The Philosophers

This is the place to shave off that long white beard and stop being philosophical; a forum for members to just talk like normal human beings.

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Sun Dec 15, 2019 12:29 am

I'll back up my claim that the founder of the Scientific Method, Francis Bacon, was a theist, with a quote from his work.

"Therefore do thou, O Father, who gave the visible light as the first fruit of creation, and did breathe into the face of man the intellectual light as the crown and consummation thereof, guard and protect this work, which coming from thy goodness returneth to thy glory. Thou, when thou turned to look upon the works which thy hands had made, saw that all was very good and did rest from thy labors. But man when he turned to look upon the works which his hands had made, saw that all was vanity and vexation of spirit, and could find no rest therein. Wherefore if we labour in thy works with the sweat of our brows, thou will make us partakers of thy vision and thy Sabbath. Humbly we pray that this mind may be steadfast in us, and that through these our hands, and the hands of others to whom thou shall give the same spirit, thou will vouchsafe to endow the human family with new mercies." [Francis Bacon, the Great Instauration]

"[V]anity and vexation of spirit" refers to Aristotelean, thus Platonic thought. Bacon doesn't explicitly mention these Greeks by name but it is perfectly clear what he means from the context.

And as I am working, I must also refute by the very words preceding this passage the notion that the Machiavellian-Baconian, Scientific Aeon, amounts to a demonization of nature - Bacon gives rather the birth of proper deference before nature (and Machiavelli, directly preceding him, birthed proper deference before human nature);

"And all depends on keeping the eye steadily fixed upon the facts of nature and so receiving their images simply as they are. For God forbid that we should give out a dream of our own imagination for a pattern of the world; rather may he graciously grant to us to write an apocalypse or true vision of the footsteps of the Creator imprinted on his creatures." [ibid.]
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9807
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Dec 24, 2019 1:21 am

Value ontology explains the structure of a subject as a mechanism whereby substance is assimilated in terms dictated by the nature of the subject. This assimilating is done by "valuing", that is, selecting. This selecting requires a standard, a ground value. This ground value is perpetually being set by and as a fundamental mechanism, that sustains itself by restricting its selection of its interactions with the outside to the type that sustains it.

Value ontology therefore refers to a logical spiral that is expressed in temporality as a circuitry tending to expand itself by integrating what it encounters while maintaining its integral structure.

The theory explains why what exists exists and persists through time, by making it evident that whatever does not have a "self-valuing" (such a mechanism by which a standard is maintained that serves to keep this mechanism operative) can not maintain structural integrity, i.e. can not persist.

Alex Borisson - Fehu.jpg
Alex Borisson - Fehu.jpg (66.07 KiB) Viewed 1435 times
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9807
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Dec 25, 2019 2:43 am

I cant say it simpler than this;
God does not exist, but his will does.




Gods Will holds a 50 percent position in the senate of Being. The other 50 percent of wills, resulting of Gods will, secure the verification of each step the will attempts to undertake. All that passes the Senate is thus profoundly thorough and subtle.

Let us propose that gods Will is absolute change. "Change" already presupposes something. Anything. Something which changes. Something which allows change to change around it. These are Gods. Gods, in the plural, are the antitheses of gods Will, which has no owner, no Being of itself, not even a Gestalt. Gods are thus the highest Beings.

Gods can be identified as patterns of change. The changing inside the patterns is us. "Appearance"; standing forth, creation, nature, physis. There are first war gods and spring gods. And then there are mystery gods of stillness, the mysterious sun gods of the winter solstice. On Midsummer, there is only creation, and Gods are rewarded for their work with the unfolded flower, the perfection of change.

Because in order that there may be change there must be a standard whereby the change takes place, there is an inscrutable element to being which upholds the change. In the ontological sense, this is being itself; structural integrity. Ultimately the product of the objectivity of change results in a lockdown. This is gold. Gold is what the will of god is not; at the same time its end result. Whereas literally this, gold also serves as a metaphor for other things of definitive structural integrity, which like gold cause the change of the world to swirl around them.

