"First Metaphysics" by Dennis Kane

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
41

Everyone,

I’m trying to “hit upon” something here that I’ve never before attempted. I’m not quite sure how effective I will be at communicating it…

The concept of space-itself (difference) manifests upon the annihilation of the I-world unity: relativity becomes a possibility. This “new” spatial dimensionality has “room” for every conceivable kind of “thing”: subject, object, matter, state, process, mass, energy, substance, essence, cause, effect, concept, idea, thought, mind, consciousness, person, animal, etc. All of these “things” are only insofar as they are relations within the context of world-space-as-such. All of these “things” are only to the extent that the world merely appears to the I. To say that the world is only a collection of massive objects and not a collection of essential ideas – and vice versa – is utter nonsense. The world, as a mere appearance, consists in every possible relation between every possible kind of thing.

Therefore, it is relation-ness-itself that must be overcome in order to “repair” the annihilation of the I-world unity, and not the particular relations that appear to manifest between mind/body, subject/object, cause/effect, etc. In other words, we must figure out how to transcend spatiality-itself rather than particular duality-constructs. This is the crux of the authentic existential project.

The only way to do this is to understand time as an absolute (smooth) fullness rather than a quantum (discrete) successiveness. In fact, time is the absolute fullness. This absolute fullness is nothing other than the I-experience. The world dissolves as a mere appearance as it re-unites with the I.

Spatiality-itself, then, is our “field of play” upon which every kind of “thing” is beheld as a relational-possibility. Spatiality-itself can never be actually-grasped but only possibly-overcome. As such, none of these comments can be taken as an attempt to actualize something called a “transcendent state,” but always only to hold open the door to its possibility.

42

Kane:

You might anger a bit if I suggested that your model bares a striking resemblance to Spinozean theory.

No, this is not an insult or some attempt to strip you of your orginality. I am only saying that so far, and without a clear definition of your terms, I can only compare the ideas to what I am already familiar with.

What I ultimately see is an emphasis on existence-as-infinity, and the cooperative parts of both substance and thought through differing degrees of extension in space. For example, ‘thinking,’ as an extension with effects, those being conscious reflections; the Cartesian “awareness of being aware,” has an innate intuition of eternity, and this originates, ironically, from its suspicions of time and change in substance- the empirical forms of matter. The model begins to take a rationalist turn and leaves the empirical setting.

In other words, we don’t experience infinity per se, but we suppose it by our experience of change. For a person to actually witness eternity, one would have to exist throughout the entire duration of a things process of change- as if one were outside existence and watching it happen. So since this cannot be experienced, it is intuited rationally, as a sort of Kantian a priori analytical judgement; time and space do not really exist, but are creations of the mind as they cannot be afforded by a Humean/Lockean experience.

With this in mind, your model begins to resemble the monism of Spinoza via a reduction of thinking into substance itself, or rather, an equal extension of existence as that of matter- Time as non-existent, but necessary for experience…which is false, a sort of shadow of eternity. Thought-as-substance: substance-as-thought. This is the “I-world” concept that I think you are building here. It is very similiar to Kantian idealism with a dash of Spinozean monism. Thinking and existing sort of cancel each other out in this respect, and form a unification as one timeless entity. Perhaps this is the transcendence you speak of. Could this be God? The universe being a single breath, and returning back to singularity.

No longer can we determine the reality of a ‘thing’ by witnessing its existence as a series of ‘states,’ as these are untuited as ever-changing, and therefore, never attaining a true identity.

I think the important question here is “will the universe collapse,” as supposed by popular physicists, and along with it the categories of time and space, disintegrating with the loss of the mind. If so, this presents a rather paradoxical notion of nothingness-as-somethingness, since we literally can’t imagine a real ‘void.’

This hurts my brain, Kane. Help a nigga out.

43

detrop,

Just looking at the first sentence and quickly skimming through your post, let me just put out my initial reaction:
HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THAT I LOVE ALL PHILOSOPHERS AND ALL PHILOSOPHIES!!!

I can’t get enough of that shit. I live and breathe it. It’s what has kept me alive for Christ sake.

I mean, how can I possibly be angry at someone like you who has attempted to hold up a light of critical inquiry at my thinking? You compare me to Spinoza??? How in the f*** can that be a bad thing?

