The Depths of Narcissus

Elevate form over function to get at less easily articulable truths.

Re: The Depths of Narcissus

Postby promethean75 » Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:39 pm

To know one's self is to know the entirely. The primal. The irrational. That which dare not reveal itself - sometimes not even to itself.


the only part of the 'self' that is irrational or not is in reasoning, where language and the logic of grammar combine and work in tandem... hence why we don't call physical things 'rational' or 'irrational', but only thoughts, conclusions, motivations, expectations and the like.

moreover, the theory that there is an effective subconscious realm that guides and gives intention to thoughts we are conscious of, presumes the subconscious is able to give intentional direction to what arrives in consciousness as a result of its influence. but again, anything below or before the stage of conscious reasoning can't be rational or irrational simply because it doesn't take place in language. so there is no 'irrational self' waiting to be discovered and accepted through some kind of philosophical method of 'knowing thyself'. rather, it's the interpreter who places those monsters there himself (freud and jung often did this) by utilizing lines of reasoning that attempt to describe behaviors as being motivated by secondary intentional influences (the subconscious). these psychologist's mistakes are either made honestly by being ignorant of this impossibility, or by doing what nietzsche once called 'trying to pull into the foreground everything despicable about man'... which, on account of there being no possibility of a subconsciousness directing behavior, only reflects the malevolent intentions of the psychologist to belittle his subject.

self deception exists, ironically, in believing that there is an irrational aspect to some part of man that must be discovered below and underneath his lucid self. rather it's because man needs to believe there is more depth and substance to his being/behavior than simply being the consequence of multiple, non-teleological causes pushing and pulling him about for no reason. he delights in thinking himself a secret even to himself, then believes he becomes the philosopher when he goes to investigate what he thinks is there, but is not. for you this is especially obvious, as you fancy yourself as a psychologist who reveals for us 'the hidden essence of everyone's degeneracy' with all kinds of philosophical word salads and language games that are't the least bit empirical. but that's just it; what is available empirically about human nature and the 'self' is incredibly simple and doesn't allow one to project their own confusions, misgivings and malcontent onto it. for that reason, philosophy has a very limited role here... and philosophers hate that. especially the misanthropic type.

One of the central notions connected with that of the for-itself is the idea of bad faith, or self-deception. Bad faith is Sartre's replacement for the Freudian notion of the unconscious. Bad faith for Sartre is false reflection on my own mental states; a systematic self-deception about the nature of the pre-reflective basis for reflection (which is, of course, for Sartre, appearances or projections of the real world). So, if for example I hate my father but do not admit it to myself, Freud would say that my hatred of my father is an unconscious mental state, which systematically effects my behavior, but which cannot be made conscious without deep analysis and the uncovering of the psychogenesis of that hatred.

Sartre, on the other hand, rejects the notion of the unconscious entirely. For Sartre, this situation would be described as one in which I (consciously) hate my father, and am conscious --- non-thetically --- of that hatred and its object. But in reflecting, I lie to myself, and tell myself that I don't really hate my father. My non-thetic consciousness is of hating my father; but my reflective, thetic consciousness of self --- my consciousness of my self as an (empirical) object --- is that of me as not hating my father. This distortion is imposed because of a desire to not hate my father, and reflection then is twisted by that desire. But I am fully (if non-thetically) conscious of hating my father --- that is, my consciousness sometimes has the form of a hatred of Dad.


see section on 'bad faith': https://www.albany.edu/~ron/papers/sartre.html

nothing is given to judgement and reason except what comes immediately to consciousness, and the entire subterranean world of supposed unconscious desires and motivations exists as nothing more than inert physical states (neither rational or irrational), without purpose, reason, intention or desire. one does not not 'know thyself' because they haven't yet let some pseudo-psychologist implant in them reprehensible feelings of doubt, fear, shame, and the like, and feel they need to 'examine' themselves. no. one doesn't 'know thyself' because there is no depth or substance to this instruction. there is no 'self' to be searched for here. at least not the kind of 'self' these wind-bags are looking for.

ain't that a wonderful irony? all this time they thought 'know thyself' was the hardest of things to do. in fact, discovering and accepting that there is very little 'self' here to be known, is the hardest of philosophical admissions. but not everyone has the minerals to be a nihilist.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2163
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: The Depths of Narcissus

Postby Meno_ » Sat Dec 21, 2019 10:47 pm

Except the idea that there is primal re cognition of displacement of irresovable pre reflective elements of what supposed to be a recog is able set of elements in rcogmatipn of the primal gaps of a quisituon of knowledge.