This final product of gods will against the ground of its existence, finally has the power to produce the change that the will is; this final creation is the being around with the powers of god; not only gold, but also the scientific method is such a being of unchanging integrity.


The thunderbolt is a fitting attribute of absolute change.

The lightning and the gold.
Last edited by Fixed Cross on Thu Dec 26, 2019 1:14 am, edited 2 times in total.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9807
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Dec 25, 2019 2:51 am

"power is meaningless to me. what i care about is meaning. truth is good but only when it contributes itself to meaning. same for power.

power and truth are necessary, like water and food, but are not sufficient on their own. this is my problem with the will to power and with nietzsche. one might possess all power and truth in the world, and these will not guarantee meaning. philosophy is inherently meaningful so it is good; the same with love, and friendship. and purpose, where it contributes to something that is already of significant meaning (value).

no philosopher has deeply analyzed meaning for its own sake. nietzsche never did. but i have. this is why religions function and it is why most people do not want philosophy, power or truth. they want meaning. but a false meaning will kill just as easily as no meaning at all, perhaps even more so.

the existentia is structured accordingly with power, truth, and meaning interwoven together. this structure is embedded in and as us. consciousness is it. so we walk many fine lines between these. in my three core philosophy there is truth, power and fantasy; these three presiding cores comprise subjectivity and are themselves wed together and organized by the highest principle of all, namely that of meaning.

without meaning there is a reduction to subjectivity of objectivity, the objective is lost which means truth and power become falsified within one’s own self-images. this is why people suicide: their meaning structures are lacking or have become damaged, they have lost what is and ought to be meaningful to them, so much so that they collapse their existence into themselves and falsely believe that just because objectivity is filtered through subjectivity there exists only or primarily subjectivity— no. subjectivity is derivative of that objectivity which created it. and the kernel of subjectivity is in the perspective-making and ego that draws experience to itself and reformats it in its own image, a kind of gestalt creation that is more than the sum of its parts. a shadow of the future casts backward in time, a shadow of the universe of ideas into the physical. we all already know all of this, everyone does. but the insufficiency of meaning causes us such pain that we gladly forget it in order to collapse into ourselves in an attempt to not need meaning, to try and get meaning from ourselves alone. the forms of the self: truth, power, and fantasy, these cannot guarantee meaning. these are empty without meaning. but meaning has been and remains undefined and unexplored. so it is easy to ignore all this and keep living as some kind of innocent animal, and indeed knowledge is too painful to desire in this case, except that we cannot not desire it either since it is us. so we torment ourselves and seek infinite distractions in order to try and live without meaning.

and it is possible to short circuit and reduce consciousness to a small grain of itself and thus succeed in living without a wider objectivity and meaning. for a while anyway. in such circumstances time itself becomes the greatest enemy. time and the one truth we wish to avoid at all costs." - Capable
Last edited by Fixed Cross on Thu Dec 26, 2019 1:15 am, edited 2 times in total.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9807
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Dec 25, 2019 2:59 am

