Lameo;
Albert Einstein once said, “if you can’t explain it to a 6 year old,
you don’t really understand it yourself”
given the language used on this thread, I would guess people
don’t understand the words they are using and hiding that fact with
a course of “pleonastic” and “periphrastic” language with a side dish
of turgid and verbose words… perhaps even bombastic and flatulent
along with a rambling, discursive discourse that camouflages and
obscures, that adumbrate their knowledge of what they are babbling about…
or perhaps they are just making shit up…….
Kropotkin
You sweet old vaguely literate man.
.
Well Peter, another one of the I don’t understand this people. You really can’t base your entire philosophy of life on a 10 word long twitter post that people like to ascribe to Einstein to make themselves feel better when they can’t understand something that is a little beyond their depth. He never actually said that by the way. Why is it so difficult to just- either ask a question or resign yourself to not knowing what any of this is about and go to the next thread? You could try some of the secondary literature first- Bruno’s cosmolalia project or maybe, Aesthetic Animism: Digital Poetry’s Ontological Implications, that is a good primer kind of book on the subject of mimetics, maps and the ineffable.
As to “making shit up”. Yes, precisely! Now you’re getting it. As I write in the fourth volume of my Great-Work, Our Yielding Stars, making shit up, that is, creation, is one of the many things that exalts philosophy above the sciences, as above art and poets no less, who do not create so much as they refashion, a la. the Greco-Roman poiesis:
" The light Plato spoke of does not burst forth to originate the multiplicity from nowhere- it is a response to this Loss, like that experienced by the pre-Socratics. This is also why each of their doctrines were island philosophies, sharing no common pool of materials like the sciences do, and each philosopher stood proudly alone- offering a unique image of Being, born out of a unique internal struggle with and response to, the Loss of Being, the self-consuming multiplicity and self-engendered unity, of his thought. The expansion of unity into multiplicity and redissolution into unity, is the pattern of philosophic history, of the history of philosophy. From the perspective of a scientist, because science relies on continually enlarging the Babel edifice of material knowledge, observation, and evidence, it would appear that we were but going in circles- and we are, going in circles. But so is the universe. The impulse to hypostasize this process itself as Hegel did with the dialectical approximation of the Absolute within the movement of Geist, is easily observed. To help alleviate this attraction, one must never fail to keep in mind the Doric beginnings of sophos on the earth and the tradition of tragic philosophy demonstrated among the pre-Socratics like Parmenides and Empedocles, in which the central concern was the relationship of the One to the Multiple, Being to Becoming, and the tragic annihilation of the finite seeking to embrace that infinite or divine source for whose intimation each of them advanced their own unique guiding-image of thought, that is, a configuration of the Ontos. At the highest realization of that mode of tragic philosophy we find that the universe, this world- is this loss, and each soul must struggle with its own internal recognition of it. Men are alone in this, as are philosophers. If philosophers are to share some common doctrine, to share in a commitment to some end, it should be only in this idea that they stake a common ground: the encouragement of this deepening of man’s internal reality through recognition of the Loss, an encouraging of the mens heroica or heroic mind "as philosophy encourages the psyche in all (b)eings to take up the pursuit of Being, as philosophy spurs all things to independent action- as philosophy induces all things to philosophize … " "
I did have a few other remarks I had forgotten to make about the relationship to neuronal autopoiesis of the topos and the neurophysiological metaphor of the use of such maps, drawing also on the notion of the hypergraph in the article I had linked- Cosmolalia.
