R. Scott Bakker: Global Elminativism and the Post-Intentional World

Break The Code


In social terms, you could suggest that the Semantic Apocalypse has already happened. Consumer society is a society where liberal democratic states have retreated from the ‘meaning game,’  leaving the intractable issue to its constituents.
– R. Scott Bakker, The Semantic Apocalypse

Like me Scott is not a philosopher, but rather a man thinking; or, a thinking man. What that means is that being neither an academic nor para-academic philosopher we exist in that marginal space of men and women who push the limits of thought in ways that are not restricted to the peer pressure of their respective enclaves. I’m not disparaging philosophers per se, since I explore in depth the quandaries they present and try to solve within their discourses.

Scott would say philosophers like other professionals have in-groups, a network of affiliated peers that utilize the same semantic field of intentional objects: the jargon of the trade so to…

View original post 2,168 more words


  1. It gonna be great when these apocalyptic fashions burn away (as part of their apocalyptic frame); then we might be able to talk about something real again. 😆

    It is such a blatant misinterpretation of almost every single name that they bring up it’s ..it’s like incredible the smallness of it all.

    It is self argument. And because everyone likes to indulge in their own self interest , it’s really popular right now – and everyone likes crisis.. it’s like the difference between good music popular music. Of course the people that love pop music will use the argument about that it’s all relative and that how do you really define what good music is because it’s really a matter of opinion. But the people that actually listen to good music and can tell good music when they hear about it don’t argue about it being everyone’s subjective opinion except as they want to accommodate and cater to those people that really have no clue about what good music is. It’s the sign of the times: the contradiction of self intentionality arguing that somehow they are past or post intensionality simply through relying on privileged definitions of small multiple worlds. Like Bakker: it argues itself.

    It’s totally funny. And it’s kind of the shame of our times. Complete denial of what’s occurring while asserting the proper method of truth. It’s like standing there plugging your ears and going Lala Lala Lala Lala so you don’t hear the people that are actually talking about , and yet for the purpose of being the loudest about Lala Lala Lala. 😆

    Perhaps , mark my words : right now : that it will be about 10 or 15 years from now these type of apocalyptic semantic apocalypse postmodern anachronistic Excellerationalist whatevers…will burn themselves out.

    It’s like the Jehovah’s Witness who all went out to the whatever New York bridge at the turn of the 20th century because they were sure the world is going to end. There was nothing that you could say to these people that would convince them otherwise because everything that you would say to them would just be using the language and context that they already understood meant the end of the world.

    At some point perhaps humanity with the ability to actually record events now the past you know 50 or 60 years, In multiple ways maybe in the next 50 or 60 years maybe 100 years humanity will be able to look at the cyclic redundant nonsense that keeps coming up in human psyche about the end of the world and how all these terrible things are gonna happen because of this culmination of meaning or culmination of technology or this is evidence that everything is going to shit or that is evidence….

    It’s like watching a circus or some kind of side show that is marketed as the main attraction.

    The long game is that the short game will deal itself out eventually running out of chips to play.

    But it probably will stay the same for every moment. Strangely enough. Lol

    It’s really kind of ridiculous.

    Like a person who is addicted to drama will continually create drama to south for fill their own ideas of what is wrong and the solution to correct it. You Gotta know people like that. They will see the problem that doesn’t exist and then ask you to help them but only except the help that they are asking you to do instead of genuine help that you have to offer to fix the situation.
    It’s insane. But you can’t really tell these people what they’re doing because they’re completely deny it. Please tell me that you know people like this because if you don’t, man what a small and privileged world you must live in. Lol

  2. Oh yeah. Hickman? It’s like talking to my grandfather about WW2 and the Great Recession. Everything is in reference to those two events, everything is analyzed with those as foundational truths.

    It is data though , if not relevant in its content.

    You gotta just nod. And say. “Uh huh. I love you pops”. 🏖

  3. …oh but hey. I’m not age prejudice. It’s more like Hickman, for all his “thinking” is unable to hear anything about what he talks about that does not speak exactly like he speaks. It’s as if he only is able to hear certain orders of terms or else they are incorrect. One cannot talk about cross discipline with him because it’s like he’s a one trick pony. Only the disciplines he sees as being crossable can be crossed. And If you suggest anything that he sees as challenging his order of things, then he gets personally offended.

    I have had more than a few discussions with him through the blogs and the only way that he does not get offended and take things personally and start attacking me personally is if I start to use the same structure of terms that he uses. He will not relent nor is he able to understand the concepts that he wields.

    I have a certain sympathy for him, but it really is like he’s a parrot that has absorbed all these particular order is a phrases from all these authors and then regurgitates them back in assembling them again in order that’s determined I guess ultimately by his discretion.

    I have found that even when I am saying that I agree with him he has attacked me personally as if I’m ignorant and don’t know what I’m talking about

    it’s truly bizarre.

    So anyways I like a lot of what Hickman has to say but I really don’t take it as really meaning anything significant because he can’t discuss what he’s talking about outside of the lines of what he already knows as true.

    Bakker. Is a slightly different story though

    🙂. Ok. I’m done.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.