"The entirety of man's UR-MYTH is about the quest, in the figure of man, gods, or the universe itself, to discover the secret of the IOA, that is,- to accomplish the project toward self-transcendence; toward self-knowledge as the very essence of the theo-cosmic drama. Ouranos, after incarnating its ennoea in the form of the Orphic god of light Phanes, required a "limitation" through which to reflect upon and come to know itself. This limitation is the BYTHOS; it was required in collapsing the otherwise impermeable monon into a plurality within which one individuated part could reflect on another individuated part and thus initiate the processes that would eventually bring about the existence of consciousness. Yet, this led to a diffusive cognition that never rose to the level of self-consciousness needed for achieving the IOA as the fulfillment of the divine effort at transcendence, as parts of this original multiplicity, generated out of the residue of the BYTH, simply refused to cease existing after having come forth to enrich Phane's perspective upon himself. They refused to die and, in this way, became the AEONS. These aeons wield the ennoea against its own will, as imprinted in the original intent of the bythos, which is to simply aid Phanes in self-reflection. Phanes eventually re-incarnated once more, utilizing a second limitation which human beings call Time, in order to destroy these new beings and create a dimension within which to reorganize the multiplicity as a true consciousness, however this attempt, in merely producing the wheel of samsara,- the eternally recurrent cycle of birth, desire, death and rebirth, also failed, leading not to the destruction of the aeons, but to simply the second generation of aeons, who themselves participate in the cycle of reincarnation,- continuing to survive once again through their male and female pairings within the syzygy. YLDBTH, like the other Aeons, refused to die, however Hermaedion believes that he did so, not out of the same lack of comprehension as to the nature of the divine-plan that drove the other Aeons in their subversion of the ennoea, nor due to the same selfishness that led some of the Aeons into the trap of creating our world and falling as Archons in a bid to supplant the true God at the center of the Pantheon, but so that he could stay behind in the mortal world (that, depending on the story, he conceived as his own artistic triumph in the face of the true God, that Sophia asked him to create or into which he was condemned by the other Aeons for his treachery) and flatten the uroboric serpent of Samsara through which the other Aeons had survived the protophany, accomplished their syzygy, and filled the pleroma or Treasury of Light with their numberless orders, in this way becoming the great Blind-Dragon,-- the Antisophic Christ-Devil of Profane-Gnosis, who pledged himself to the fulfillment of IOA through the proxy of humanity, insofar as we heed the example of the deliberate failure on his part embodied in our physical world." - Parodites
Last edited by Fixed Cross on Thu Dec 26, 2019 1:16 am, edited 2 times in total.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9807
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Dec 25, 2019 3:25 am

Brothers shall strive | and slaughter each other;
Own sisters' children | shall sin together;
Ill days among men, | many a whoredom:
An axe-age, a sword-age, | shields shall be cloven;
A wind-age, a wolf-age, | ere the world totters.
Last edited by Fixed Cross on Thu Dec 26, 2019 12:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9807
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Dec 25, 2019 3:39 am

Capable wrote:
I see the cause of the earth-rape as not globalism or globalization but simply the tragedy of the commons on a massive scale: this has happened before, check out the history of Easter Island, it's pretty interesting. They completely wiped out their vegetative environment in order to build those massive statues, in some kind of obsession and ended up collapsing into starvation due to environmental ruin. It's essentially the fact that in a society or situation/world of many different, individual self-valuings there is an inherent lack of values-overlap when it comes to the most abstractly shared, given spaces. Classic example is public grazing land, each farmer values not over-grazing the land for his own cattle due to wanting to preserve the space, but he knows the other farmers feel the same way, therefore he can squeeze out marginal extra value foe himself by secretly over-grazing or only slightly over-grazing; of course every other farmer thinks and does the very same thing, and the plot of land is consumed.

The reason I attribute earthrape to globalism is that globalism is driven by un-earthy motivations; it being beyond nationalism, which is fundamentally a love of the soil and physical values and qualities, of locality, which is the locus of self-valuing as a principle, it isnt able top be contained by earthly, earthy values. It simply has no impetus to stop destroying the world; it was never founded on, never made contact with earth. It is purely theoretical wealth, money-derivatives, coercion schemes, that drive globalism and anchor it in reality.

This is why I say it must be almost entirely reversed before it can be sanely implemented.

Quote :
I don't see how self-valuing alone can address this problem. In this sense we must understand a self-valuing as a reflection of its society/history/culture/family. The 'self' of a self-valuing is not irreducibly complex nor is it given, nor is it immutable, nor is it a-historical.

I'd note that the principle itself is almost a-historical, that is to say a property of pure synthetic logic (where synthetic logic is still a historicity); but that indeed no manifestation of the principle is separate of its environment; of the substance that it assimilated into its 'self' (a term I dont take too heavily).

The principle helps in as far that no logical approach is possible without it. That it does not by itself unfold as an approach, that is what Ive been discovering the past years; what VO requires is that one becomes radically, 'objectively' subjective. This is the agent that builds the objective world, that hones it, sculpts it.