I mean check this shit out. If you do a Google search for “First Metaphysics,” you come up with my stinking system (this thread) as the FIRST HIT! If you search without the quotes, I’m second behind the Stanford site’s expositions of Aristotle and Kant!!

I feel like I’m in a freaking dream world here. Like I just put up on my http://dennykane.lnux.us website, you, detrop, are so smart that it makes my eyes bleed. Yes, I’ve been doing a ton of going back into the history of this board and looking at old threads.

Before attempting to even look at the meat of your post, let me say this. I am absolutely fascinated with the concept of dimensionality-as-such, and how a primordial “thinking” about it can allow one to possibly transcend “this” world that constantly pisses all over us. I feel it is within this notion of dimensionality-as-such that all ways of thinking, from religiosity to scientism, can be “understood.”

From where I stand, then, if people were to “stretch” their minds to the point where they can do the type of thinking that I suggest, then there can be some kind of common ground reached, resulting in some kind of “real world” that I might actually get a kick out of.

I am simply using the common conception of time as a starting point so that we may all come into a fundamental understanding of the “whereupon” of all conceptual thinking-as-such.

Now, if I happened to accidentally answer any of the questions you asked of me in the meat of your post, then I guess that’s cool. I am in no frame of mind to parse through your insane critical abilities right now. From the threads I have seen, you put blood-thirsty pit bulls to shame.

I haven’t worked in over five months now (driving a cab), and I’m about to go back working the mean streets of Tampa for the night shift. I’m really starting to get amped up in anticipation, so I can barely even see straight right now.

I really need this break to let me get back into the swing of things. I will try to deal with your specific questions when I can get myself to do this. I just know it’s not this moment. I was looking forward to a critical response from you, but I was at the same time scared shitless of it. Just let me breathe for a second. I’ll get back to you. If I can.

44

What meaning, if any, would the following formula have for Dennis Kane’s authentic existential experiment?

[size=200]NOT ([/size] [size=200]) [/size]

I’d like to know what existential meaning would remain if the “good news” were negated, in two different ways:

a) If the possibility of salvation from Space-Difference modalities in general was negated.
b) If the possibility of salvation from Space-Difference modality for personally Dennis Kane was negated.

“What are your reasons to treat Kane’s exemplary work with such suspicion?”

  1. His self-ascribed inner tendency toward community and distaste for solitude.
  2. His wiseacring, a shortcoming I associate with a lack of strict teachers.

I know a little about one real (practical) answer for the “How” aspect of the Time-Identity mode, I’d like to explain to you its formula, Mr.Kane:

This symbol (signifying a torture implement) means: “Time-Identity mode was restored AS FACTUAL POSSIBILITY in an exceptional human being, through conscious suffering onto death.”

With great gratitude I AM and remain,

-WL

45

pot… kettle… black?

While I’m not a fan of Dennis’ insistence on proselytzing his viewpoints in some kind of social movement, or whatever it is hes planning. Honestly, it is a bit of a distraction from the discussion of the core concepts of his philosophy. I find it more than humorous that you have come to here to preach your viewpoints to him in a rather sensational manner. Particularly, since you seem to pretend that you understand his philosophy and his terminology deeply enough to imply that Jesus is responsible for “Time-Identity”''s ability be restored, and that somehow following Jesus will lead to the restoration of “Time-Identity”, of course all the while without saying anything of substance.

In the end, Im not even sure whether this reply was worth writing.

46

Nah, its not that easy, Kane. You see, its too soon for such flattery. Your compliments, at this point, only mean “this guy admires me and therefore I like him…let me compliment him.” I wonder how smart I would be had I disagreed with you. No problem though. I would advise a little more caution in the future. Philosophy forums are full of freaks with intentions that would turn you to stone if you saw them. One needs a little claivoyance to find them, (W)hen (L)ooking. [wink]

Despite that, you do seem to be full of enthusiasm, and that’s good. I might suggest that you are little ahead of yourself with the idea that your theory is ground breaking and cutting-edge. Nowadays, in the realm of philosophy, there isn’t much originality…only different combinations of words. This is my reason for my little campaigns against philosophy, here and there, and an attempt to get back to science- where ideas become active and not contemplative. Nonetheless philosophy is fun for passing the time.

