The Philosophers

Anyway the videos are available on the account.

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

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXA_X7g9-3I[/youtube]

All of this helped me drop out of the shit giving business.
Its gonna be a fun ride, these coming years.

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.

Vocaroo upgraded its bitrate.
Crazy Raymond

That ol’ billy-bob. He’s quite the gunslinger iddin’t he?

Oh you don’t know the halfs of it.

Back to reality

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhpxlKWvsMY[/youtube]

“[ 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”

alright just checking…

[size=85]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[/size]

imgflip.com/i/3lg75a
imgflip.com/i/3lga9v
imgflip.com/i/3lg7cl
imgflip.com/i/3lg8xc

Alright reposting this

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Rp-g014xqM[/youtube]

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.

"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

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.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tBqKX1vZfM[/youtube]

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.

“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.

Wait wait wait.

Did you just say “correct”?

I think that marks the first agreement we’ve ever had on a philosophical matter, fitting that it be the nature of our disagreement. Fitting, or….

What interests me is where language and meaning meet - rare occasions of high precision and fortune thrown together. Usually, language is a plateau of platitudes on which humans navigate while asleep to meaning, fleeing it in a sense. But this plateau was once throw up by the currents of non-static life. This surf, of freshly impregnated language, of plateau thrown into flux for an instant, is where Id say philosophy takes place.

A new sociological dichotomy has been subtly arising, so subtle indeed that only memage can seem to navigate its treacherous limen.


"Google harvests our data to feed its predictive oracle AI through mapping social trends, social networks, market statistics, etc. In order to outsmart and circumvent it, the use of a map of the incorporeal and unindex-able is needed, as is written about in this article I had to get off internet archive, I read it a long time ago web.archive.org/web/20120504055 … /index.php This ties back in to what I wrote of yesterday when talking about the chiasmus and the interpenetration of past and future to produce an unmappable moment in Time. And it is the idea of a minimal syntax for the creation of such a map, from the article, which is most useful: my meme map was made with only one syntax rule, lame vs dank: incorporating multiple levels of syntax and multiple interacting rule-sets would create another kind of zairja or employable idea-generator/dream-machine/philosophic-computer/Brunonian mind machine, able to map a vast array of different unindexables.

Bruno’s Cosmolalia map, this text also talks about the cyberspatial function of maps: “Models are absolutely central to cyberspatial thought. Cyberspace itself is a model. Not necessarily or even importantly of particular real spaces, but of space itself: its boundedness, its volume, its up-down-left-right orientation, its passageways, and so on. I would argue that a certain class of literary texts, including the ones just named above, are recognizably “cyberspatial” in that some of their fascination comes from their modelmaking. By this definition, the legend of Noah’s Ark is “cyberspatial.” I do not claim, of course, that the Bible anticipates cyberspace by 4700 years. Rather, I make the converse claim: cyberspace is the latest manifestation of a fascination with models which goes back 4700 years.” web.archive.org/web/20071212081 … models.htm "

“We should read the cultural phenomenon of “memes”, as absurd as it may seem, as an organic attempt by the populace to create a gestural metagame, conducted within the very digital medium in which this problem has manifested itself with a degree of urgency, in which “tribes” can negotiate this free-mimesis without any new economic framework having arisen to address the growing problem, (A meme’s humor is partially reliant upon a flag-system whereby an in-group determines the ‘status’ of an assumed outsider, with the humor provoked when someone fails the test posed by the metagame and either rejects the meme or, in another circumstance, uses outdated memes, or memes originated from an antagonistic tribe.) which many of these tribes believe will come in the form of a crypto-currency.” – Tractatus Metapoliticus, Sect. II

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3ssld6JT44[/youtube]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7wyfTsIm1k[/youtube]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=246YpNGCi3g[/youtube]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no5Vrses66c[/youtube]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIoN5Ln6M7k[/youtube]

