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.)