WL:

I once was sitting around a camp fire with my father and some frinds, and we were having a conversation about religion and God. I was, of course, in the position of skepticism and clarity of thought, while the others just regurgitated what was fed to them by popular culture. I walked them through the classic arguments for and against God, and eventually we ended up in a state of disarray, them, assuming I, was just trying to show off…or was downright evil. (the typical reaction of the automaton) At the edge of this discussion, my father, who had been drinking alcohol throughout the night, and I suppose had somewhat of a buzz, interrupted me suddenly and said “shut the fuck up.”

It was here that enlightenment rained down upon me like “golden bricks.” In that brief moment I concluded that the battle of good and evil in this universe was reversed, and that, as Twain suggested, it was indeed better to reign in hell than serve in heaven. For no benevolent God could have possibly created my father…the drunken man “wearing his ignorance like a badge of honor,” saying such things to his son to service such a God.

The cross. The suffering. The sacrifice. The suspicion against life and its playful nature. My father hung upon it that night and the universe turned upside down before my eyes.

You come in here, WL, with your crosses and your sarcasm, making a mockery of Kane, as if you know enough about him to speak with such authority. You remind me of my father, the tired old man with two sticks on his back, barely able to carry them.

“Can an ass be tragic,” asked Nietzsche. Indeed, such a load is troublesome to bear.

So tell me a little about this, WL.

I’m all ears.

47

Hold everything!

It was John Milton who said “better to reign in hell than serve in heaven.”

What a clumsy dolt, I am.

See, I’m not that smart after all.

But remember kids, everything is twice reversed. Madmen become violent because they believe in Gods and Devils.

One must become a Jedi, a warrior pacifist, and kill the killers.

48

Let me tell you about Christ, WL. The man was so perfect that to merely mention his name is murder; one man in every million gets it right…and then only by the skin of his teeth, if he’s lucky.

Today this world, these Christians, are filthy hipocrits, moths around a light so hot if they landed it would melt them. They do not even deserve the right to look at the cross, much less bear it or offer it up.

The intensity of a true understanding of Christ would bring you to tears, you would literally die where you stood, before a truth so beautiful it stops time itself.

But no, not today, not in this world. And I will tell you why.

It is impossible to exist today without hurting someone, somewhere, somehow. This world is bound up like a knot of insufferable agony…everyone linked together in an endless chain of affliction. One can’t even buy a tomato at the grocery store without shaming someone, without feeding into a machine of greed, without perpetuating the exploitation of someone, somewhere, somehow.

If you went to the desert with a cane and a blanket and laid yourself upon a rock, out of sight and society, for fourty days and fourty nights…you would earn the right to merely take a peak at the Christ, but not a stare. No, not yet. Your eyes would burn out like black sockets.

On the fourty-first morning, if you went into the city with your cane and your blanket, and walked yourself into an alley to give aid to a dying homeless man…you would earn the right to stare at the Christ, but you could not touch him. No, not yet. Your hands would melt like wax.

If you then gave this man your only possessions, your cane and your blanket…you would earn the right to touch the Christ, but you could not mount the cross. No, not yet. Your body would turn to ashes.

If you then approached the entire world, and offered your life for the ills of every single living human being…you would earn the right to mount that cross.

And you would finally understand the Christ.

But you will not, ever, ever, ever carry that cross around with you like you know something about it, like you have the right to represent it, like you even remotely understand the magnificent power and glory of that symbol, to tell someone at a philosophy forum what they should and should not do. 'Cause if you are at a philosophy forum, you sure as hell ain’t in the desert.

Now take a hike, hipocrit.

To the desert, if you know what’s good for you.

49

fireworks

50

detrop,

Please don’t be flattered when I say you’re smart, you smart-ass :slight_smile:.

I have already stated in this thread that my thinking is profoundly original precisely because there is nothing “ground breaking and cutting edge” about it. It is simply an attempt, through an investigation into the “wherefrom” of spatial-dimensionality-as-such, to “get at” the primordial origin of one’s ownmost Being.

I would just say that you may be essentially misunderstanding the manner of my questioning. I am questioning existentially rather than epistemologically.

I am not going to try to take you head on with your sophisticated word-play, detrop. While I may be “wiser” than you, I am pretty sure that I’m nowhere as “mentally agile” as you. I have no problem with saying that your “You might anger a bit” post left me baffled, in exactly the same way that Sartre leaves me baffled, and Heidegger doesn’t.