This lack of any bilateral connections between the separate regions, as well as the lack of lateral connections between individual entries within the map, and the production of ad hoc neuromorphic hypergraphs (to recall Bloch’s assertion that we can no longer afford to work “without curves in the series”, and that theory demands now a “complex Riemannian-time” and the production of a higher spatial-temporal manifold beyond the sequential logic of that preceding us in “unmapped” territory, ie. the sphere of Kulture beyond the modality of techne, or at any rate the economic superstructures readily ascripted by the concept of Progress. The hypergraph, borrowing from algebraic topology, allows the conversion of binary data, from out of its serial formulation, into a cartographic projection capable even of being modeled as curvature.) as a kind of neural network like that given in Maturana and Varela’s ‘Autopoiesis and Cognition’ (where a model of the brain is developed in terms of a cyclic connectivity between transient neural networks within the animal and equally cycle-driven or transient patterns of growth, decay and regrowth within the environment, such that stimuli, having induced responses from the brain, cause the animal to then modify its environment in accordance to both its instinct and neuroplastic or learned response and back-propagate, as a conjoined system a la. the oscillatory spiking activity responsible for the integration of the sensory-body, which is projected into three-dimensional space, from the multiplicity of perceptual inputs via recurrent thalamocortical resonance, new alterations to the chain of stimulants, which should be understood as various active spheres, each with its own amplitude and viable range or signal-strength, and each placed into a relationship with others by means of overlapping frequencies like a kind of ambient-signal or environmental-noise,- a kind of omnipresent neuroplastic static) through the associations emerging solely from the logarithmic addition of its internal parameters, is of course reminiscent of the manner in which the transient cell-assembly of the hippocampus maintains a stable image of the topos via ambient cognitive maps despite a continuous depolarization of the neuronal plasma membranes and thus a high rate of granular decay at level of any isolated synaptic connections.
- From Bloch’s Theses: The concept of progress will not tolerate any “cultural spheres” which require a reactionary nailing down of time to space. It requires not unilinearity but a broad, flexible and thoroughly dynamic “multiverse” : the voices of history joined in perpetual and often intricate counterpoint. A unilinear model must be found obsolete if justice is to be done to the considerable amount of non-European material. It is no longer possible to work without curves in the series; without a new and complex time-manifold (the problem of “Riemannian time”).
(Parenthetically, Peter you seem very knowledgeable; is Bloch, hmm- is he misusing the concept of algebraic topology in that bit? I can never tell.)
Don’t worry Peter mate, I don’t understand parodites either. He understands himself, which must be a comfort to him I guess. The audience appears not to matter. Perhaps that’s the point, if the audience was able to understand what was presented, it would cheapen it somehow. I’m seeing parallels with making sure the masses never understood religious liturgy by keeping it in latin. A priest must retain his power etc. any enlightenment is strictly secondary.
We discuss ideas in general, and ideas in relation to each other.
If we accept the pre-Marxist definition of “symptom” as an abnormal condition, then we may draw the opposite conclusion. While a sense of “symptom” cannot be considered as a measure of health, a feeling of uncontrollability may only be called a symptom of non-functioning; or a problem, a deviation from normalcy, of which more will be expected.
These global powers have now entered an era of blood for blood – or oil for oil. The peace dividend has been extensively explored by scholars, but there is another use of the bounty, and another calculation of the viability of peoples involved: that of the armaments industry, which takes international experience of war and imports it to provide the means for conflict. As each new war materialises the oil industry gets richer, this time providing the necessary sociopolitic context.
As historical archaeology and paleontology move to ground base, animals are more and more paid a sort of social significance not just through their role in hunter-gatherer societies but also in the economies of modernity. Each is, in its own way, a copycat of a previous human form, each genealogically related to one previous form by phylum or desire.
