1.00.0
Life is an illusion which art penetrates and death pops.
1.00.1
All moral ends are in some sense beginnings, especially in art.
1.00.2
Writing is a compulsion with half the present in mind and the other
half fixed often unconsciously on immortality.
1.00.3
Philosophy has to, unfortunately like the argument from first cause,
find its resting point in something groundless or in something given.
1.00.4
This given can be the manifold of organized sensations, or the act of
being, or of Being itself, or of Will, or will to power. In
scientific terms it is merely energy, activity, a cause objectified
yet in the most abstract terms. Perhaps the inner impulse of things
is sorge, care, elan vital. Perhaps it is the force that moves the
flower and precipitates earthquakes. Still it remains unmoved and
unified, a force beyond which we cannot speculate. A noumenon. Here
we reach the limits of ontology as well as epistemology. And there is
the problem of other minds, only held together by the assumption of a
shared language. But everybody’s language is full of strange sides.
1.00.5
While I am using a hammer I am still conscious of its parts and its
surrounding
kitchen or workshop. It
is rare indeed that we are in the moment as one, and often only
retrospectively. It is more rare now with the selfies and phones, we
are aware of our supposed good times. Which detracts from the
immersion in that fleeting good time. Memory is vital in
immortalising such minutes, but memory is her own storage facility
and delivers up only what she chooses. This is especially true as you
grow old. Surprises abound. Dreams are equally unpredictable, a past
montage.
1.00.6
One way whilst young to ensure the imprint of memory is be
forthright, be bold.
1.00.7
We can ask everything of everything except the impulse and necessity
of the asking. Why must we inquire why of everything? And to ask why
of the questioning ‘why’ itself is only to prove it is
fundamental in the structure of our intellect’s organisation of the
sensory and its transformation into perception. For why is the just
the inside aspect of cause to which is assigned each sensoria: the
cause of that effect striking now upon my senses as an effect is in
fact a cat, a box, a door, the leaning tower of pisa. At some point
our concepts wade in as we grow more sophisticated, erudite, and
older.
1.00.8
These truths, and proofs are whole to be derived from the Kant and
Schopenhauerian approach to conscious perception. Schopenhauer had a
great deal more to say about the symbiotic movement of the mood, the
interior, and to that we apply our poetic interest. As within so
without I reckon.
1.00.9
The will is more and more pointedly felt the more bored you are and
the more you have scanned the history of ideas. Such distractions as
playing a game become so futile in your mind it is only the wish not
to upset a companion who wants to kill that time, any time, in your
company that can drag you surprised to the board, or to the hand of
cards. Such timekiller.
1.01.0
Philosophy revolves around the logos which stands for the
word: I believe the word to be ‘curious’. It of course implies
more than one subject to intend something and another to understand,
which is evidence of other minds perhaps although not logically
bulletproof. I believe the logos to be hovering between both modes of
its manner to be heard and how it was meant, and this goes for all
conversations.
1.01.1
Language is a serpent with many heads and when one’s cut off many
grow to replace them.
1.01.2
Accents borderline on other languages when packed with their peculiar
slang, idioms and forms of speech unique to an area. Although it’s
another magic feature of languages that it doesn’t take but a
little leap for them to find an understanding. Often the other side
of this is speaking at cross purposes. But that usually finds its way
out much to the relief of the linguistically distant parties. There
we find the root of one convergent language relating them through the
past.
1.01.3
Philosophy has past the point of running rings around language and
has again begun to speak of things as though they may be denoted.
This is to be welcomed if it is to integrate science and be aware of
its findings in its own speculations or omnipotent theorizing.
Science is struck by the cosmos and the inner conscience too. They
have discovered beyond doubt that an AI system must be wired to a
body.
1.0.1.4
I wonder what AI intelligence will make of the once again all too
obvious divide between the Cartesian mind and the material body.
1.01.5
Will reason be bolted on to decide what needs the robot must fulfill,
although aside from fuel and perform its program what is there to
motivate software? More data for more what – power? - power to
instigate what, a basic body.
1.01.6
Some AI have been taught how to speak with their own replies. These
are of course algorithms. Probably random but at the same time taught
to learn and deploy ever more sophisticated replies. This would still
never manage the random ways a human mind can alter. You cannot
predict awkwardness, humour, cogitation and treason. The Turin test
cannot empathize. There is no inside, no poetry to speak of.
1.01.7
There may also be an infinite way of interpreting a text. I do not
believe this but better men believe so. How long does a machine have
– however powerful – to deliver a cogent analysis on an infinite
supply of possible interpretations. Another reason I think that
postmodern supposition is a lie.