For me, the difference between Sartre and Heidegger is simple. While Sartre revels in an inquiry that is “layered atop” spatial-dimensionality, Heidegger dares to inquire into the mystery that is temporal-dimensionality. It is precisely because of this, that relative to Heidegger, Sartre was a philosophical infant. He was still real smart, though :slight_smile:.

There are a couple of major problems with your “phrase-ology” as indicated by these excerpts:

You see, the arch-concepts:
-time
-space
do not hold an “and” relationship. It’s an either/or thing. More precisely, it’s a transcendental thing. Time, as the primordial unity (identity), gets beyond the infinity that is the mere appearance of space.

It’s all too easy, within the degenerate mode of Space-Difference, to “view” time as yet another “spatial container” (an infinity). This happens precisely because a true understanding of time never comes from a simple, reflective viewing but always only an authentic experiencing.

Keep on coming, detrop. This could end up being very good for the both of us.

51

anvildoc,

What social movement is that? All I want to do is try to make a better world for myself. For me, a “philosophically” oriented intentional community would be a highly cool “world” in which to live. It’s not society that I’m worried about, just my own ass. I don’t even know what society is (and I’m not asking for suggestions).

ps Thanks for the PM advice. I think I will do that :slight_smile:.

52

Ha! That’ll be the day.

No worries. My general rule is to not accept compliments, but give them.

See man, here’s the problem with philosophy. That statement is either too much or not enough. I could take that statement and sculpture one hundred different meanings from it, and because of that, I am suspicious of them all. All philosophy comes down to discussion, and not action. You can determine this by taking into account the differences observed in the case that one did not discuss such stuff, and you will see that there are no differences. Philosophy should be a primer and a means to connect with others with action in mind. Philosophy is never the end result. It can’t be. The shit dissappears into thin air.

Excellent. It was Kierkegaard who forced Hegel to admit that he did not know what to do, and instead wasted his time avoiding the existential settings of life by designing entirely too complicated systems of hog-wash.

There was a time when the word ‘epistemology’ did not even exist. Eternity has always existed…language is a contingency. Viva a la Kierkegaard.

Fine. How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie-roll tootsie-pop?

I was just trying to be polite. My first impression of you was that you didn’t want to be compared to other philosophers. I was working with you…tilling the soil.

I suppose you are entertaining a Relativity model. As I understand it, Quantum Mechanics has shown that a particle cannot be observed as both ‘in’ space X and ‘at’ time Y simultaneously. The only challenge I see here is that the traditional model of ‘space warping time’ cannot be proved unless both coordinates can be juxtaposed- ‘placement’ and ‘movement’ together in one observation. Originally ‘time’ and ‘space’ could be compared to one another so that they had a relative relationship. Now, in modern physics, an entity that is not observed in its own ‘space’ and ‘time’ certainties cannot be ‘relative’ to another if the former has to have definite positions in order to be compared to the latter. ‘This’ can only be relative to ‘that’ if we know before hand where it is itself.

I’m trying my best, dude. Its the terms and concepts behind them that I am struggling to aquaint myself with.

Language is a bitch.

Ah, but the moment you have wisdom that another does not…you are obligated to share it. A philosopher has a duty to other men. You can’t just get smart and run off into the woods, dude. You gotta share the love.

53

"one, two, three, crunch…

three"

-Imp

54

detrop,

I am entertaining a model that asks of the “relationship” between relativity and absolutivity. This relationship I call one of “transcendence.” This model foresees a series of questions based on the transcendental relationship between the continuum and the quantum, or: the finite and the in-finite, or: unity and multiplicity.

You really have to understand something basic about me. “You” do not exist. “Your” words are read my me as if they are my own spontaneous thinking. Therefore, this whole “discussion” thing is about my actions, qua my philosophy. Therefore, there really is no discussion going on here in the sense of some kind of weird dialectical materialism/spiritualism between “objective” Subjects. There is no We. Just I.

I am only here to refine my personal philosophy just so I may possibly be able to lead some kind of “good life.” It is my hope that I may be able to find some kind of personal transcendence, aka an established reputation, aka a good job, aka a little bit of ka-ching, aka a whole lotta love. Real Rush Limbaugh type stuff.

Yes. All philosophy is at once “too much” and “not enough.” For me, it is far too much to handle (it overfills my mind). For us, it is precisely nothing.

55

That’s deep, man. Real deep. You might be on to something, in a super-galactic omnipresent one-ness sort of way. The singularity.