P: "Well it must be kept in mind that this is a map in the literal sense of the word, meaning that temporal-logical connections are not its base syntax; instead, it forms a more “spatial” semantic topology, without literal connections between any term (some of which are jokes) and another. It is a map in the sense that a person who subscribed to any entry on the right side, would be more likely to subscribe to or be interested in another entry on that side, as opposed to an entry from the left. The reason for that is irrelevant as far as the map itself, as a navigational tool, is concerned. This is how Google’s artificial intelligence turns the data it collects on us into something useful and, by forming a similar kind of map to our own purposes, we can both more safely and with less psyops and censorship, browse the internet. But to specify a few individually:

Steiglerian critique of globalization: techne [technology] has always evolved; but in the past, culture could evolve to catch up to it before the next big innovation came; so it was a co-evolution of human culture and human possibility, ethos and techne. But at a certain point, technology began evolving far faster than culture, to the point that culture cannot simply ever catch up: this means that globalism emerges as a deterministic event, as a total extinction of the individual, which is the basis of culture and its capacity to change. Then not only does techne evolve faster than ethos/culture, but it replaces culture as the human program, as the thing that guides us in life. Steigler says that since this globalization is extinguishing the individual which is the basis of culture, and thus eradicating individual distinct cultures while pursuing an inclusive multicultural global state, what we need to do to combat it is withdraw and form “microcultures”, like microgenres in music: small, ephemeral island-societies that come together to achieve a specific goal and then voluntarily dissolve.

Technomanichean-cryptoapocalypticism,. ie. the Singularity religion.

r/k selection theory is the idea that there are two basic survival strategies used by mammals: produce a bunch of dumb offspring you don’t care about because at least a few of them will survive, or produce one or a few offspring that require a great deal of time, education, nurturing, so that they survive on their own guaranteed merits instead of chance and numbers. The first is the prey strategy: rabbits. The later, is the predator strategy. And human beings contain both strategies, (wellfare state coddles the prey instinct and pays you for having a bunch of kids you can’t take care of as an example) and the political consequence is that the predatory, selective breeding strategy should be encouraged.

Coalitional game theory: When there is a threat of forced conformation (social justice in modern terms) Nash equilibria is replaced by coalitions and game theory becomes a matter of predicting what coalitions or groups will form to negotiate their own separate social contracts outside of the threat of tacit censorship. Guarded logic is about using higher-level modal theories to resolve paradoxes in lower-order ones. postcolonial guilt is self-explanatory.

With a cursory statement having been made, I will go into far greater detail. To contextualize all of this, one should begin with a central thesis involved in a great deal of my overall work: my concept of mimetic hyperinflation, which draws equally from Freudo-Lacanian theory, from the psychoanalytic domain; Marxist critique in the economic domain, and generative-anthropology in the domain of human cognition and evolution, with the idea of the map serving to address its associated problematics. I’m going to use my own texts where I can because this stuff is very involved and I don’t feel like explaining something impromptu and off the cuff that I already explained with great care and committed to writing.

