Crítica epistemológica al nuevo libro de terapia queer de Matthias Roberts[EN IDIOMA-INGLÉS].

Crítica epistemológica al nuevo libro de terapia queer de Matthias Roberts.

About the therapy-book of Matthias Roberts.

1) In the book “Beyond Shame” Matthias Roberts writes about queer liberation therapy from a right-wing political deconstructive perspective.

I think is mandatory being consciousness of the difference between the ontology of therapy-thinking and philosophical ontology. The most important reason is about the nature of reality and the phenomena or metaphenomena that we calling objectivity.

2) Objectivity is about the things we are thinking like real or being real with independence from our subjective throughts, asides the deconstructive thinking tools. Two different things. This affirmations are not opposite to the emergence phenomena from our currently cognitive-science.

Anyway, Roberts stablished the shame like the mainly axis of his book. He talks to the queers people that having controversy with the religious phenomena. That is his story and precisely he says about himself that he is christian and at the same time homosexual. I don´t believe personally in that compatibility due many reasons, being the main reason the Christ idea is an sublimation idea itself, the summun or superlative nature of sublimation phenomena, in psychoanalytical terms and the root of the subjective perception about that we called like sublime. Regarding the homosexual factor, I will come back to this point later.

3) Roberts made a deconstruction of the values to getting ride about certain and specifically moral issues about cognitive problems, like shame. By the way, his religious perspective about this moral topic, in my opinion don’t modify the favourable therapeutic result that he can bring to his patients. Shame is not a religious problem intrinsically, but religious phenomena certainly could be the origin of the shame thoughts due irrational beliefs. Trying to say that is not about the religious phenomena it-self.

Well, in my opinion, the Roberts ´s therapeutic-thinking do a moral turn, that we should thinking very carefully.

4) Shame is the subjective face of the objective idea of any sin´s concepts that we can have and shame is a subjective perception, but any sin´s concepts are religious ideas that have an objective content in the system of the religious models. In this therapeutic context, if we erasing the shame idea, any sin´s concepts idea continues. The opposite would say the affirmation that if you accomplish with the moral duty of an moral proposal then the proposal don’t existed ever or don’t have a future existence or something. An anti-realistic ethical thinking with a reductionist complex, so to speak.

5) If you are reading Roberts like a therapy book, that would be great, but like a philosophical way of life is absolutely wrong. Nothing against the homosexual or bisexual way of life, if we called way of life, but with the maximum respect if we thinking the Roberts like a philosophical issue, a lot of philosophical posibilities could be getting resolved in objectivity terms, throught the basical mathematical distinction coming from Laws of Form.

That is, you drawing a distinction regarding, let´s say, I can run faster than a motocycle- equals would be in therapeutic terms declare to yourself the affirmation I wish supervelocity, then you are magically faster or something, the same about your political desires of a new government, I wish to be the President of the Unites States, then you wake up next day like the President of the United States. It´s not easier. It´s an anti-realistic model but at the same time is a model that not allowing the objective critical point of view because you can be having the Re-entry Marks in objectivity terms wich according Niklas Luhmann is a mistake because is avoid the issue about blind points of Re-entry Mark.

Therapeutically the meaning of this mathematical comparison would be one meaning- Roberts's therapy- and one reality- queer discourse- to a lot of persons with a lot of differents political models. In essence nothing to contrast the therapeutic model- that is the Re-entry Mark according to an wrong objectivity mathematical perspective. To be exactly, we are talking about of a deconstructive model of subjectivity with certain hope degree that the author associated to the christian´s perspective, does sense, but is not about shame- the subjective reductionism- instead is about how we thinking the ethical pieces in a critical way to get the objective part- reality- and the subjective part-therapy- in this case the homosexual liberation trought the therapeutically deconstructive discourse and at the same time, from the objective perspective How we can manifesting the respect to human diversity, in this therapeutically queer context. According Roberts reasonings human diversity and queer or homosexuality would be considering like equals.

6) Any sin´s concepts could be about anything, but in general terms and trying to appreciate the optimist part of the Roberts ´s thinking, the meta-idea of getting an ethical parameter to living a controversial life without any moral problem is absolutely astonishing, yet according to an objective perspective of the religiosity phenomena we can´t living without any sin´s concepts. Remember the shame is a subjective idea, while any sin´s concepts is the objective idea, in the context of system religious models-I will come back to this point, forward- but anyway, if all reality was about shame, the rational possibility about sublimation phenomena couldn´t not exists it-self and the modern religiosity should be thinking in a very authoritative terms like the medieval realism. This last point is very important because from a heteronormative perspective and considering sublimation phenomena ceteris paribus, the real problem with religious-thinking from an ontological perspective isn´t about sublimation phenomena, instead it´s about authority and if these reasons are right and if you appreciated the left-wing political thinking, you should fighting regard the sublimation idea, is the nature of ideals, and at least to those that we pretend doing responsibility about political thinking in general terms – a way of thinking absolutely different from therapy- that critical pointing should be a handicap. Roberts´s thinking is about right-wing political deconstruction, in these objective terms.

Robert´s theological political studies don’t modify the sense that I explained. Theological science is, in anyway, a conservative science but theology it-self or having theological studies can´t allowing justifying the problem regarding about sublimation phenomena. This meaning that Roberts can calling to himself christian but to me his lifestyle not collaborate with a genuine christian lifestyle, that is a lifestyle to helps to resolving the sublimation phenomena in a opposite way to Herbert Marcuse theory, that is a non-repressive way, a genuine way that we can allowing faith in God- the problem of reason to faith it-self in general rationalist terms- a problem that any gospel or any theological reason can resolve.

7)In this sense biopolitical deconstruction it´s to me the way to connect with God more easily, but this not modify the background about sublimation phenomena. Like a counteragurment, the Robbert´s therapeutic idea about Queerology is an awesome phenomenological perspective to approach us to the sublimation phenomena, that is a therapeutic way to getting thinking the objective sense of the identity-building. Only holding that objective sense we can do the affirmation you are a queer person, you are a part of this tribe, etc.

Finally, I think this is a contrario sensu demostration that sublimation phenomena is a phenomena that concerns to the objective religious domain of thinking, and in this domain is where exists the degrees of faith and the any concepts of any sin´s idea like a binomial-structure in the system religious models.

Kind regards,

conservative-feminism team

Link.

https://muse.jhu.edu/book/71940