My goal is not to be understood as easily as possible, but it is not to “not” be understood either, and rest assured- while I am running at the highest limits of language, I am not alone in my exploration of the un-apologetically dense- (Did you look through Animism’s use of algebraic topology to model the ontology of modern poetics? My stuff is out there, but I like out-there; and I’m not the only one. Though your use of the image of the old Ecclesia: apropos. Yes, I lament it as one of the necessary evils in the evolution of human society, that we had to come to terms with it and give the masses the Word. We lost much in that, though we gained more in the long run: for example, without a computer,- one of the foremost boons of modernity, I’d have never been able to torrent nearly 100,000 dollars worth of stolen journals, books and research papers in all these subjects I’m into!) and, if one was inclined or had much interest in any of the subjects I write on, they could decipher me if they possessed inclination and commitment: (My audience isn’t meant to be the average person or this forum specifically, obviously- which is not to say there aren’t people I would have in mind when writing, only that I don’t think most people would be interested in the nomogenetic analysis of syntactic kinesis vs Chomsky-ean universals: but I am. That shit gets me fired up in the morning. At any rate, I imagined it was obvious I wasn’t trying to cater to the historical-romance fans, for example.) but, to be blunt, my ultimate goal is hardly something I would hide. Beyond being understood or not-understood: my ultimate goal is to pursue untested and novel domains and lines of thought; to ‘break the symmetry’ over which the fate of System can be determined, and to achieve this by exploring the ambient signal and cross-current of disparate frequencies, blending concepts from one domain with those of an unrelated one, etc. (hence I did not mean to imply I am, economically, a Marxist, despite using a concept of his: I prefer to insert myself within the logic of a foreign body as a kind of retrovirus in order to steal a concept from one place and use it somewhere else in a way it was not intended for, often against its own creator) and through a multitude of various techniques like this, or the zairja or the cartography of the ineffable I did another thread on, to force Thought to reconnect with its pre-Symbolic real, that is,- the phantom residuum or stochastic memory of its (g)/host. (ghost, host)
“As historical archaeology and paleontology move to ground base, animals are more and more paid a sort of social significance not just through their role in hunter-gatherer societies but also in the economies of modernity.”
I meant that the value of a food item in general, during a time of scarcity, was fought over by developing hominids, and language was used to negotiate (in psychoanalytic terms, to deflate) this mimetic aura, (mimesis, in semiotics, psych. and generative anthropology, refers to the reproduction of something through symbolic systems) which then began to replicate itself through the very faculty that evolved to temper and contain it- language. At that point, we began to reify the mimetic inflation in concepts like honor, or the presence of a given deity.
It is not only a comfort to understand myself; it is a comforting thing, that I understand everything. Like the liturgy bit. By the way, the ancients didn’t hide knowledge just to hide it. They did it for a multitude of reasons, as I write here:
… / To store things, not in passive memory as
dead knowledge, but as a living system,- in active, artistic, creative memory, as a living
force: this is one practical goal of the generative-image. The Sephirot, too, act as
conceptual filing systems for implanting the Talmud in the memory as a creative, living,
active force, instead of a dead system. This application is shared by all “generative-images”,
most explicitly with the Hermeticists, and it allows them to act as diagrammatic
maps of active forces- libidinal flows as alchemical, transformative processes able to be
guided and controlled within active-memory and unconscious imagination; maps of the
unconscious, like the maze of the Hekataic strophalos. All such diagrams are self-recursive
zairja, reflecting the infinite creative potential of unconscious forces as libidinal flows.
[b]These unconscious creative forces cannot be rendered in direct language, because if they
are-- they cease to be unconscious creative forces. They become route knowledge, and
dead. That is the importance of the ars memoria and why there are multiple levels of
symbolic meaning encoded in different mythic images …
… and why the ancient mysteries, like those conducted around Eleusis, proceeded in stages
of unveiling: the idea is to unfold the meaning encoded thereby, in such a way as to
preserve the integrity, vital strength, and psychological power of these forces at the level
of the conscious mind. [/b]/
I get that. A long time ago when I joined the site there was a poster who, much like you, was very erudite, and communicated in dense blocks of text, usually very difficult to unpack. We had a similar conversation. His intent, like yours, was to elicit replies from higher-quality thinkers, and discourage the lumpen proles. I just pointed out that at some point, there being so many lumpen proles afterall, you eventually have to find a way to engage them, or admit failure.
It’s a trap too. You’re basically doing this somewhere in your head.
- I am super smart.
- What the smart understand, few others do.
- Therefore, when I demonstrate my smartness via some means of public media, there should be an inverse correlation between the number of people who understand me, and the smartness demonstrated therewith.
- Ergo, the fewer people understand me, the smarter I must be.
The question is always “who are you trying to convince”…? And why of course, always why.