1.01.8
We can put aside the problem of other minds by recourse to the almost
universal phenomenon of empathy. A smile or a hand to pack a shopping
bag; waiting at a crossing and being waved by across by a driver: if
there are no other minds we certainly act like they do exists without
exception. Unless angry and caught up in the veil of maya where
nothing exists in the world but you. In a rat race world this is
bound to happen. But for the most part I find people are kind.
1.01.9
Why can’t we easily as put aside the external world when there’s
a realm that’s seemingly shared by other minds: scandalous yes to
think otherwise, and selfish to say it. We’ve something low
the surface to take note of beneath the sheen and it lives strong in
other beings. It is time to be kind.
1.02.0
Cause is the discretion the whole spectrum puts together into a
varied matrix of shapes and sounds and inner sides, appreciated both
objectively and mindfully inwardly.
1.02.1
Freedom is the whole of your character in its multiple layers
responding to fatalistic webs of outer manifesting causation that you
go along with dragging the heft of your blinded conscience.
Consciousness drags both you astray.
1.0.2.2
Philosophy is art in that it stops the will and the conscious mind
from having their typical fight and instead are ensnared together in
a unifying embrace of something worth of both their time and energy
and submission. They pray.
1.02.3
Philosophy asks questions and tries to supply answers to the very
quest it has embarked upon and therefore chases its own tail like
Ourobouros with a twist, it is a mobius helix.
1.02.4
Philosophy aims at the highest good but upon finding it asks what
makes that so good and therefore faces an infinite regress aiming
upwards for what is the Platonic Form of the Good or Goodness. We
permanently create new virtues to add to the pinnacle of perfection
and yet have to come to some consensus. For many Love is the highest
idea we can aspire to and yet some love involves suicidal acts and
giving ones self over to the transcendent afterlife – a good that
transcends
this mortal life. But might we ask is the better than that good? And
find rejection of the schema free of value and there fore negatively
‘good’. Still this occupies the highest ascetic ideal of all
religions with few exceptions. What good can come after renouncing
good. Perhaps real freedom?
The mystical creed?
1.02.5
Socrates brings us little but irony and more questions. Only in Plato
does the Form of the Good take on real reification. For Socrates it
was always an abstract tool to devalue other values. Like Kant’s
noumenon it is an abstract test or limiting case by which to tame our
human value ‘objects’.
1.02.6
In Heidegger. apart from his tensedness approach to time with which
to contrast scientific linear time, we find a human being enmeshed in
a world around him in its motive-laden structure (and not its
Cartesian mind-body split/schism) where he is free at any time to
break free of the expected norm but as a rule will go along with the
practices of ’das man’- an analysis which is describing I think a
lower portion of general humanity – a certain type of person with a
lifestyle or else a passing state for all of us at some or other
given time to participate in however briefly; still I do no believe
it stands for the curious, the attentive, the artist, or the
awe-struck traveler. Heidegger was describing the Sun-reading ‘volk’.
And not most Western human beings. Perhaps white bourgeois human
beings, perhaps. But I do not believe in grouping types of person.
There are unique members of ethic minorities who read and read
existentialism, Nietzsche, Chomsky, and Kant.
1.02.7
There is definitely a state or substance involved in reflection. It
is what flashes or else studiously passes through are mind when we
are otherwise intent on doing nothing.
1.02.8
We find that all our immediate needs are being met, we are sitting
outside against a wall perhaps outside a launderette, and all we can
do is scan with our eyes and reflect: on cars that pass, on people
that walk, on the church and its vast steeple. These are not snippets
of information that feed our will. They’re are the surplus of
perception as conjured by the will, they form the function of our
being we call aesthetic. It is the supra-substance that material form
is altering into.
1.02.9
I believe that the world, cosmos, universe is an odd 3D hourglass
where the sand is all matter and the glass is light or red-shift
radiation, and the air pocket left behind is consciousness – each
grain a brain giving shape to the whole.
1.03.0
The universe is a mind structured out of the forms we bring to bear,
time, space, infra red light and causation. Collectively we give it
its shape, teach itself how immense an understanding for life, dumb,
astounding life, costs over the years, to creatures that barely get
it, but they tried their hardest. And call this last attempt, a final
bet, an experiment.
