Does it matter?

I confess that I haven't succeeded in surviving the poor sound quality of lectures on Perspective Realism.
I don't want defame anyone, so I'll pretend that it works to interpret the label as supplying an argument for a - changeable - approach to things, somehow, independent of what, if we translate that in finding a perspective the agent is interpretable as human-like.

So it's already making an epistemological foundation: we've learnt something, of things, that humans are concerned in (why else do a thing?) and there are options because the thing(s) are straightforwardly detached from us yet have already shaped up something in our thoughts that gives that much perspective.

Epistemic (in/) justice is something we should have qualms about derogating. Rorty riffs on Michael Williams contra Davidson, and we can see this sort of stuff - whilst condemned as postmodern - has been vomitted up by passing acquitance - like a one-off bong session attendee - and snaffled up by some running dogs and hey presto the turds like Pinker and Peterson - has not been well examined. I'm not the best person for the job, either.
What we should be doing, if we aren't to get locked into a hybrid of legalistic metaphysics or psychiatry and evo-anything, is concentrate on the causal (pace Rorty) though not to a reduction by retrospection. Eliminating enough causal explanations to get to what is true about the agent's belief. There's nothing to knowledge on either side, only reaching an agreement that has causal description shared, translateable both ways.
We shouldn't have a culture of indignation about dissolving our claims to knowledge, eliminating the phrases of knowing isn't important. That'll happen, in theory. All I've ever had to say about empiricism is that the Praeger approach is best, because it never ends: observe the entity in the environment it takes on. David Deutsch didn't do that when referring to "Ancient Greeks" on empiricism. I don't get that anyone who has a belief in science, a claim to have some acquitance with history of theory and experiment could stick with the myth that there were such people so compartmentalised (it's a German thing?) except by the apostle Paul whose words in the bible are a sardonic entertainment to anyone who has read Aristotle and Plato via arabian or roman.

That we should take apart epistemic claims though always home in the agents is all that's said here. Latourian Actor Network Theory - I'm not much into making noise with STS (good luck, MC Hammer) - is of cause with Perspective Realism. Do people who "make" money only know how to be - by selection due to a reality independent of human attendance presumably? - with things that make money? The stuff has no mystery - except to Marxists? and Graeber's anthro-etymology is another matter. Soros, for example, figured he could be a moral conductor having been tutored by Popper. If ANT really describes how to get a grip on things, some Real(ism) thing, then it appears we got a grasp on a hallucination. We dream we know if we don't just let on that dreaming is all we really do. Epistemic Justice won't make a difference except to shift injustice around?

I'm only putting this down to make an easier way to argue in if I can later. The causal theme is a tricky one, beloved of analyticals. As is normativity. You get I don't do that, which is how I decided to start reading into philosophy with Rorty. In the twenty odd years I scrawled out arguments to test against his essays, I played with terminology. I couldn't have done that and stayed on my own case - in and out of physical illness, learning of the stupidity endemic and systematic in this democracy if an academic.
I've no ambition to become one.

Confused?

Someone mentioned Bion. Interesting and the prone attitude would rest on shamanism - though I don't see how anyone who believes that god ordered the bible, and presumably Buddha and Islam etc could sit in that place - and I've a lot to cogitate. I don't think "paranoid schizophrenia" can be seperated from what the religious hold down which is only the strong stuff that we are told - by Hobbesian fancy, if you will - we can't think about and live. Or something. Bion has quite the clinical experience. However neither my melancholia, which is accountable to common enough twin absorption and, unsurprisingly my easy mentoring by a cat which would give me to injuring my spleen, not withstanding my early rejection of a theologised cosmology. So I think that Kleinian resort is off. And so forth.
What I did find immediately - and Foucaulting by my lights this alpha - beta metynomisation - is the predictable link to FEP. Stop right there with the human as a magnified cell. Indeed any animal. There isn't a Markov Blanket. That we representise differently from language is exactly where art (heaven knows the term can only be used broadly) arrives. The parenthesis marks that that is never anything so very fixed no matter "I know what I like".
Friston is a conjurer; maybe of himself, his conviction? We don't get on better by some technical superimposition, anymore that Lacaning in every contact with another human would improve anyone. Some deconstruction can help, though only a some...

This I've only read the tweet

I don't know where they want to go with it

https://twitter.com/danieljamesyon/status/1385176919445053443?s=19

I've added this to wonder if it is so clear, given the above. What is clear is a question: do people have not necessarily wise ideas of what to do with infants?