The k knowledge of primary identification of primary motives under lying the procedure to recognize the comparative phase of
identification via the program of
unacquired sets of inherited characteristics, whereby the original intent is established.

The evidence for that lays the structural indifference between what model of reified requirement or conditions which arguably can be entailed.

The fight or flight mechanism was pre eminent within the domain of a reducible flow of even a re instruction of available knowledge. based on the evidentiary de instruction of available data.

Can a judicious modern person use this with an analogous set of pro n.a.?bilities ?


It is not at all above the convolution of what is in 'evidence' as a probable conviction.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5780
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: The Depths of Narcissus

Postby Aegean » Sat Dec 21, 2019 11:00 pm

Yeah...what he said.
Aegean
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:36 pm

Re: The Depths of Narcissus

Postby Meno_ » Sat Dec 21, 2019 11:07 pm

Aegean wrote:Yeah...what he said.




But he said was in a conjectural set of perceptive autonomous judgements. that is yet to be simulated in a cohesive Set, of phenomenal intentionality.

What that was grounded in, remains an enigma.

Lets see, how that corresponds to sets of re integrated criteria. Most would welcome a release from such an obligation at best, or a requirement at worst.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5780
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: The Depths of Narcissus

Postby Aegean » Sat Dec 21, 2019 11:07 pm

I was referring to you.
Aegean
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:36 pm

Re: The Depths of Narcissus

Postby Meno_ » Sat Dec 21, 2019 11:15 pm

Aegean wrote:I was referring to you.



There, reference is am inference , a con lecture, that is analogous to the difference between ideal and prescriptive general interpretations.
I hazard an absolute identification between the One and the other, as a mere calculated effort to collude the two.

But in fact , they are different as The Baptist is from the baptismal.
And thank You to point that out, if that was your intention.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5780
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: The Depths of Narcissus

Postby Aegean » Sat Dec 21, 2019 11:17 pm

Haven't I made that point in the thread Ideal vs Real?
Aegean
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:36 pm

Re: The Depths of Narcissus

Postby Meno_ » Sat Dec 21, 2019 11:45 pm

Aegean wrote:Haven't I made that point in the thread Ideal vs Real?



You know, the continuity may be reestablished by my review of that, but if that supposition stands, there may still be a point of agency of arguability, wether the credible justification of that is sufficient.

But assuming that is justified, can there remain a difference that overcomes absolute ideas of reference?

So may I grant you as much?

If not, then is there sense to a view which succeeds in the jump from belief to truth? Or like the condemned of Althea , is there an wywrnal Faustian doubt as to , whether Odessyus learned from that experience of primary vision?

I am not as idiotic to resign my self to remaining in a self constrained residence to a depth that can not bear the it's own recogniscence.

That would be placed in the grayish shadow world of the unrecognizable.

By matter of the principle of the power of the will, that is out of the question.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5780
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: The Depths of Narcissus

Postby Aegean » Sun Dec 22, 2019 12:14 am

The world is unconceivable.
The eye interprets, the mind interprets again, each time distancing from the source.
Art is all we have. Being lost in it, is a man's final escape. Being lost in himself, hoping he's seen enough to stay alive for a little longer, as he crawls into his own mind.
Aegean
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:36 pm

Re: The Depths of Narcissus

Postby Meno_ » Sun Dec 22, 2019 12:27 am

Aegean wrote:The world is unconceivable.
The eye interprets, the mind interprets again, each time distancing from the source.
Art is all we have. Being lost in it, is a man's final escape. Being lost in himself, hoping he's seen enough to stay alive for a little longer, as he crawls into his own mind.



And that may be a position most of us are finding ourselves in, the grayish ego ridden area of pragmatic utilitarian hope for a betterment, without reliance to facts to cover our tracts for a possible retraction of record, an existential jump into an uncertain future.
An existential contraption, yes, but one with more promise then the mere empty reactionary naive symbolism which the inexperienced is tantalize with on very shallow basis of modeling.
Such occurs very early, and is set almost in stone, as the endearing qualities with which to support the earliest signifier, as significant other.

Such seeming insignificance of early and adaptable qualifications, gain momentum by the numbers.

That is, where the politics of inexperience can lead us.

Contraversally, the opposition may incline a formative channel as well, but like two stellar entities ; one is a shining star, the other a burnt one an appearent a black hole , one will incorporate the other.



Then significance of what is reformed. The judgement day, is almost a far gone conclusion.

Altogether they either diminish, or signify a becoming.

Happy Holidays!
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5780
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Previous

Return to Creative Writing



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users