The perspective of power is the final objectivity. The whole of the world is shape-shifting every electronic instance and in different ways as seen from any perspective, more so as the perspective is more substantial.

Quote :
I absolutely do not want to undermine the notion of self-valuing but I do want to condition it to the actual, real causes that bring it into being, namely the language, ideas, experiences it is exposed to upon being born and growing into itself. And this gets to my positive vision of a possible globalism that is by, of and for individual human self-valuing while also providing the highest possible social construct at the planetary level capable of preventing tragedy of the commons type problems.

This conditioning to the actual is the aim. Has been the aim. As I said above, I have discovered, not without frustration, that the actual can only be conditioned (with philosophical consistency and 'lastability') by example.

We'll actually have to demonstrate that our philosophy is superior. This is the only way to get it implemented into actuality. And that is what Ive been trying to sniff out the past years; the path to take.

After close to a year of conclave with Pezer I am quite close to having discerned where that path starts.

Quote :
Right now absolutely nothing can prevent tragedy of the commons problems. Current globalism has little to no interest in it, and absent a global capacity to act in concert self-valuings alone are incapable of preventing it either; it is in the nature of a self-valuing to try to squeeze out more marginal value where logically possible, this impulse must be rationally, moderately tempered by what we call society, "global" constructs and systems. To me it's always about a balance between these, balance between individual and social and that balance always striving to become more accurate and ideal over time.

I disagree. I think it must be kept in check locally only. For several reasons; one of which is the important factor that at no point in history has globalism leaned to being successful in reducing misery. The main reason though is pure self-valuing logic; I would never take orders from a global state, Id much rather die. That is the glory of humanity; we arent tied to our survival to uphold our values. The idea of fighting to the death against the globalist machine is pure joy. It is fighting for everything I love in a very direct way; I love animals, I love plants, I love molecules, I love humans. All of which grow, orient, live, love and die locally.
Last edited by Fixed Cross on Thu Dec 26, 2019 1:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9807
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby promethean75 » Wed Dec 25, 2019 5:35 pm

nobody cares about that shit man. we want dwayne and billy-bob. bring back dwayne and billy-bob and put your diary away.

promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2667
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Dec 25, 2019 6:00 pm

Nobody cares what you want, you old retard.
But thanks for adding to the sob story.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9807
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Dec 25, 2019 6:19 pm

Anyway the videos are available on the account.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9807
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Thu Dec 26, 2019 1:20 am

Yeah thanks for the response old man.
Good things happened.



All of this helped me drop out of the shit giving business.
Its gonna be a fun ride, these coming years.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9807
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Thu Dec 26, 2019 1:34 am

Andronicus of Rhodes was the eleventh scholarch of the peripatetic school. He taught in Rome around the time of Gaius Julius Caesars birth, and though it is not clear what he was teaching, we know he was teaching it to Boethus of Sidon so it must have concerned the nature of the soul and Aristotelean categories, and indeed Andronicus is most famous for producing the first more or less reliable edition of the Aristotle's works. This text was however not considered exactly authoritative, and a lot of speculation has been going on about who edited what and Aristotle's texts remained fluid up to the end of the second century of the common era.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9807
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Thu Dec 26, 2019 2:44 am

Vocaroo upgraded its bitrate.
Crazy Raymond
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9807
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby promethean75 » Thu Dec 26, 2019 1:56 pm

That ol' billy-bob. He's quite the gunslinger iddin't he?
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2667
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri Dec 27, 2019 5:47 pm

Oh you don't know the halfs of it.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9807
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Dec 28, 2019 12:23 am

Leila.jpg
Leila.jpg (146.01 KiB) Viewed 1315 times
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9807
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Mon Dec 30, 2019 12:45 am