I thought I'd share this. This helps along my criticism of the recursivity to ancien regime Freud - or the extreme he dreamed of, neuro/cog sci - by so many Lacanians pinned to the head of Zizek
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238334159

Tripping Rust

I don't have A Spirit of Trust, so, glancing at the chapter titles and reading the beginning of the introduction, I do not doubt nothing has changed that I oppose, I offer in opposition, to the inferentialism that Brandom is granted to guide in Rorty's essay (and Brandom is quite influential in Rorty's philosophy - it appears Brandom has gone Spinozist (and some thought Heideggerian, which is true in what follows) as was Rorty toward his departure. It is that Rorty teaches how to work in philosophy, that he believed we could get better by it, like eating well or a mutual beneficial partnering and so forth, not as total revolution much as there is the desire for. My only remaining aberrance is a resort to ironise the realism that State's use, imposing charactistics, habits, on vulnerable dependents such as often are academics and more revealing of this ad hominem vulgarity from me I see it of scientists. Politicians often don't even amount to this stencilling; to paraphrase Wittgenstein, maybe we should remain speechless; and render unto media what is media's?

This would be more than I'll write, because there's urgency and as ever I've more to do on these questions.

First off I haven't looked up what Brandom has to say, what Hegel does, on presuppositions. I won't labour over these, you'll labour enough digging down to them in the ruins, in my description, of what I write in - by my lights - temporarily labelled Humean Collapse (of science). There is frown on this Humean face. You'll see, though I'd have to write again, that I've made, after time (a considerable 2 decades) some concessions to Foucault (the New Historicism was lassiezitis on those tutored by Marx interpreters, Foucault is not guilty on the Discourse fest disaster so much as Deleuze and Guattari who are the handlers and chaperoned in New Historicism? Copjec, an incomparable logician and thorough exerciser of theorem, doesn't quite convince me of everything yet does walk through the workings out of troubles with Foucault. What I was leading to: that sexuality creates sex (as a proto FEP hypothesis?) is not really, not all, what can be made of evolution as the proliferation of diversity to generate accessible energy. We have to however think of what is The Military as a means of exhausting energy, as if to exhaust sexuality and - as Foucualt is woke to - control reproduction. Though what changes, what cannot take all space, is down to the fits of the linguistic, vocabularies. And that, for Freud was in a vocabulary unequivocally shared with Marx, is where all that is left of Hegel arrives. English consolidates all languages, though it cannot prove much of them for all that. Presently a Darwinian vocabulary - although we can't say what he meant about what he was only able to speculate on - and not he alone by any means - runs the show.

At this point I begin, with those reminders hopefully at rest with you.
It is amusing that Dawkins complains of Hegel - he's read Popper's Open Society - when he should be able to see his own inept use of Darwinism is not different in kind with the argumentations of faiths. I have pointed this out as Darwinists have recapitulated faiths, and Dame Beer on Darwin dabbled on how literature could've shaped Darwin. The relevance is the issue if science. Largely I think I'm arguing we have always been modern. Latour is quite the Baudrillardian, I wonder? Signification is a different matter, as it were, and one has to be suspect of something that relies on pedantry about the chronicity of things. This how I am suspicious, to say the least, of Perspective Realism (we could place Baudrillard in a gallery of notables?)

https://twitter.com/p_realism/status/1360212726606364673?s=19

That's for another time...

Nehemas has examined Nietzsche with a reverse engineering from the influenced, if not the uncrediting of such. Deleuze is cited, momentarily. From that remark my compression of a forming critique follows.
Now I don't take much from Spinoza - I could get more lyrical on this, suffice to say Wittgenstein hit home with TLP - except that I'm satisfied he got it that god and art are one and the same, and didn't like that but the "lens grinder" couldn't hide it, given he'd painted a deflection of the issue as a detailed panorama. Guattari brought the Spinozism to Deleuze, and though they may have gotten to the same conclusion it there we depart. I don't know that I'll achieve the contrast here, though I've no truck with D&G. I'm a universalist basically, not a trad Lacanian though I'm following through on the ahistorical human (element of us, for want of phrase at this moment) into Lacanian by Methodoligical Presentism (for ease of definition, though not argument. Well, Life is no argument?)