You’ve gotta see however, parallels here with the wannabe coolkids who wear t-shirts from obscure indy-bands no-one’s heard of and say when asked about them “yeah, you wouldn’t like them…”
We’re all just flexing down the gym. Your reply to Peter was the intellectual equivalent of “Do you even lift bruh…?”
I must admit to some degree of deception in my last post. In my defence, my motives are altruistic. https://talktotransformer.com/ is a very clever turing-bot. I pasted random excerpts from your post and pasted it’s algorithmic replies verbatim into mine.
It’s good, isn’t it…? To come across as relevant enough to comment back to, which means on some level you accepted some parity of intellect… With a bot. No biggie, I’d have fallen for it too. But it does demonstrate that what you are doing, isn’t so much an attempt to really communicate ideas, but more a reflexive algorithmic gambit. Swallow book of esoteric vocabulary, shake, regurgitate.
Takes less brains than you’d think.
The lumpen proles rule the world. If you can’t engage them, raise them, then it’s just vanity. Which only makes you a prole of a different colour. You’re better than that, aren’t you…?
“I meant that the value of a food item in general, during a time of scarcity, was fought over by developing hominids, and language was used to negotiate (in psychoanalytic terms, to deflate) this mimetic aura, (mimesis, in semiotics, psych. and generative anthropology, refers to the reproduction of something through symbolic systems) which then began to replicate itself through the very faculty that evolved to temper and contain it- language. At that point, we began to reify the mimetic inflation in concepts like honor, or the presence of a given deity.”
Bwahaha holy fuck.
Oh for god’s sake pedro, he just said that when food and territory became scarce in the late ice age, humans developed more complex speech and rituals to engender trust between out-group members and share food. With big words. Stop being a fanboy.
this question about the language we use, in both
our day to day life and in these “hallowed” philosophical
sites is a question that has never particular interest me…
I am not a language guy, which is why the 20th century philosophies
don’t appeal to me, I fall asleep reading Wittgenstein…
but to be fair, I also fall asleep reading Kant and Hegel, so there is that…
on this question of language, are you using language to engage others,
to inform others or are you using language as Parodites and Fixed Cross is
using it as a means to hide or to be disingenuous and/or deceitful…
the reason people use language is to inform others… but their very
language is gobbledegook and an attempt at mystification……
but why would people do such a thing?
I would suggest it is a vanity project…not meant to inform or to
engage but to make others think one was smart or intelligent…
an ego project……a vanity project is the sphere of the young… once one gets
old, vanity projects lose their value…
it takes to much work…
just ask yourself, are you really informing people or are you
trying to impress people?
if one is honest, you should be able to answer that question…
Kropotkin
Well again, I am not trying to elicit reactions from anyone, thinker or not, nor am I attempting to impress anyone (I’d just write three numbers with the post title MY IQ, if that is all I wanted- to impress people, or just write every post I make in Latin so literally NOBODY could understand it at all) or mystify or confuse people. :
[size=85]Beyond being understood or not-understood: my ultimate goal is to pursue untested and novel domains and lines of thought; to ‘break the symmetry’ over which the fate of System can be determined, and to achieve this by exploring the ambient signal and cross-current of disparate frequencies, blending concepts from one domain with those of an unrelated one, etc. (hence I did not mean to imply I am, economically, a Marxist, despite using a concept of his: I prefer to insert myself within the logic of a foreign body as a kind of retrovirus in order to steal a concept from one place and use it somewhere else in a way it was not intended for, often against its own creator) and through a multitude of various techniques like this, or the zairja or the cartography of the ineffable I did another thread on, to force Thought to reconnect with its pre-Symbolic real, that is,- the phantom residuum or stochastic memory of its (g)/host. (ghost, host)
[/size]
If you do not understand that fragment, I am sorry; but there is no simpler way to say what it says. You want simplification, well that is already the simplification. There is a limit to how simplified you can make something, and the limit of one thing might still be very complicated compared to something else.
“His intent, like yours, was to elicit replies from higher-quality thinkers, and discourage the lumpen proles. I just pointed out that at some point, there being so many lumpen proles afterall, you eventually have to find a way to engage them, or admit failure.”