Back to reality



"[ I derive more pleasure from growing a patch of leeks than I do from buying a sports car. Many other people will think this is rube-ish, or simplistic. That's okay, or whatever happens happens. If the atomic war, or Kali Yuga, or whatever happens, or doomsday, or any of these other things come while I'm alive, or whatever happens happens, I can still do what I want to do, unfettered. I'll be able to do it even more, because all of my neighbors will probably be killed over from radiation poisoning or something. I'll have their land, too; I'll just grow leeks everywhere. You're fucked. What does that say about your hobby? You're gonna be miserable. You're gonna come, you're gonna want leeks because now you're starving. I'm not gonna give you any fuckin' leeks. I'm gonna give you a baseball bat in the back of the head, then you'll keel over, and then I'll eat you too.] TRANSCRIPTED [I derive more leeks from leeking a patch of leeks than I do from buying a leekcar. Many other people will think this is leek-ish, or leeksistic. That's okay, or whatever happens happens. If the leekwar, or Kali Leeka, or whatever happens, or leeksday, or any of these other things come while I'm alive, or whatever happens happens, I can still do what I want to do, unfettered. I'll be able to leek it even more, because all of my neighbors will probably be leeked over from leek poisoning or something. I'll have their leeks, too; I'll just grow leeks everywhere. You're leeked. What does that say about your leeks? You're gonna be miserable. You're gonna come, you're gonna want leeks because now you're starving. I'm not gonna give you any fuckin' leeks. I'm gonna give you a leekbat to the back of the leeks, then you'll leek over, and then I'll eat you too.] LEEKS-IFIED"
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9807
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Mon Dec 30, 2019 1:15 am

alright just checking...

    SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Title: The Presence of Sulphur in the Sun
    Authors: Moore, C. E. & Babcock, H. D.
    Journal: Astrophysical Journal, vol. 79, p.492
    Bibliographic Code: 1934ApJ....79..492M

t2png.gif
t2png.gif (41.49 KiB) Viewed 1294 times
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9807
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Jan 07, 2020 9:13 pm

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9807
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Jan 07, 2020 9:45 pm

Alright reposting this



I was glad to receive a comment to this which confirms what I felt when I recently dug up this video. This is one of my least diluted self-reflections.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9807
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:37 am

"There are several levels of paradox. The shallowest level, aleph-one, exists where words contradict themselves. One meaning is juxtaposed with a contradictory one. Such paradoxes can be articulated, such as in "This sentence is lying." The deepest level, aleph-null, exists where language contradicts itself. Here the possibility of meaning itself is cast into doubt. (This very formulation assumes that which it denies, for to speak of doubt is to assume that there is certainty.) Such paradoxes cannot be articulated, for a successful articulation would require the destruction of meaning itself. Derrida cannot of course articulate a paradox of type aleph-null, so he does the next best thing: he writes under erasure. To write under erasure is to write a word and cross it out, but to let both the word and the deletion stand.
Derrida borrows this practice from its originator Heidegger, who critiques the word "Being" because simply to say the word presupposes that anything can be. This is precisely the pressuposition Heidegger wishes to examine, but it is very difficult to question the possibility of being in a language which exists because it assumes the possibility. Heidegger therefore writes the word as [.]. This allows him to point, metaphorically, to the fact that he cannot help but use the word in the very process of questioning its meaning.

Heidegger's use of the technique suggests that Being does exist and can somehow be apprehended through philosophy (the same hope articulated by Plato and, for that matter, by Hilbert, Norris and Whitehead.) Derrida assumes no such thing. He goes Heidegger one better, so to speak, by arguing that all language is written "under erasure." Language exists only because there is a paradox at the very place where language comes into being. In other words, there is an aleph-null paradox at the origin of language.

I suggest that the lethal text articulates an aleph-null paradox. Naturally, this text can only be written in a language which does not have the limitations of human language. Lethal texts have to be written in a transcendental language. Such languages cannot be translated into human ones, and those who read them cannot possibly convey what they have learned. Gayatri Spivak suggests that Heidegger "makes it clear that Being cannot be contained by, is always prior to, indeed transcends signification. It is therefore a situation where the signified commands, and yet is free of, all signifiers--a recognizably theological situation" (xvi). It is also a recognizably Platonic situation. To escape from the cave into the light is a metaphor for escaping into a world not bound by human language.

