Top Ten List

Some…

some opinions:

There is intuition. Intuition can be about things unrelated to what I believe to concede are those magmic collisions to enough of an extent that they will never be of interest to what is called science, and it can be an enthralling kind of violent acquaintance with some of those magmicisms like why Newton was kind of insane at the same time.

Those intuitions be.

But appearences, that is where those intuitions become science at all. That it is apearently true that water displacement has to do with unavoidable, ever repeatable occurances. Only when appearance comes in, does it be science, which does not disclude the intuition and contact with the enlightninging thralling collusions, but does simply addition itself to it to make up what scicence be. When it begins to matter that it is science, and when weapons and such begin to be able to be produced by means.

The relationship between the intuition I speak and the appearent, since appearance is an observing action, a thing can be reproduced in different individuals, it already being involved in interpretation , and since interpretations can vary widely and one has to be agreed on for a formulation, even upon such a shakingly involved in material unavoidablenesses, to be able to be said to appear or relate to appearance such that repeatability can be practiceable, consensus is required for the very existence of science.

The observer, so to speak, is already guilty.

Why not? We are being honest and laying things to bear: I believe Nietzsche cracked open the thing that comes before and opened the world to a heretofore unimagined universe. But that is beside the point of science, though not beside the point of why it might matter to agree on where it is science starts and… well other things…

So long as we all stand against Nazis. All other mistakes can be accepted. Civility does matter if we are to agree to no tyrant.

Or like Faust said, some shit about morality my love of Nietzsce prevents me from fully repeating. But, among Gentlemen, even defeat is good.

even defeat is good.

But what you call intuition I call thought.
I said vision which is how thought plays out when it comes to how things work, what is really, or reallier, there. What is always present behind appearances and accounts for them and gives power to cause them. “Magic”, speechless consent, but no consensus in speech.

Seeing beneath the surface means being able to predict what will become apparent, and as it appears to be able to see appearance as being an appearance, emitted from slower, more pervasive things that one sees, not intuits but witnesses in operation.

It requires a span of some seconds of suspension perpetually, a lot of Delta waves, a day for a thought. Rainy days in stone rooms are the happiest.

Every meaning is a particular thing. But science has no meaning. This is why this consensus thing is just not correct.
It is true that some scientists build on the observations of other scientists, but the fact that their angle on that ancient work clicks in some way that works to create magic is based on strict defiance of what has been the consensus. Science is transgressive. Consent always eventually follows any rupture, but do you therefore define the rupture as consensus?

I do not deny that consensus is what the scientific community strives for. I am fairly certain it wont ever be attained. Einstein didnt even understand Relativity himself, because otherwise he would have seen the necessity of unvertainty - and there will never be consensus about the most astute sciences, as these are simply too precious and too dangerous to share. But that doesnt mean it doesnt work, or isnt used.

Science is always a primordial crime, as Zizek was always on about in terms of politics and philosophy.
Technology is a crimescene.

I read you as writing about what is. I am concerned with what matters. And I believe what matters determines what is.

Why I was never afraid of transgenetic bullshit or machine-brain supplantation or virtual/extended/modified reality.

I think Bob Marley may have been onto this, or at least was able to listen to a Muse as she mentioned it, when he wrote Have no fear of atomic energy None of them can stop the (tide/time, I’m never sure).

If I know what matters, I really don’t have to give a shit about what is. What is will come to me. I actually even am kinda sure that was Archimides’s approach.

I can read minds, I guess is the short way of saying it.

Or A.I… Specially A.I.

Lol.

That’s not where the treasure is.

Lol, I’m realizing now that it’s a pretty rude position I’ve taken.

But, you know, it’s a pretty good list Faust came up with. It deserves the outmost arrogance.

I think I bested alchemists when they say “as above, so below” with “what’s on the outside is what’s on the inside.”

Yeah, their version and one going way back is…
as within so without, as above, so below…
revinventing the wheel.

Ah, I didn’t best them then. It was just intuition of the part I hadn’t heard.

Unexpected knowledge from such a… Classical lefty… Come now…

They don’t teach that in University, do they?

I’ll give it to them though, that’s pretty clever of them.

But wait actually. AS within SO without is not the same as what’s on the inside is what’s on the outside. I didn’t say the same as. I said is.

There seems to me to be an important distinction there.

Yes, alchemists tend to be arrogant.
But to call Faust an alchemist is a bit indecent, I think.

But we agree then that there is no one on one correspondence between appearances and scientific Vision.

Your rude stance was just that of any layman approaching a specialised field with enthusiasm.

As above… so not quite now above… because “below” (cough)

Hume, who the consensus thing is from was to science what the NYT is to Trumpian job growth.

Hume, man. Fuck him.
All he ever did was creating consensus that Newton’s laws could be broken at any given moment because… um. … “text”.

Most of your list looks boringly uncontraversial. Philosophy is only about language? Well, philosophy is about thought and we think in language, so…

This statement looks interesting though. Do you mean that academia killed philosophy, or philosophy killed jazz?

Academia has killed philosophy. In part by continuing to argue over boring and uncontroversial ideas.

"…You see, a philosopher is sort of intellectual yokel who gawks at things that sensible people take for granted. And sensible people say, existence, it’s nothing at all, just go on and do something. See, this is the current movement in philosophy, “logical analysis”, which says: you mustn’t think about existence, it’s a meaningless concept. Therefore, philosophy has become a discussion of trivia.

No good philosopher lies awake nights, worrying about the destiny of Man, and the nature of God, and that sort of thing because a philosopher today is a practical fellow who comes to the university with a briefcase at 9:00 and leaves at 5:00. He “does philosophy” during the day, which is discussing whether certain sentences have meaning and if so what, and – as William Earle said in a very funny essay – ‘he would come to work in a white coat if he thought he could get away with it’.

The problem is: he’s lost his sense of wonder. Wonder is in modern philosophy something one mustn’t have… it’s like enthusiasm in 18th century England: very bad form…" Alan Watts

… always makes me laugh.
.

I wish, in a sense, I was a classic lefty. How simple and then I’d have a group. I do react to righties, sometimes, in ways that classic lefties do. On the other hand I react to lefties like a righty, often these days. (I mean, why trust corporations or governments, and conservatives and liberals both, whatever their supposed disagreements seem to trust these entities for the most part.) And liberals, I react to them from both sides (now). I think the wordings are the same, in this context. That what is without is within and vice versa. I don’t think it is indicating process, like a flow chart or something. And what, lefties don’t study the alchemists? Come now…Some large chunk must head through Jung to them. I got to them because they kept being denigrated by the scientism groupies. Gotta check out whatever is denigrated by a consensus.

Nowadays, the political weatherforms are regulated by the fear of displacement, fearing one’s own self interest above that of the common good, and usually with an eye to wether how much the winds of favorable high pressured winds on the horizon can be overcome by the low pressure weather coming in from over sees.

Sometimes boring things are the best things.
Excitation is imbalance, imbalance is decadent, and decadent things tend to eventually undo themselves,
by accepting failure.