about.

To me anything real is something that is not simulated. That definition extends to real leather to the real world. The way I see it the world we experience as indirect reality is not real, but is a simulation of something real. However that is not to deny mental contents, as I think experiences like delusions or hallucinations are real unless 1) they are not true delusions such as being deluded by mis/disinformation 2) they are not true hallucinations such as optical illusions or that p word on the tip of my tongue where you see things in a form such as clouds. So in sum real to me is grounded in opposition to fake, not unreal which is an absurd relation.

The essence of irony is not linguistic. There is a common denominator across all irony categories (literary, socratic, cosmic, situational, dramatic, etc.) and it is not saying one thing and meaning the opposite, therefore at bottom irony is not reducible to linguistics. My contention is that irony is a fundamental disconnect between idea and reality or reality and actuality. As such I see it as an epistemological problem much like a Gettier Problem, so much so that I see GP's as ironic and some ironies as GPs. It bothers me that objectivity is the prevailing mode of thought when irony is the more realistic lens for subjectivity. You might think that is absurd, but objectivity deludes people into thinking they have apprehended truth, when the spectre of irony haunts all human perception. Happy Halloween!

Well,yes, I was just musing about how things could be not as they seem. That kind of comment goes over better in a group of stoners on weed than in a respectable forum such as this.

But I don't see them as Gettier problem — Ludwig V

I'll have to do a little more work on this issue before I say too much more about it, but I see the Gettier problem as simply that JTB cannot be used as the basis of knowledge. Not every irony is a JTB but any JTB that is a GP is certainly ironic. This is simply due to the nature of the GP being a difference between idea or belief and actuality. Lets use yet another example: Jane heard John say "Dinner was wonderful". As such Jane has a JTB that dinner was wonderful. But John was actually being sarcastic (ironic) and meant that he didn't have any dinner. Nevertheless dinner was actually wonderful. In this case the irony which creates a discrepancy between idea and actuality becomes a natural mechanism for a GP.

A google search for "displestitude" reveals your usage as the only combination of those letters to exist on the internet.

It frustrates me that Gettier problems have the fundamental characteristics of irony, but irony is only mentioned once in the wikipedia article in a sort of recursive way, and an internet search of "Gettier Problems" and "Irony" brings up an article about irony in Gettier problems in literature. Is it not ironic in the Gettier problem John thinks Jack will get the job and that he has ten coins in his pocket, so the person who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket, but in fact John gets the job but unknowingly also has ten coins in his pocket? This is ironic because it fulfills the definition that it is the opposite of what one expects in an interesting or humorous way. But that definition is not at the fundamental root of what irony is. An ironic analysis of Gettier Problems should identify them as a fundamental epistemological basis of irony. Take any irony, such as an "antitechnology website". The justified false belief that people should not use technology is falsified by the use of technology but is actually true due to the ridiculous kinds of things that technology allows such as "anti-technology websites". Or maybe the belief that antitechnology websites are ironic is a justified false belief because it is an actual absurdist argument against technology, but is actually ironic because it is a Gettier problem.

Let me try to phrase a couple more ironies as a Gettier problem: 1. Ronald Reagan's bulletproof limo deflected a bullet into his chest. Justified false belief: Bullet proof limo would protect president. Actuality: Limo resulted in president's injury. Truth: Limo did serve in President's protection during incident.

2. From wikipedia: Gettier created a tradition in the epistemology of JTB by destroying it. Justified False belief: "Gettier's formula creates a clear barrier in analyzing knowledge: Actuality: is a new area of epistemology for analyzing knowledge. Truth: the formula is a criticism of epistemology

The bigger issue that looms on James' mind is not what's for dinner, but are they going to make babies after? Few people will let the problems of the world make an argument against getting laid.