It is useful to here sketch the powerful connections between a few different economic and
psychoanalytic models by first examining the connection between symbolic-exchange in
the Freudo-Lacanian analysis, the value-exchange of Marxist doctrine, and the idea of
mimetic hyper-inflation. * Integrating several concepts drawn from Baudrillard, Bataille,
and the Schellingian philosophy of freedom, it should be understood that the entropy of
capitalism is accumulated within the accelerating and metastatic logic of its own System,-
not due to the eclipse of a Marxist inspired free-agency by the ecological determinism of
imperialist expansionism, as is argued in Biel’s application of systems-theory,- but
through the denial of Rank’s death-instinct,- (Even in that great Dionysian rapture of Pan,-
dancing forever as he does around the incertain margin of civilization and, at the fragile
boundary of consciousness, mockingly calling to us from behind the Satyr-mask of
Nature,- carrying with him whispers of Death; an eternal challenge to the triumph of the
Apollonian instinct toward the indemnification of immortal forms,- the pathos of the
artist-tyrant, upon which the soul of old Hellas was staked long ago.) that is, the doomed
attempt to accomplish the abolition of Death itself and fulfill the great Dream of
Oedipus,- the narcissistic-fantasy grounding the very logic of desire and the Freudian
Unconscious,- an attempt that, stripped bear of the dream-imagery of the metonym in
which it obfuscates its object from the fragmentating cognition of the abjected-self in the
primary stages of erogenetic differentiation, (in Lacanian terms) properly psycho-logized,
and finally brought forth from the mythic depths into consciousness,- and in this way
rendered amenable to rational analysis, indicates a forestalling of the destructive libido of
Bataille’s excessus (The essential thesis of Bataille’s economics is that every system, be it
political, economic, biological or cosmological in nature, accumulates an excess of force
as ‘unemployed-negativity’ that must either be sacrificed in an act of apparent madness
and utter waste, as is exampled by the gladiatorial spectacle of the Roman coliseums and
their theater of violence, or permitted to continue growing until it simply leads to the
collapse of the system and the release of this negativity into a more highly energized
form, just as the atom gives way to the molecule and the molecule to the cell, etc. or, in
the case of the political and economic structure of humanity, due to an exponential
fragmentation of the social strata, ie. the state of the world leading to the first world war,
via a concentration of wealth that outpaces the distributive channels through which
capital can be exchanged effectively and generate profit, as we see in the movement from
localized free-trade, as demonstrated by Braudel, to a stage of state-sponsored
monopolization of capital in order to ensure the long-term stability of transnational
commodity import and export. In our own time, imperialism has been replaced with
Globalism and an international banking system has emerged in the wake of the second
world war to strengthen, through entanglements of debt, these distributive channels and
form an as yet uncompleted pan-hemispherical world-market, justified to the world on the
dissimulative grounds of multicultural tolerance.) by converting the symbolic-exchange
(the result of the negotiation of what generative-anthropology defines as mimetic
inflation, eg. a group of proto-hominids start arguing over who gets the last piece of meat
and, through linguistic mimesis or repetition, this causes that meat to seem to have more
value than it really does, until it encourages fighting and is entirely invested with the
‘theological aura’ of unrestrained semiogenetic supply.) into value-exchange, (Marxist
analysis of capital.) echoing at the collective level of politics and economics the Freudian
logic of sublimation producing, at the level of the abstract individual, the libidinal excess
(As Rank elaborates on Freud: psychic repression can become so deeply impressed upon
the unconscious that it actually becomes a force itself,- an active psychogenic energy
which instigates the formation of a separate impulse, Thanatos, with which Eros then
rises in contest,- introducing the psychodynamic dualism necessary for accounting for the
emergence of instincts from the undifferentiated “oceanic” passion of organo-affective
unity, ie. the infantile-omnipotence protected from the injunction of the reality-principle
within the fantastical constructions of primary-narcissism.) at the basis of civilization
itself, insofar as it is responsible for engendering the Apollonian instinct and
controverting the order of Nature. It is quite necessary to focus in, as much as possible, on
precisely this instigative moment as the generative semiosis of the Event and the
hyperinflation of the theoacousmate or linguistic-aura. Through the Event, which should
be conceived of as a symmetrical inscription-ascription responsible for grounding the
mimetic function itself, it is possible to map the serial logic and economic-determinism of
the death-drive hidden within the dislocated paraphilias out of which the spatio-temporal
continuum of the value-exchange, conducted upon the pan-hemispheric market in the
image of Steigler’s techne, finally opens up to the free-play of the accelerating,
exponentially technologically reinforced inventory,- the endless stream of devices,
phones, internet, etc. used to construct within the virtual media of the symbolic-exchange
the oblated godform and idealization-body of commodified beauty, digital stimulation,
organosynthetic hypertrophy and ever smoother, ever sleeker and more hairless plasticity
of form,- of the continuous parade of bodily perfections and the gladiatorial arena of
sexual competition,- of sexuality rather transformed into a competition- of the libidinal
re-circulation around the missing-center of the primary-narcissistic fantasy whose
regressive sinthome and entropic accumulation of Negativity,- of scissure, rupture and
above all, thanatos,- within the hollowed-out Utopian center of Capital and the abortive
strictures of its own sublated logic, threatens the very System whose excesses have thus
far proved System to be the guarantor of the fantasy’s existence, now approaching its
imminent collapse from within and the final deterioration of the suspension of its
operational mimesis to the point of an actual reversal of its function, which would induce
a paralysis and gradual extinction of meaning instead of merely a replication of the
nullified core of the cathetcted investment in the image of Capital. Language evolved to
negotiate the hyperinflation of the aura surrounding the Event: my favored example
would be the constant tribal struggle over food investing it with greater and greater
cathected-libido or apparent value by the population as the original value of the object as
mere food was exaggerated over time and eventually transformed into a social
commodity,- fetishized as Marx would say,- and more than that, a marker of status, that
is,- a mere function of symbolic-exchange, until language simply emerged to aid in
negotiating a value that had transcended its material basis and threatened to absorb the
total organization of society into a mere function. This reversal would prevent language
from serving this function and cause symbolic-exchange and value-exchange to become
inverted. This would not only prevent the negotiation of the mimetic hyper-inflation
through which cathected investment is sublated by the self-sustaining logic of Capital [A
logic which interjects itself upon the sinthome in order to obvert recognition of the Other
and fuel itself by creating a feedback loop in which libidinal-excess is recirculated
through fetishization, exaltation, and deflation of the fantasy. This pattern is a
masturbatory one, in which shame and de-investment lead only to more powerful desire
and more avaricious re-investment, thus re-enforcing the pattern. Through object-
fetishization of the Other, one obverts recognition of the symbolic gap within one’s own
barred-subjectivity; one then enjoys the Other as a sexual commodity, though, to part
ways with the Lacanian mode, they have unconsciously interpolated the Mother upon it as a
regression to infantile oblative-projection and the psychic omnipotence of the primary-
ego; the phallic-law then demands shame, self-disempowerment and castration after the
libidinal discharge is completed; one then generates from this shame a new fetish, by
imagining ones’s own self in place of or as wielding the phallic law; then the process
repeats even more powerfully.] but would lead to the severance of symbolic-exchange
entirely and consequently to the very free-proliferation of mimesis which threatened the
survivability of our protohominid ancestors,- a situation we can see now in the fact that
our words, our personal information, etc. have become the most valuable product now,
via the internet. [We should read the cultural phenomenon of “memes”, as absurd as it
may seem, as an organic attempt by the populace to create a gestural metagame,
conducted within the very digital medium in which this problem has manifested itself
with a degree of urgency, in which “tribes” can negotiate the free-mimesis without any
new economic framework having arisen to address the growing problem, (A meme’s
humor is partially reliant upon a flag-system whereby an in-group determines the ‘status’
of an assumed outsider, with the humor provoked when someone fails the test posed by
the metagame and either rejects the meme or, in another circumstance, uses outdated
memes, or memes from an antagonistic tribe.) which many of these tribes believe will
come in the form of a crypto-currency.]