Like I said, most academic humanities publications or works of philosophy in the past, have a similar reading difficulty. You ever read Heidegger? People talk about him here sometimes but I mean, have you read him? And also- about admitting defeat and humoring the proles being necessary at some point. Well, that isn’t true. You ever hear of Dwarf Fortress? The game is so dense it doesn’t even bother with the convenience or hand-holding of a graphics package and everything just looks like a scramble of ASCI text, like in the Matrix when they’re reading the code scrolling on screen. It is un-apologetically “complex” since people like to use that word for anything they don’t immediately get, yet: it has a devoted following and has lived for years and years and years, and will continue doing so as countless “popular” games rise and blow away to be forgotten completely like dust particles, because they are just fads.
Heard of Heidegger, but never read him directly, something about lions…? We’re not though, we are humans. Damn no, that was Witty.
That kind of thing…? I dunno, I’ll wait for the graphic-novel.
Never heard of dwarf fortress.
That’s the point though. Maybe dwarves with fortresses could change the world, but they won’t until they out-compete grand theft auto. I dunno, it depends on your end game. If you’re happy that you understand everything - and I admit to feeling that way myself on good days - and if that’s enough, then all power to you.
But if you think what you know could do some good out in the world, then you have the responsibility of successfully communicating it. No point being the guy at the end of the world saying “Hah - I told you so but you didn’t listen.”
Dwarf Fortress is known as the most complex game ever designed. You have to read about 300 pages of material to even understand how to begin the game. You can micromanage your little dwarf guys down to the level of their individual organs, (people have even used the physics engine in the game to construct analogue computers with programmable logic that actually function) and the game doesn’t even bother to grant its players the conveniences of well- having “graphics.” That is way too hand-holdy: being able to see what you’re doing? Psh. The game is represented on screen by a kind of matrix-like code of ASCII characters that you have to learn how to decipher like a new language. But guess what? While dozens of games have come and gone in its lifetime,- passing like fads, (because they are fads) it has endured- and continues to endure.
It is a question of appeal. You can tone things down and create a product that more people will take to- immediately. But that also means you are diminishing and taking out the kind of intricate details and specialized things that are going to make people actually take to the game or product or book in a lasting way and become personally invested in it, so that your audience leaves and goes on to something else just as quickly as they came.
It’s the same with McDonald’s. It isn’t good and it isn’t bad, because they created a homogenized product that essentially just takes the bell curve out of the statistics accumulated by marketing teams on what people’s tastes are, and when you abstract the commonality of it out of a bunch of different, very distinct groups of people, cultures and races, with very distinct cuisines and palates, what you get is: a Big Mac. Nobody loves it and nobody hates it, so in a pinch pretty much everyone will eat it when they don’t have the time to bother with something else. This is why turkey is served on holidays: it’s bland as fuck. Nobody loves or hates it, so everyone will settle on it. Well you know what? I fucking eat lasagna on Christmas, with toast and miso paste, and tamarind candies. More people really love lasagna and miso and tamarind candies than people loves Bic Macs, (nobody loves a big mac) but also: a lot of people strongly dislike or don’t even know what the later two of those foods even are. Thus it is not appropriate if you’re trying to cater to as a wide a group of people as possible.
And Dwarf Fortress, commanding a very small but a very loyal and invested fanbase, has bled ideas down into more mass-produced products, that dumb them down of course in order to reach more people. You may have heard of one such derivative: “Minecraft”. Same with philosophers, or anything going on at the highest level in literally any craft: technology, culinary arts, etc. [b]My only responsibility is to do justice to my material and relate it in such a way as to limit any degradation of the ideas. Because I am a philosopher, not a politician, not a political activist. In fact, I fucking hate political activists. But if someone else wants to LARP with their friends and pretend to change the world, then they can do with me as they have done with every philosopher that ever existed, from Plato to Marx all the way down the line, and re-purpose my concepts to material ends- which involves necessarily, their degradation.
