The Philosophy of Dankness: Mapping the Ineffable

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

The Philosophy of Dankness: Mapping the Ineffable

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Jan 08, 2020 3:16 am

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

Lameo_Vs_Dank_8 (by Parodites).jpg
Lameo_Vs_Dank_8 (by Parodites).jpg (97.97 KiB) Viewed 5334 times



"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 https://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." https://web.archive.org/web/20071212081 ... models.htm "
Last edited by Fixed Cross on Wed Jan 08, 2020 10:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Arch-Native Philosophy - Sumerian Bill and Ted - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10520
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Lame vs Dank

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Jan 08, 2020 3:42 am

"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









The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Arch-Native Philosophy - Sumerian Bill and Ted - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10520
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Lame vs Dank

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Jan 08, 2020 7:36 am

Pardon the call for Lame vs. Dank for Dummies but could you, using that first diagram with the Yin Yang, give me a brief summary of what each side of the dichotomy contains, or what its general POV is.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3042
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Lame vs Dank

Postby Parodites » Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:34 pm

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.
User avatar
Parodites
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:03 pm

Re: Lame vs Dank

Postby Parodites » Wed Jan 08, 2020 10:27 pm

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.
User avatar
Parodites
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:03 pm

Re: The Philosophy of Dankness: Mapping the Ineffable

Postby Fixed Cross » Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:10 pm

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Arch-Native Philosophy - Sumerian Bill and Ted - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10520
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophy of Dankness: Mapping the Ineffable

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri Jan 17, 2020 1:28 am

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Arch-Native Philosophy - Sumerian Bill and Ted - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10520
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophy of Dankness: Mapping the Ineffable

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Fri Jan 17, 2020 1:51 am

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
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security
wind up with neither."
"Ben Franklin"
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7912
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: The Philosophy of Dankness: Mapping the Ineffable

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri Jan 17, 2020 1:56 am

Peter Kropotkin wrote: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.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Arch-Native Philosophy - Sumerian Bill and Ted - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10520
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophy of Dankness: Mapping the Ineffable

Postby promethean75 » Fri Jan 17, 2020 2:45 am

.
Attachments
rsz_3md39s.jpg
rsz_3md39s.jpg (45.96 KiB) Viewed 5124 times
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2866
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: The Philosophy of Dankness: Mapping the Ineffable

Postby Parodites » Sun Jan 19, 2020 2:58 pm

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.)
Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat.

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.
-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

Measure the breaking of the Flesh in the flesh that is broken.
[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]
User avatar
Parodites
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:03 pm

Re: The Philosophy of Dankness: Mapping the Ineffable

Postby Tab » Sun Jan 19, 2020 5:17 pm

:D 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.
Image
User avatar
Tab
Deeply Shallow
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:49 pm

Re: The Philosophy of Dankness: Mapping the Ineffable

Postby Tab » Sun Jan 19, 2020 7:10 pm

Parodites wrote: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,


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.

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.


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.

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


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.
Image
User avatar
Tab
Deeply Shallow
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:49 pm

Re: The Philosophy of Dankness: Mapping the Ineffable

Postby Parodites » Sun Jan 19, 2020 10:48 pm

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.
Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat.

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.
-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

Measure the breaking of the Flesh in the flesh that is broken.
[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]
User avatar
Parodites
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:03 pm

Re: The Philosophy of Dankness: Mapping the Ineffable

Postby Parodites » Sun Jan 19, 2020 11:19 pm

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.
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.
/
Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat.

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.
-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

Measure the breaking of the Flesh in the flesh that is broken.
[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]
User avatar
Parodites
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:03 pm

Re: The Philosophy of Dankness: Mapping the Ineffable

Postby Parodites » Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:44 am

Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat.

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.
-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

Measure the breaking of the Flesh in the flesh that is broken.
[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]
User avatar
Parodites
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:03 pm

Re: The Philosophy of Dankness: Mapping the Ineffable

Postby Tab » Mon Jan 20, 2020 8:56 am

Parodites wrote: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


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. :D 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. :D

It's a trap too. You're basically doing this somewhere in your head.

1) I am super smart.
2) What the smart understand, few others do.
3) 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.
4) 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.

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.


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..?"

parodites wrote:
tab's little helper wrote:"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.


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. :D

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..?
Image
User avatar
Tab
Deeply Shallow
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:49 pm

Re: The Philosophy of Dankness: Mapping the Ineffable

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:20 pm

"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.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4291
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: The Philosophy of Dankness: Mapping the Ineffable

Postby Tab » Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:46 pm

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.
Image
User avatar
Tab
Deeply Shallow
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:49 pm

Re: The Philosophy of Dankness: Mapping the Ineffable

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Mon Jan 20, 2020 5:21 pm

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
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security
wind up with neither."
"Ben Franklin"
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7912
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: The Philosophy of Dankness: Mapping the Ineffable

Postby Parodites » Fri Jan 24, 2020 1:16 pm

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. :

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)

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.
Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat.

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.
-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

Measure the breaking of the Flesh in the flesh that is broken.
[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]
User avatar
Parodites
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:03 pm

Re: The Philosophy of Dankness: Mapping the Ineffable

Postby Tab » Fri Jan 24, 2020 1:32 pm

Heard of Heidegger, but never read him directly, something about lions..? We're not though, we are humans. Damn no, that was Witty.

Haydigger :D wrote:the language which is spoken when one expresses oneself, there lies an average intelligibility; and in accordance with this intelligibility the discourse which is communicated can be understood to a considerable extent, even if the hearer does not bring himself into such a kind of Being towards what the discourse is about as to have a primordial understanding of it. We do not so much understand the entities which are talked about; we already are listening only to what is said-in-the-talk as such. What is said-in-the-talk gets understood; but what the talk is about is understood only approximately and superficially. We have the same thing in view, because it is in the same averageness that we have a common understanding of what is said.


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."
Image
User avatar
Tab
Deeply Shallow
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:49 pm

Re: The Philosophy of Dankness: Mapping the Ineffable

Postby Parodites » Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:33 pm

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. 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.
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.
Last edited by Parodites on Fri Jan 24, 2020 10:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat.

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.
-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

Measure the breaking of the Flesh in the flesh that is broken.
[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]
User avatar
Parodites
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:03 pm

Re: The Philosophy of Dankness: Mapping the Ineffable

Postby Tab » Fri Jan 24, 2020 7:40 pm

parodites wrote: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.


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.

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.


Looking at the redit, seems indeed the learning curve is steep. :D 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.

Well you know what? I fucking eat lasagna on Christmas, with toast and miso paste, and tamarind candies.


That's Anyday-food. Not Christmas-day food.

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.


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.
Image
User avatar
Tab
Deeply Shallow
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:49 pm

Re: The Philosophy of Dankness: Mapping the Ineffable

Postby Parodites » Fri Jan 24, 2020 10:29 pm

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: 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)

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."
Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat.

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.
-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

Measure the breaking of the Flesh in the flesh that is broken.
[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]
User avatar
Parodites
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:03 pm

Next

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users