  • Mimesis, first utilized as a concept by the Greeks to describe their preeminent aesthetic modality as an imitation of natural beauty,
    when applied to psychoanalysis by Lacan in his first texts on the mirror-stage, which he offered as an extension of the Freudian
    theory, establishes the train of thought which will come to dominate him and those of his school: the idea that the subject must split
    itself from the outside, specifically by denouncing the authenticity of the Other, so that it can reformulate its own mental universe in
    such a way as to avoid destabilizing the Freudian defensive structure without which civilization cannot exist, namely as a
    hermetically sealed and independent logos within which to perfectly reconstruct objects in the outside world within itself, (the
    admission of the Other would threaten the independence of the Ego) leading to the inevitable valuation of these inner-fantasies as in
    fact superior to their intended objects outside the self, (sexualization would be a common form of such a perversion of the Other)
    which accounts for the basic Freudo-Lacanian model of narcissism. Mimetic-hyperinflation, psychoanalytically, leads to the abjected
    ego tasked with recovering the anabasis, while politco-economically, we see that it is primarily through the media of language and the
    function of the symbolic-exchange, in which social appraisal is conducted, that the processes of mimesis are brought under control.
    For Norman Browne, at least when considering his self-reversal in Love’s Body from the standard Freudian perspective, when man
    satisfies a need, he must use a tool to do so, since nature left him with so very few of his own. But by creating the tool,- techne a ;a.
    Steigler’s Prometheus, he reawakens a new desire in the Faustian image of his own perfectibility and potential, given the
    dissumulative perfectibility of the tool itself, or of instrumental reason more generally, to recall Gadamerian terminology. And then
    the process repeats. Again, this is another example of mimetic hyperinflation. But Browne believes that by fulfilling Life against
    Death, the true goal of psychology in the transformation of the conscious mind by the unconscious, man would learn to identify that
    his dream of technical perfectibility is only the result of neurosis, a neurosis the origin of which he, following Nietzsche, blamed on
    the philosophers and Christianity; ["The bifurcation of the ontic and ontological, and the need to subsume one to the other … "-
    Monon and Mone. Christian Thomist metaphysics subsumes the ontic, that is, our lived Being, to the skeletonized abstractions of the
    ontological, yet subsuming either one to the other, as the ontological to the ontic in the case of Nietzsche and Heidegger, insinuates
    the trap of univocity and ultimately a reductive metaphysics.] so that a return would be made to a myth after reason, greater than the
    one before. Browne’s techne, Lacan’s mimesis, generative anthropology, etc.; it is of course, my own own perspective, the refusal of
    the Negative, in which the account of hyperinflation is to be discovered. All systems, even in biology, accrue through the entropy
    inherent to their very form, rifts that open up excesses (hyperinflation) and which lead to the collapse of a system from within, if that
    element of the Negative, the true site of the Christianized ekstatic Beyond, is not reified; if it is not reckoned with. All disciplines and
    forms of knowledge- even philosophy, must reify its own negativity,- its own Negation,- its asyntheme or transcendental auton.