That is why I do not care about what you call the world. To me the world is in books, it is in the great conversation itself; it is inside peoples heads. And thus there are many “worlds”. My world- the Life of the Mind, is immortal and invulnerable. So I am not burdened with the conscience of fighting for it as are those who want to act out ideas in this world, the physical world, the economic and political world. I can give you a cheat sheet: that world isn’t going anywhere. But mine? Mine is just fine, right where it’s always been, and always will be. To believe that there is anything to fight for outside of my philosophy, is to already have failed to understand my philosophy. I am an un-repentant Gnostic. This world is a shadow on a cave and doesn’t matter in the end.[/b] The catholic church burned us all a long time ago and confused the ideas of Christianity, re-purposing it to their imperial-political instrument in the Church, and now every time someone hears the name Jesus they think of: well they don’t think of the anti-sophic christ-devil of profane gnostic enlightenment, aglaia or apotheosis. They think of that bastardized Roman popery,- that and Nietzsche’s not-revolutionary revolutionary attack against that Bastardized Roman popery. It’s like watching two people argue about something neither understands, the Christians and Nietzscheans. Then you throw in the Sam Harris/Dawkins type and you’ve got three groups of people arguing about something that not one of them understands. From a certain level, it is quite amusing.
So, came out in 2006, and gets updated every year. Estimates from redit somewhere between 1500 and 1.5 million, based on guesses from the percentage of player/donator.
Grand theft auto, came out in 1997, gets updated every couple of years, currently at gta5, released in 2013. Just looking at sales - 200 million units sold, actual people who played it will be multiples of that. My kid and his friends still play gta5, hell even I played it. And that’s just one example of the steal-car-do-mission-shoot-people genre. If you counted every clone, well, bigbig numbers.
But ok, McDonald’s of games, I get it. Quality not quantity etc. You’re the Dwarf Fortress of philosophy.
Sounds like a con though, a bit.
Looking at the redit, seems indeed the learning curve is steep. When does the personal investment kick in…? Before or after…? Before, when you wade through the 300 pages. Psychological 101 enforced sacrifice. Because anything that costs that much must be worth it right…? And just to make yourself feel better, you make sure to get your friends hooked too, to share the cost if it does turn out to be a scam, that way, when the dust clears, you won’t be the only one to have suffered…
Ok, so it’s not a suicide cult. But the mechanisms are the same.
Gta, and games like it, with glossy graphics, an intuitive UI, and a tutorial… They believe their game is so good that they want you to get into it with as little sacrifice as possible, apart from the initial expense of buying it - which is a transparant one-time cost, and you can demo it prior. The end product is the same - fun.
A game, and a philosophy I guess, that requires major sacrifice on the part of the participant - before they even get to the ‘fun-derstanding’ is hedging. It’s priming their audience to value it by pre-investing them in it.
That’s Anyday-food. Not Christmas-day food.
Ok we can quibble, about stuff, and things, round and round. You’re right, I’m right, potato potato. But you resemble an AI that’s forgotten where its off-switch is. Your world is dependent on muggles like me keeping the lights on. And if we bite the big one because the whizzes were too vain to let the masses ‘degrade’ their ideas… And time became too short for the trickle down of ‘degraded’ ideas to occur erm, naturally… Then you also bite the dust.
Deign to save the world oh wise one.
I like Grand Theft auto too, but I mean: are you really going to sit there and rag on a group of people (that you didn’t even know existed until today) who are really into a game because it offers incredible depth and possibility of emergent game-play, insinuating they’re only into it to… what, make themselves feel smart, and it must be an inferior game because Grand Theft Auto sold more? Really? (And the game is the same game as when it was first released, it just gets new features once a year or so. GTA are completely different games each release, GTA is a franchise.) They’re into the game because of the depth of possibilities it offers. Did you not read the post? You can build a fully programmable and working analogue DWARFPUTER out of logic circuits made by exploiting the physics engine, using lava flows as “wires” and such. (If you’ve read up on some decent amount of computer science or at least studied some designs for 8 bit computers, which are easily acquired.) That is why they play it: because it’s fucking awesome. It is like the control on a plane versus that of a car. If you want greater control, the control will require greater complexity: more “buttons”. Besides, your “argument” wouldn’t even work- because as I pointed out to you, while Dwarf Fortress may be absurdly dense for most to get into- it invented many design and gameplay elements that trickled down into a product you might have heard of- “Minecraft”, you know, one of the best selling games of all time, as per your standards of what artistic merit is. This isn’t you’re right, I’m right: this is, I’m right. Also, there would be many “dwarf fortresses of philosopohy”, if you were to go with that comparison. You see the first Latin inscription, in my signature? It is John Dee, from the frontispiece to his Heiroglyphic Monad, an exceedingly difficult text. In English it means: If you do not understand, then either shut the fuck up or learn it until you do understand.