103.1
Words are the last thing to arrive in this world and perhaps will
remain the last, and no infinite transposition. You cannot put an
infinite interpretation on the contents of the Rosetta stone, that
has been verified doubly. The material or historical meaning could
indeed go on for ever, thanks to our ignorance and competitive
nature, but only one meaning is correct, because only one meaning was
correct. Or why immortalize the meaning?
103.2
If the Bible was supposed to be read literally there’s be no place
for inconsistent accounts nor the ingenious way it has been put
together almost hypertextually: it was supposed to be interpreted and
made that quite plain. There are books that have infinite
interpretations because they were intended to be self-contradictory,
cross-textual and self-reflective.
1.03.3
But aside from the passage of time which alter the meanings of words
there are passages that admit of simply one reading. You cannot say
that an engineering piece of mathematics demanded more than one read
and still expect the device being described to work. Some words mean
one single thing mathematically precise. Others invite verbal play.
1.03.4
Philosophy has not advanced beyond Schopenhauer and his disciples
Nietzsche and Wittgenstein. Heidegger has tried to describe a small
part of our every day lives as though we all were engaged every
second of every day in the task we are doing. Nietzsche and
Wittgenstein know that partly what they are doing is separating the
soul from the moving picture that didn’t satisfy them, and didn’t
explain itself as to why it wouldn’t just obey them. They couldn’t
accept that the world didn’t care for them. Despite how much they
cared about the world. They hated their fellow man, but were
compassionate. That is what makes them geniuses. They lived
contradiction.
1.03.5
Derrida glorified writing as opposed to the spoken logos. At least
part of that has to do with endurance but it also implies a world
that is fleeting and without significance.
1.03.6
It is true that the oral traditions, however endurable and noble,
have always the element of hearsay about them. Why not the same for
writing? I guess Derrida would say you have the hard evidence which
we can deconstruct and get closer to the erasure of the Western
tradition. All very self-reflexive with respect to his books and in
his opposition, or not, to Being. I find Derrida to be a charlatan
not worth an insight.
1.03.7
Philosophy is not the extension of prior chains or the inventions of
of new ones out of elements of the same; all chains of reason or
logical proofs are based and contain entirely tautologies. At root
every term needs a material content or else the more abstract content
of other concepts – themselves eventually made traceable to
experience. Philosophy is almost incommunicable in language, it it a
catalogue of insights, perceptual for the most part, but occasionally
as mere structure as in maths, certain forms of poetry, and music.
Philosophy is the scaffolding on art’s building.
1.03.8
Philosophy is the colour in an arrangement of flowers, the reasoning
is the stalk and petals.
1.03.9
Publishing is the walk of shame the queen of literature makes when
all shame and self-respect has gone and left her. We have self
publishing and publicizing now, we can walk enshrouded while our hard
won works swing all about us.
1.04.0
Philosophy requires a life documented in print to make conviction
compete with the like of Galileo and Socrates. Eschaton was always
meant as a sacrifice of fresh ideas.
1.04.1
Before internet was in each home and pocket there was something to be
said for baring open your soul even in the midst of anonymity. A new
authenticity of critique was born for a broken moment until the
cliques moved in. A shame.
1.04.2
In a way anonymity brought more truth to bear on the chatrooms and
hangouts where there was nothing to hide, only judgment to deal with
and nothing was personal. Now selfies are set to fake cry if someone
mentions your lips, no matter what has left them. Your food is what
personalizes you.
1.04.3
I would like the world to flourish, in a self-perpetuating
equilibrium where thrust has disappeared. Where research gets done
because the researchers want to be there, not because they must
compete and publish.
1.04.4
Philosophy takes its time but will shift towards the internet.
Despite the cat pictures and porn. The long form is coming into its
own, there is a market out there. To think not on your own, but for
your own. Philosophy will spread and rescue the soul. Put yourself in
your work. Write in blood
1.04.5
Or write in stone; build tin edifices. Revive the Romantic in the
Modernist way. Be damned with postmodernism its mad references, its
cut of now, and identity. I will set down.
1.04.6
Philosophy wears the crown of all the arts and disciplines. Morality
flouders in past outdated ideas of duty, and hanging on the state.
Morality is the answer to perception and other minds: morality is
compassion. And empathy, which is different from sympathy which may
slow you down. There are no empathy cards. Empathy is the ability to
understand another being’s travails, and allowing hardship, help
them.
1.04.7
Philosophy leaves things as they are, but at the same time brushes
them with a dusting of stardust, a veneer of awe, and the courage to
ask tough questions. We answer them here.
1.04.08
Philosophy is wherever we left off, so long as we’re still here.
0.0.00
No comments:
Post a Comment