Producing a map of the ineffable naturally leads to: thinking with the ineffable, that is, the “reification of the Negative” through the chiasmus, which produces a mediating limen in which the new emerges from the Negative, and allows the spatial gulfs revealed by the map to be crossed through the reversal which

generates Thought from Thought’s own entropic Negativity and deterministic
asymptote, [in Schelling’s phrase: from the primordial-will buried in the Unconscious or
“Night of the World”.] that is, from the Universe itself, and this accomplished by
laminating the plastic contours of the Real; un-gluing the apparational ontology that holds
the Symbolic fixtures or topos of the universe in place, and finally, allowing the
undulating subsurface of the Imaginal to erupt into pseudo-consciousness by way of the
ephemeral kairos [DESTINY] in which Thought blends with Nonthought and the
stochastic [CHANCE] element of its Ground of emergence in chronos, (the Remainder
of Schelling) producing the reversal of the chiasmus through which the Lacanian critique
is exhausted conceptually [[“The possibility of philosophy vs. the philosophy of the
possible”: this is the ultimate chiasmus, (At the most essential level, the chiasmus refers
to the Universal-Predicate reversal of terms, ie. that scansive element by which the
reticular kinetics of the symbolic-exchange is supplanted by a luminous kairos equivalent
to the mythic function of the Greek pharmakon or medicine-poison, whose ameliorative
effects or toxicity are a matter of circumstance and dosage. It is the functioning of this
pharmakon within the symbolic-exchange which is threatened by Post-Lacanian mimetic-
hyperinflation, leading to the eventuality we are now faced with in the Internet-age, that
is, the extension of the reticular global network to the point of its predictively insinuating
itself between the semasiosyntactic planes in the field of discourse, as nomos, [The
nomos of language or ‘semasiosyntactic media’ refers to the inner and outer network-
planes in which the nomogenetic and tychogenetic elements of language compete and co-
determine the recombinant logic and ‘kinetic nucleus’ of meaning at the level of the
endonomon. See Niels Danielsen, in: An Essay on Nomos and Human Language, as well
as the Anti-Chomskian thesis explored in: Papers in Theoretical Linguistics; The Kinetic
Analysis of Sentences.] 1 in order to guide the evolution of language toward the object of
advertisers, and, in this way, to effectively offload much of the global cortical load in
order to “think for us” as an emergent intelligence, and the possibility of a network
interruption or kairos which is in turn put in danger.) in which the self-deconstructing
Ground of self-constructing Thought confronts its own duplexity and simultaneity at the
threshold of the aleph-null, invoking and calling into question the very bifurcation of
truth out of whose khaos or symbolic-gap philosophy was engendered as both a
phenomenological closure (what Heidegger calls Dasein) and Imaginal scissure or
opening, (as Ontos, an image of Being) in the structure of Becoming.]] and Time acquires
an additional dimension of verticality given the horizontal succession across the
temporal-linear continuum, such that the Past and Future meet in the open witness of
Transcendence, and that in which alone the possibility of their reconfiguration exists,
which is to say, the possibility of free human agency- (The possibility of Reification
through the philosophical Negative: the subject as conceived beyond the psychoanalytic
framework, the natural sciences, etc. and rediscovered in that transcendental mode by
which pure-philosophy, denounced as delusional by the Lacanians, had once conceived
it.) with the Future reaching back toward the Beginning, beyond the black-hole of the
first-Will or primordial impulse, and the Beginning reaching beyond the event-horizon of
Futurity into its own possibility, that is, the opening up of Dasein’s phenomenological-
closure and in turn, the re-conversion of the existential Angst faced in confronting the
impossible horizon of Being into the Freedom of the Will exalted in the face of God.