Macroscope suggests that its destroyer signal is simply a text which teaches its readers how to read the transcendental language in which it itself is written. It is a primer in transcendental language. Therefore, it is not what it says that is devastating, but rather how it says it. Its mere existence critiques human language and make the paradoxes that underlie it unbearable.

It is important that the destroyer signal is simply a text about itself, in such a way that to read it is to instantly experience what it describes. In describing transcendental language, it carries its readers into a transcendental realm. It is a text in which the USE-MENTION distinction, normally tanglable and tangled, becomes irrelevant. To mention it is to use it. The nam-shub described in Mesopotamian myth, and excavated in Snow Crash, is self-reflexive in exactly this way. It is a story about the destruction of language, which, when heard, destroys the language of its hearers." - Web
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9807
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby promethean75 » Wed Jan 08, 2020 5:43 pm

Heidegger "makes it clear that Being cannot be contained by, is always prior to, indeed transcends signification. It is therefore a situation where the signified commands, and yet is free of, all signifiers--a recognizably theological situation" (xvi). It is also a recognizably Platonic situation. To escape from the cave into the light is a metaphor for escaping into a world not bound by human language.


lol. wittgenstein's 'whereof we cannot speak, therefore we must be silent' remark has a mystical feel that has unfortunately encouraged philosophers to plunge even further into nonsense with the hope that they might be able to capture the inexpressible by language. but today analytical and linguistic philosophers have provided sufficient explanation for how all this takes place... especially in/with philosophical language. for example you could use Reddy's concept of the 'conduit metaphor' to describe a yuge range of mechanisms in grammar and syntax (as metalanguage structures) responsible for allowing apparant 'sense' to emerge from philosophical language. heidegger and plato are perfect examples of what can happen because of this. certain kinds of inexpressible senses push and shove against each other trying to simultaneously break the rules of grammar and reveal sense beyond it, while also employing those very rules through their existence. but this is no paradox. it only seems so. if the limits of your world are the limits of your language, you'd not be able to get beyond your language to discover where it stops and becomes incapable of mirroring facts about the world. rather, you create immense confusions and nonsensical expressions from within your language through this pushing and shoving... through forced intersections where language games meet and seem to work formally together because of family resemblences between the words they use. the resulting 'mystical feeling' the philosopher gets is caused by an antagonism created between the metalinguistic structures that govern sensible speech and the newly generated (non)senses that originate though the use of the conduit metaphors (for instance). one side of the philosopher says 'i don't know wtf i just said, it doesn't make any sense', while the the other side says 'but wait a minute... my statement conforms to the rules of grammar, so i can totally say that.'

the mystical is the very edge of sense, you might say. and the esoteric is a deliberate crossing over that edge in a kind of flight of fancy (sending language on vacation). certainly no deductive truths can be established esoterically, and inductive reasonings drawn from inferences are merely supported by more of the same (supporting arguments). being that philosophy - with the exception of the analytical disciplines - is a specialized kind of this esoteric language, it does no real work. what separates it from poetry is that it's use of conduit metaphors isn't as explicit, so it appears to walk like a formal language. in the end all it is is a negligent freeplay taking place inside the limits of language but pressing against the edges of its rules in an effort to get beyond them. basically a luxury for poets who have no real work to do. i was like this in my twenties and early thirties, so i know. and let me tell you, my recovery was a long and arduous.

promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2667
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:49 pm

A small metaphor would have to suffice to explain our... misunderstanding.

For you, the language is the ocean and meaning the beach, for me the meaning is the ocean and language the beach.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9807
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby promethean75 » Wed Jan 08, 2020 10:03 pm

"for me the meaning is the ocean and language the beach."

Correct, and although I've been offering for years, you still won't lemme take you to the beach so you can see what that language is really like.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2667
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Jan 08, 2020 10:22 pm

Wait wait wait.

Did you just say "correct"?
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9807
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

PreviousNext

Return to Non-Philosophical Chat



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users