Self help books

One reason I'm not interested in self help books is their lack of originality. When younger, I sought out techniques for accounting for the meaning of experience. I may have missed out on some techniques--for example, how did I miss the Austrian school that Moraline so diligently picked up?--but I did pick up a few. And from what I did pick up, the take away was rigor. Rigor: as in getting to the bottom of it all, giving a survey of how to account for experience, and then going forward.

Due to limited intelligence, I only had the intellectual energy to really learn Sartre, and to a secondary degree, Wittgenstein. Moraline picked up on a whole other score of folks in his younger, formative years, but Heidegger was clearly one of them, et al..

Originary thinking--source thinking. What I needed to get at, beginning at an early age (let's say age 4; 0-4 are vague to me now), was this originary, rigorous account for the meaning of experience. It was in my reaction to my not being able to cope with what I encountered--perhaps a certain weakness or insecurity. I found that without this search for originary, rigorous techniques, and without my attempt to perform these techniques myself over my own experience, I experienced an alienation from self, an anomy of self, an acute anxiety that the object others created of my 'self' or 'personality' was growing too large in proportion to my own contribution to the inauthentic object oftentimes characterized as the 'self' or 'personality.' Freeing oneself from this factual tyranny requires a self-decathection from the other. This is the healing quality of phenomenology and ontology--one gets back to original spontaneity, and away from the wizardry of others.

The self help books--for example, RooshV, women's 'dating' literature, etc.--are sophistical, bastardized consumerist abscesses which possess neither originary techniques nor rigor. Due to their lack of rigor, they engender bad habits, such as unexamined and unexplained terms, such as 'man,' 'woman,' 'dating,' 'relationship,' and 'sex.' Moraline has gone a long way with his rigorous work on these topics--his attempts are originary but they lack core ontological rigor. So he owes us further work on these matters. He may be done with philosophy altogether and on to better or other things. In understand this, as I was once done with philosophy--at least I thought--14 years ago. But instead of my being caught in the perpetual wind of the roads of riding, I find myself sitting, sitting once again. And it is once again that I return to these originary and rigorous techniques to account for the meaning of my experience so that I may once again venture forth on a project which may, once again, allow me to transcend philosophical problem solving--to transcend the genesis of the very 'problems' themselves.