  1. Any human sentence is the image of its own nomos or of its lack of allegiance to the law. The linguistic nomos is common to all
    languages and the highest and uppermost universal in human speech. The nomos of human language is the lawfulness according to
    which semantic entities are carried into effect in syntactic structures. The nomos of a given language is the semasiosyntactic
    lawfulness in accordance with which its sentences are structured. Any specific nomos is a particular instance of the universal nomos.

That covers hyperinflation and the role of the Map. Of even greater importance to my own philosophy is the concept of the Negative, as well as “Reification”, which refers to philosophy at the limen, or that opening revealed by the map in which philosophy, through the chiasmus or “reversal of predicates”, returns itself to that Viconian imaginative-universal in which it is furthermore able to “trade places” with its own object, or that which is being philosophized, producing an ectype which goes on to organize an entirely new modality and philosophy of its own: (“The possibility of philosophy vs. the philosophy of the possible”: this is the ultimate chiasmus); [Though I would add that the Christus or God-Man is, theologically, a superior case of reversal]

True difference is difference from itself as well. The great error is in our trying to reduce
the terms of another to our own, as reduction is not agreement. To reduce our terms;
yours to mine or mine to yours, is what actually produces unhealthy conflict between
philosophers by the obscuring of the true difference, through which all reality of a
spiritual fraternity of intellects exists. Just the same as a life cannot be reduced to another
life, one must always respect the ideal of another philosopher as the product of his entire
life-process; incomprehensible for that reason to another philosopher in its fundament,- to
be approached only by degrees of understanding, and these won through the agon and by
healthy conflict. The limitations of language often force philosophers to adopt a word
from a more common lexicon with which to provide a point of entry for the unfamiliar to
a more refined lexicon applicable to their work alone, and consequently more specialized
for the task; for me, this word is: the Negative. Negative is the word I use to describe
inexistent things upon which existent things depend for their existence.

Thus, when I speak of transcendental recursion, or the transcendental auton, using things
like the metaphor of an infinitely repeating series, it is the super-ontological yet para-
ontic status of such an arrangement which I aim very loosely imply by the word
Negative,- as opposed to the sense of merely nothingness or negation, by which one
might be led when considering only the semantic associations of these later terms. The
Negative (as the inexistent through which the existent gains existence; as the Bataillean
Non-Knowledge whose repulsive counteractivity or ‘dark energy’ allows knowledge to
become articulate) is the entropy that tears system from within and pulls it apart with its
own excesses,- systems of philosophy, languages, biological organisms, etc. To escape
that fate, the Negative must be grasped through the veil of the Multiple and allowed to
release itself therefrom as Unity,- not the Unity before life, which would be merely a
regressive call back to the inorganic, to the death drive and to Nirvana, but the Unity after
Life, multiplicity, and phenomena, through which the chiasmus engraves the nuclear
reorganization of elementary predicative elements at the limen. What is that second,
liminal Unity, through which System transcends itself, instead of being annihilated, that
is, ‘negated’? Such a monon or Unity functions like the bodies of two lovers flashing up in
a moment of higher-ecstasy as a new, third being; this third being is precisely the
Negative, in my sense of this word, as it simultaneously does not exist and allows what
does exist to transcend itself and to come into existence, inasmuch as existence is just that
liminal state of transition and apotheosis. The Negative is in this way a guarantor of
existence, not by combining the lovers into a binary fusion or univocal synthesis, but
through the in-existent third being; for it is always third,- for it must remain inaccessible
to System like the Schellingian Un-Intuitable and unabsorbed by System, as the
asyntheme. Because it must remain in this sense unfulfilled, that is, unabsorbed, it is a
threat to the System whose existence it enables, that is,- to all things (like the Bataillean
share) that cannot or refuse to glimpse the Negative and allow it to release itself from
them,- from the System it would otherwise tear apart from within by its own excesses.
Thus when I implore philosophy to reify its own Negativity, I mean, to reify this
mysterious third or asyntheme, while by the term reify, I indicate the chiastic
rearrangement of the monon-mone, that is, this pattern of Unity–Multiplicity–Unity, as
had been engraved in the mystic sigil of the god Apollo in the Delphic Tetractys.