My position on antinatalism is that I agree with it as being the epitome of a philosophical idea: where thought becomes greater than the life that gives it existence. People are unlike other creatures in that we can appreciate our suffering. Animals in nature accept their lot. Our nature to think, or to like thinking, can lead us to favor heady ideals over material existence. However, most people are not philosophical. Thoughts can occur to any of us, but only in an insignificant number will thinking interfere with basic functions like eating (animals), procreating, and working. Nevertheless, as I said, I agree with philosophy at its apex. This is where thought becomes greater than the material world. Mind there is not at a subservient level to matter as in science, but transcends actuality to create nothing. This is the spirit that I favor in antinatalism.

If direct realism were true then objectivity would simply be a matter of narrating our very experiences. However the indirect nature of our perceptions creates a challenge for objectivity. If there is a objective-subjective spectrum, the spectrum would be a realism spectrum moving from truth inherent in object at one extreme to truth inherent in interpretation at the other. Most thinking done on the spectrum is in the middle, but certain modes of thought such as material science would be more towards the 'inherent in object' extreme but literary analysis would be more towards 'inherent in interpretation' but not all the way because there would still be reference made to true things about the object. Something that would be extremely "inherent in interpretation" would be if I one-offed a comment much like this without knowing anything about the objects of philosophy.

Ideas represent objects. An idea doesn't exist, it refers to something that exists. If nothing existed no idea could exist. The mindscape is the world of objects. Macbeth is an exact arrangement of words, but the idea of Macbeth is political in nature. If Macbeth was destroyed, as long as there are people engaged in politics the idea of Macbeth will exist. However, I don't think ideas *actually* exist, such as that the world is composed of ideas. Ideas are one of the most difficult things to think on, regarding how they are experienced by consciousness and how they are formed. I think they are the result of cooperating brain functions and the idea we experience like our perception of the world is just a vivid sensation.

re: mental content: Yes,that is a specific area of mystery. There are several general areas including workings of the brain, the experience of the subject, how the subject would proceed without treatment, the place of mental disorder in grand schemes such as evolution or dialectical social process etc., the history of madness including history of psychiatry and other treatment of madness, the functional manifestations of disorder's analogs in society, the cultural effect of psychiatric practices, and more. All of these areas are where a psychiatrist acts with possibly severe detachment from reality, and serve to illustrate that the use of the term reality in psychiatry posits a certain narrow view of reality that I believe is based on power.

In my view the philosophical consideration of disordered perception on the subject's end and institutionally affirmed perception on the psychiatrist or police's end creates the most important discrepancy. The existence of abnormal psychology is not an anomalous feature of human perception. It is merely an extreme example of the detachment possessed by all of us from truth. It is the verified perspective of science that people perceive an indirect reality that is not an exact representation of the world as it is. To ignore this discrepancy and create the divide between subjectivities that exists today, creates an institutional realism of collective agreement and an individual irrational subjectivity for anyone not solid or integral with those institutions. In practice this divide would not only be disempowering to the mad but anyone expressing a perceived irrationality against this establishment. This is just one key reason for exercising a critical mode of argument against this tyranny. An obvious target is the history of misperception found in the practice, but also the slavish reliance of the adherents to approved ways of thought such as legal objectivity, rather than the alternative of individual subjectivity.

That's not the point I'm making. I'm not saying they should be encouraged to have the belief or that they absolutely shouldn't be treated with medication. The point is to acknowledge the indirect reality of the mind in both the subject and the psychiatrist. It is reality. The broader argument is that there should not be two standards of reality when the psychiatrist's view is not infallible. Both the patient and the psychiatrist suffer from errors in perception. Psychiatry has been riddled with false beliefs throughout its history, not including false ideas about their patients.

Regarding your other opinions about nipping it in the bud, and lesser of two evils: that's the status quo. It is not hard to defend the status quo or normality and call those who oppose it idiots or mad. The exercise of criticizing psychiatry is to put yourself in direct opposition to the norm, psychiatry being The Norm, and seeing this tyranny of normality, to subject it to scrutiny and analysis of its madness. You have no problem nipping in the bud or advocating the lesser evil of something that you only fear will happen. But acting out of fear is more irrational and dangerous than those you fear.

The person is powerful and knowledgeable enough to introduce a robust form of life such as tardigrades with big brains that are invulnerable to the environment.