Indeed, as to the other point, about my not being concerned with the physical world. I couldn’t have said it better myself. Think of it like, red blood cells. Red blood cells, skin cells: intestines, shit, etc. Most people only exist to circulate energy so that the organs- no, not even the organs- but so the brain can live. The brain is all that matters. Everything else is just a battery. It is the same with all systems, from a solar system to the human race. Most are just, blood cells. They exist to keep the economy moving. They exist to feed and sustain- me. The world won’t end because I argue with red blood cells about it: red blood cells want to survive as much as I do. They don’t keep going for the sake of the brain, they keep going for their own sake, they don’t even know what a brain is. And as to trickling down: yeah, there is no practical way to force ideas into political action directly, even if I- as a noble philosopher, were to condescend to act upon the world-stage. Every single attempt that has been made to do that ended in millions of deaths: every single one. And while I do not care much for this world, I don’t hate it either, or wish harm to it.
Besides, it still misses the point. It is thought itself: gnosis. That is the goal of my thought: thought. There is nothing outside of it. There’s not a utopia. There is no political goal at all. The goal of philosophy is philosophy: the end of thought is thought. This is called the samadhi of inner-enjoyment, or gnosis from the Western perspective. The mind reflected upon itself, infinitely, recursively- forever; carving with the lightning finger tip the mutant sigil AGLAIA upon the surface of its own waters, a sea lost in itself, which is the sign of mastery, of the Immortal and Enlightened Self: for it is not only the goal of the human race to produce the enlightened-consciousness-- it is the goal of this universe, of all universes, to produce that Being.
Everyone feels like they understand it all, sometimes. But I’m pretty sure I’d pass the test.
Parenthetically, I forgot to note one more thing when I said this:[size=50] Beyond being understood or not-understood: my ultimate goal is to pursue untested and novel domains and lines of thought; to ‘break the symmetry’ over which the fate of System can be determined, and to achieve this by exploring the ambient signal and cross-current of disparate frequencies, blending concepts from one domain with those of an unrelated one, etc. (hence I did not mean to imply I am, economically, a Marxist, despite using a concept of his: I prefer to insert myself within the logic of a foreign body as a kind of retrovirus in order to steal a concept from one place and use it somewhere else in a way it was not intended for, often against its own creator) and through a multitude of various techniques like this, or the zairja or the cartography of the ineffable I did another thread on, to force Thought to reconnect with its pre-Symbolic real, that is,- the phantom residuum or stochastic memory of its (g)/host. (ghost, host)[/size]
Of course you’ve got the Lacanian stuff, the Schelling stuff, etc. but also, another interesting connection to this idea of re-connecting thought with its “stochastic residuum” or chance-memory is to be found in Borge’s Argumentum Ornithologicum: “I close my eyes and see a flock of birds. The vision lasts a second, or perhaps less; I am not sure how many birds I saw. Was the number of birds definite or indefinite? The problem involves the existence of God. If God exists, the number is definite, because God knows how many birds I saw. If God does not exist, the number is indefinite, because no one can have counted. In this case I saw fewer than ten birds (let us say) and more than one, but did not see nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, or two birds. I saw a number between ten and one, which was not nine, eight, seven, six, five, etc. That integer—not-nine, not-eight, not-seven, not-six, not-five, etc.—is inconceivable. Ergo, God exists.”