The Negative is Gnostic fire: Gnosis or true philosophic-understanding neither as the
subsumption of the ontic or ontological; neither as the enlightenment or the madness
inspired by the riddle of the Tree of Knowledge at the Garden of Life around which the
old rabbis gathered in hope of wisdom, having already denied themselves by taking
wisdom as something that could be hoped for, that is, predicated by something else,
something that would need to be “wiser than wisdom”; neither as Paradise or the wage of
death, as imposed by the angel Raziel at the foothold of the Garden,- but gnosis as the
Fall into Sin itself, and understanding as that incomprehensible datum by which the two
might be differentiated within the episteme (ie. one as a predicate to the other, instead of
reducing both to a univocity) by the still more mysterious element, namely the agapeic
transformation of redemption and the excessus of human nature, ie. the Christus;
understanding neither as belonging unto the perfect God or the Demiurge,- YHWH or
Lucifer; neither as one term within the binary structure of the predicates (predicate-
universal) or another, but rather, what Vico called the imaginative-universal in which all
Predicates take shape as an eddy in the historical circulus of the Universal, and through
which the Universal is in turn drawn into the vortices of the particular; both the prophetic
Dasein of Gerard Granel’s indeterminate nomination or the metonomasia,- the power of
the Name to cleave open a future space, as with God’s call unto man from out of the
whirlwind, that he name himself; that he take account for the emergence of identity, and
in this very act of reflective consciousness is granted the loci of possibility,- and, on the
other hand, the hypostasis of the Fragment over the image of Cosmos or the ‘whole’ in
Levinas’ formulation of transcendental subjectivity, ie. that burden of responsibility,- of
man, as Individual, to God,- which renders any account of Being within the stricture of
Dasein ‘at a Loss’, and any account of the Part within the Whole untenably staked on
what was, from his perspective, an analytically impermeable Negativity, [Here we see
that, where Heidegger subsumes the ontological by the ontic, in keeping with his general
critique of the Thomist-Augustinian tradition in which the ontological had subsumed the
account of Being, that is, the ontic, and thereby generated a morality of skeletonized
abstractions, Levinas recognizes the peril of Heidegger’s bifurcation of truth into the
ontic-ontological, as well as that implicated by the ascription of the Negative, and so
resists any subsumptive modality, though his solution, ie. hypostasizing the
transcendental subject by way of his reconceptualization of Responsibility, will of course
not be held to in our present volume.) requiring an ethics grounded exclusively on
metaphysics (the transcendental subject) instead of any ontology; the mystical otium of
the princeps philosophorum [Cristoforo Landino, in: the dialogue of Philotimus and
Aretophilus; from, De Vera Nobilitate.] and the civic duty or negotium informed by virtu,
(or, in a reversal, the mystical otium of virtue recling in its own perfection and
Platonizing image and the negotium of contemplation, by which the admixture of the
former terms produces yet a third, drawing on the Ficinian commentaries on Philebus, in
which Venus, Juno and Minerva serve as emblems for the vitae triplici genere.) or the
simultaneous ubi nihil valeo [power without object] and ibi nihil vole [object without
will] of the kenotic gnosis of self or ‘nudus sum Mundi contemplator’,- [Arnoldi
Geulinex, in: Gnothi Seuaton sive Ethica per Philaretum et Passionibus Animae per
Flenderum: Ubi nihil valeo, ibi nihil vole. … nihil valeo denotat inspectionem sui, nihil
volo denotat despectionem sui
.] that is, the askesis or void of life’s plenitude and
excessus, through which the map of desire reconstructs the abortive universe of thwarted
libido, pulling the retreating Eros back from the gulf opened in abjection [the limit on
desire imposed by the paternal type through Freudian Werwerfung] and, through a
negative or reconcussive pressure exerted by the shadow of the phallic-law,- functioning
in that regard like the Zapffian psychic-anchor, sequestering an object now protected from
any recognition of the injunction of the Real upon the fantasy in the figure of the true
Other,-- [In Cioran’s phrase, askesis is the void of the plenitude of excess vitality, by
which the cultivation of the heavenly sensuality of the inner mystic is quite distinguished
from the merely political activity of the saint in conducting himself horizontally, as it
were, against the vertical dimension of the super-mundane.] above all of this- understanding
as the understanding that understanding itself is neither a Predication consequent to a
binary judgement nor the univocity of a monological reduction of a predicate to a Universal,
but rather, the mythopoietic chiasmus on whose scintillating surface all dramatic emergences
are reversibly organized,- simultaneously automaton-ized by the circulosis universalis and
concatenated by the replicating dyad of serial logic, and in whose limen the nucleus of
discourse is perpetually generated, deconstructed, and reconstructed by itself,- asyntheme
renewed beyond the imaginative syntheme and the intuition of the Ontos by the
ineradicable silence of Negativity, and that Loss hemmed around all Being,- the
inarticulation and ALEPH at the mysterious border or NULL of all speech, through which
alone speech might reckon with its own finitude and thereby produce actual meaning." - Parodites