Ontology results from signs. D&G are bursting such, and such are one dimensional. They obscure time, so very like sciences. Bergsonian drifts will catch us cold, so lets stay warm, I'm not doing time as concept here, besides it is obscured. It is all very well to historiograph the concepts wrecking around under science labels, though what is needed is ethical declarations, full disclosure, of the implications of a research not the theory test the scientist insists they are providing. Science needs the precautionary principle enforced on it so that we are dependent on (here be Brandom's) inferentialism.
I abhor Virillio's TMI - something he shared with Habermas and Agamben - as a civilisational taciticy. In social life, yes, because Brandom hasn't a clue  - in his masonry work on the edifice of reason - how inferentialism is no more than a drug hit achieving, I'm concluding mutually assured distraction and of a ruse of authenticity (the bogeyman was going to pop out...).
Deleuze is translated as writing borrows in arguing that, and identity is the schtick, that redescription has to use the enemy's descriptions so to survive. In fact the object is "object", and that's another barrel of Diogenesians to die in whatever metaphor you care to splice it with. This is Dawkins talkings. Monod, Jacques was way ahead of Dawkins and no improvement in being a forerunner. D&G were next door to him, culturally, we may infer.

I'll end this incomplete statement with one of intent: we cannot be authentic.
We need drop the inferentialism past-time and get the sciences into the routine of pre-publication ethical examination, that every finding will accrue without allowing recourse to libel.

It's a question of presuppositions and realism is only a Deleuzian object society is sent by force tripping over.

Fort Apache and Zizek (not really, nearly)

I've taken time, not time given over I hasten to add, to interpret Foucault. And only because of Robinson's The Terms of Order which, I am only guessing, is where I make my methodological presentism (If I am doing that, and not as philosophy as I've emphasised elsewhere, it yet to be other than the ante, the a priori, that I replaces what some would store Lacanian in? I saw the world from the Cambrian mountains, a factory suppling gearboxes for submarines that could deliver nukes, as a child) and so to this: episteme(s) are the dwelling of the military
It is the space that an episteme does not control that becomes the next. I cannot begin know what that means to us. What I do note is how, it is all that is Foucault, this reveals the body of medicine. Today a tweeter remarked on the rebarbitive demand that one announce the reason for being at a doctors to the receptionist amongst the waiting in the room. In military training the role of controlled dysludia is paramount. Psychosis is birth into uniform, the march - of history - the clinic.
Here the Schmitt-Ford (or Zizek stalking Pippin?) gets into a minimal tableau. In Fort Apache Geronimo (and the actor's typecasting is extraordinary) is titled as the medicine man. Space and shaman. The military are heading off-Earth, and most shamen probably had to serve the martial parameters of clan activity.
Military dwelling. The garden.
The Apothecary garden, the volcanic rock hilltops of Arabia to Wales.
Our language gives false witness of matter, it pretends nature of science. Our bodies do not so front when we are ill. Holobionts know the matter. We have found that the space station has produced novel bacteria. Matter does science of itself.

Nietzsche's sarcastic lesson from the school of the military is the question for those popularizing eugenics. In any event it can't deliver, crispr can't do miracles. Yet already it is activated by NICe in the UK in the English NHs. The provision that is imperative is that all but the technicians must waiver immunity from prosecution by the progeny, absolutely including the parents. Biden is opening the USA to the International Criminal Court personnel, and where as it is difficult to enforce moratoria on eugenic attempts it would not be difficult for a legal system to allow the ICC to arrest and try persons if that provision for progeny were set in force in at least one member state?
A digression. Yet who is made stronger?

The point is we need get out of the military culturation of medicine. It remains in that space, at least in speech acts. The Clausewitzian Cardigan Paradigm: (an StD researcher said) we need more cases of variants to find treatments.

The problem with most work from Foucault is that not recognising the orientations of each episteme as ever contracting on the libidinal - it turned out the almost entirely male East German Army was almost entirely regular engaging in homosexual activities - each one - and epi-epistemes, or epicycles - revolving around the historical concern of the time and place. Mary Woostencraft was a fascist (it can be said) for breastfeeding, so as example of liberation that was only to a "natural" motherhood. Dickens was a subscriber, you better believe it. In all pres. method. won't supplant what Foucault does, in English editions (some parallels with Freud and Lacan) at least, not capture: the proto-clinical psychoanalytic so often only vestigial in folktales (not least the Bible) that has ever been the military perpetuating it's offences when medicine could have been the peacemaker. It worked for the first Dutch in Japan.
The battle of medicines I first noted as a thread in The Iliad, one may - I don't know, yet if animal gut, if not human, were used as prophylactics one wonders what's up a "sleeve"? - in Shakespeare's Troillus and Cressida find similar motifs?

These moments are bleak. The desperate poke the corpse of nationalism and spray decay over us all. If they are examples of identity politics then any affiliation beyond inventive anti-exploitative humanity may indicate to some of us at best an indoctrination in reductionism, at worst a failure of fantasy that must be a death of honesty.