**Links to**: [[Introspection]], [[02 Introduction to the Poltergeist]], [[What is happening]], [[What is grounding]], [[What is philosophy]], [[What is a question]], [[On What is Not]], [[On what there is]], [[On Difference without Separability]]. ### Humanities problems The problems this thesis addresses are the same ones most other (humanities) PhDs address: “hey, here’s a thing that is actually slightly/much more complex than I assumed is assumed across the board.”^[There are tautological problems here, and that’s fine. See also: [[Recursivity]], [[Tautology]], [[Self-reference]] and footnote {3}.] The specialization—time and other resources—required for this navel-gazing phenomenon runs counter to the _apparent_ immediacy of the public problems which _appear_ to be addressed. Not to mention that a (paid) PhD position is a decadent luxury in a world that has _apparently_ immediate public problems at hand. Yet here we are. These apparent problems, however immediate, big or small, are indeed a matter of spatiotemporal scale. Which regions and/or futures are we considering when we delve into such pneumatics?^[See: [[Breath as logic]].] If we were “truly” invested in solutions to apparent contemporary problems, would we not all be doing, e.g., suffering and oppression research, climate studies and regenerative medicine? But there’s the spatiotemporal scale paradox, because we are, in effect, doing such research.^[In the context of “most” humanities PhDs. See also: [[Hierarchies of fields of investigation]], [[An actual demon]].] The scale of analysis, and its effects, is the apparently paradoxical part: what benefits ensue from research as specialized as “A reconsideration of 1060’s labor conditions in light of a novel analysis of Renaissance tempera brush techniques”? Well, the fact that someone has the time and other resources to think about this is evidence to the decadence, but also to devoted interest. Interest as care for conditions, care for histories, care for analysis. However, the paradox^[And, _paradox_ being the most appropriate term here: *para* = counter, *doxa* = accepted knowledge conditions. *Doxa*, from _dokein,_ implying: “to appear, seem, think” (etymonline.com accessed 18 December 2023). So, the apparently immediate public problems are, in every essence, paradoxical. See also [[04 Concepts as pre-dictions]] for more thoughts on paradoxes.] reemerges: care for what and when? We go in circles. But so does everything else. Does it matter? The results of humanities PhDs^[To become a critical member of society (see also: [[Trickle-down intellectualism]]) and/or continue to teach, to become an advisor/counselor, to become a psychoanalyst (this last one what Anna Kornbluh suggested most philosophy PhDs are turning to in the US circa December 2023, she suggests this would be in response to a public demand for mental health professionals), etc. are all dependant on the region in which a graduate operates, making general statements about this, eh, quite paradoxical.] can almost be said not to be measurable in terms of efficacy and applicability, precisely because they (mostly) aim to operate on the realm which is precisely devoted to the reconsideration of norms of analysis and value-creation. This is not a cop out, but a statement of concern for the cause: what are we doing? In the worst case scenario, PhDs in the humanities are one less person doing high-frequency trading (hopefully, there’s an _even-worse_ case scenario as one does not exclude the other). In the best case scenario, humanities PhDs practice what they preach: an almost impossible feat, for anyone, but why? Usually because self-narrating logics are rather incongruent, and highly self-forgiving.^[See also: [[06 Principle of Sufficient Interest]], [[Self-evidence]].] Perhaps, jokingly, too: because no system is ever capable of fully containing itself. Systems, like people, interpret each other: we are read-write systems. The frictions and harmonies between narratives, the semantics and _catachretics,_ the cacographies and the symphonies, the efforts, successes and failures to interpret, etc.: all of this is why different systems interacting can—but do not always—give rise to novelty. Combinatorial chaos where sometimes somebody feels there’s that thing we call meaning. This might be where _intent_ reveals something about what we mean by _meaning_.^[See also: [[Agency]] and [[Intentionality]].] How to interpret possible typos such as “**helo word**”, other than by asking the typist if they _meant_ to have this be so, or not? And what if the typist didn’t even know the answer? What if they were not accessible? ### Ethics of technology problems N.B.: Problems of the kind “is fire good or bad?” will not be addressed. These are spatiotemporal-scale and thus political problems (see above), because they are problems about who decides what is good and what is bad. They are of concern, but we cannot do everything here. Yet here we are. Problems of “creativity” are more complicated. Not only because creativity is a complex concept (see: [[Creativity]]), but because it is a highly _anthropocentric_ concept.^[See also: [[Fanatic fiction]] for a creative take on creativity.] ### Philosophy problems The problem is that, most of the time in philosophy, _that’s just like... your opinion, bro._ But, what is a problem? According to Deleuze, at least: our only hope. That is: smoothness, sameness, no problem (i.e.: exploitation, dark rooms). No problem? No thinking. But maybe removing _ _ _ is better. There’s also something to be said for the Deleuzian, Bateson-inspired noospheric interpretation of everything as, indeed, a noetic realm: everything _as mind_. If you’re a nice creature, then it’s pretty utopian. If you’re a mean, evil *sorete* then it’s fascist as can be. Philosophically, “mind is everywhere,” even though I love Bateson, just seems like a small, **important**, but pretty trivial update: from “man is the measure of all things” to “mind is the measure of all things”. Continue reading things such as: [[02 Introduction to the Poltergeist]], and [[Function]]. ### People problems See: [[Problem]] and [[Pronoun]]. See also: The problem of other minds, [[Kripkenstein]], and related topics. ### My problems [[Cortisol]] y pelotudez. ### Footnotes