Its hard to keep a clan together but its even harder to ruin it once its gotten together the once. Hows that logical? Well maybe it isn’t. Who said it was. Who said anything is logical? Who said logic even exists?
I guess many folks out there have said something to the effect. And … went about proving it, logically.

Wait. Can you do that? Prove, logically, that logic exists?

No of course not. You just show it. Here, here’s some logic. x=y and y=z so x=z. Yeheaw geezers. Logic exists. So now what. Now we go about finding stuff that applies to logic. Or, lets not.

I was telling a story. The story of the Philosophers Clan. Once upon a time a man went across the big pond and arrived on a snowy hill-top.
He met women and had weird adventures with them and he called it: philosophy. He also had his buddy out there and they were conspiring to conspire to take over some shit but, the traveler, he thought nah, time aint ripe son. But the other guy didn’t like that. He was like, times always ripe, its over-ripe, you bastard, like the fucking banana right hear thats all black thats how we eat em back down, you doofus, white ass overly patient Heideggerian snotnose, let do it, you dumbass, lets go, lets gooooo
so then they went and made music in-stead.
Yes,
that was cool, all things considered. Frosty nostrils. In a cavern, a bunker in the middle of the centre of nothing, they went about and created a whole universe.

And then, repercussions came. Cuz the universe don’t like competition, specially not inside of itself.
But they done it
Now what?
More of the same brother. More, of the same. And better.

Keep your head rushing.

Whats a country anyway?
Its not a chainsaw gang, that I can tell you right now.
And thats the whole rub.
You either got a country or a chainsaw gang.
Meaning, you either got a country or you got Communism.

So theres really only one type of country. Here all of us in he philosophers clan, which never did really oblige the will for it to lay down and die, agree. Its the only point we all agree on. There is only one kind of country.

So then in the end, this what it is all about. What it was all about from day 1, eight and a half years ago. We need to keep us this country pillar, its the first and last of its kind and it’ll either be the whole world, or theres only chainsaw gangs until the end of time.

Isn’t this a wonderful challenge now. Do you have enough liquor? To ride this one out? Time is our friend, but only if we allow it some liberties. Cant be prudent with uncle time. Has his needs.