Tell me, are you familiar with Nietzsche’s concept of the Eternal Reoccurance?

You mean some bling-bling? Me too. I wanna be a hussala, have mad bitches and riches, fuck dees diggin ditches…the shit gives me da twitches.

Wait. No. Money is the root of all evil. Burn it.

56

I have heard of the concept of Eternal Recurrence (no ‘o’). For me, however, Nietzsche is the direct opposite of Heidegger in that he is a prolific aphorist. I simply cannot give any weight to the “aphoristical” style. I mean, is there really any such thing as a Heidegger quote? (Word-constructs like Dasein and being-in-the-world do not apply.)

So, no, I haven’t spent to much time trying to “study” Nietzsche because I think an “understanding” of him is ultimately impossible. That’s Nihilism for ya.

Coming from someone like Nietzsche, I would understand this concept of Eternal Recurrence as being a comment on man’s ultimate pointlessness and folly. Most of the time, this is my exact frame of mind (hello depression and anxiety?)

I suppose that his Uber Mensch would have the “inner gumption” to overcome all of this nastiness and have the “wherewithall” to lead himself into some kind of personal Nirvana.

You could say that it is my very attempt to become this “overman,” via my own transcendental philosophy.

In other words, yeah… Nietzsche’s ah-ight.

57

With all requisite negroid pleasantries now out of the way, I should at last like to hear from the real Mr. Dennis Kane, the authentic existenzexperimentalist.

You do not fool me, Mr.Kane with your metaphysical format, nor with these moments of weakness you allow yourself (especially now that you’ve found people who will listen) where you lament your lack of worldly things.

“I will now paint a pale magical unicorn for you”, says D.Kane, but instead paints beautiful, strong, real race horses.

A certain quality you possess will not allow your brush to paint unicorns - very remarkable! Unfortunately I think that the voice of this “conscience” will soon become dulled and inaudible if you continue to blaspheme against it by engaging in petty exhibitionism.

I am stricken with the beautiful, expressive simplicity of your formula. I refuse to believe that you have produced it accidentally. One simply does not sit down and draw a map of places they have never visited, not such lucid maps.

Let’s therefore talk, if possible, about the truth. You’ve deliberately obscured and tucked away your own relationship to it, hiding behind the idea that “for you” a philosophy is a formula, a symbol, a map. Mistake: philosophy is your pathological impetus to discover the truth, a “love for wisdom” (I insist it should be classed together with i.e. “zoophilia” - etymologically, and not only etymologically). Formulae, categories, classes - all these things are always merely byproducts of digestive activity and never the goal of your work.

Your happiness (or the happiness of people who will consume your waste) does not and cannot constitute your goal either. I will offer an extensive explanation on this point if necessary.

You are in many ways in great danger and may at any moment succumb to everything from schizophrenia to “simple” personal vanity. Already you experience the very symptomatic suicidal tendencies manifesting during low points of hoplessness and despair; be warned there is also a more dangerous kind that might demand the same act from you during moments of great exaltation, or during the agonizing experience of contrast between high and low pressure!

How do I know this - most of what you are doing now has been done by people who’ve come before, I mean very specific people here, you understand (for they are relatively rare in every epoch, and their names are not Jesus, Ghandi, Mother Teresa etc.).

Your method of “wandering”, for instance, has an extensively documented practical history and it’s a valid way for achieving certain very worthwhile ends, if the right conditions (many to do with attitude) are satisfied. It is frightening that you do not know about these conditions! Unfortunately I am not anybody qualified to explain about them to you.

In this day and age it is a criminal waste of energy to re-invent the bicycle for yourself. What I’d like to talk with you about is how to look for teachers, an activity you are not familiar with according to your online diaries - as you’ve always searched only for concepts.

-WL

58

D.K.,

"For me, however, Nietzsche is the direct opposite of Heidegger in that he is a prolific aphorist.

So, no, I haven’t spent to much time trying to “study” Nietzsche because I think an “understanding” of him is ultimately impossible."

It’s good to see that you have such an iron grip on Heidegger. Strange that you haven’t noticed that Heidegger wrote over 500 pages on the “utterly impossible” to understand of Nietzsche.

Nietzsche: Volumes One and Two : Volumes One and Two

Nietzsche: Vols. 3 and 4 (Vol. 3: The Will to Power as Knowledge and as Metaphysics; Vol. 4: Nihilism)

Here’s a sample essay:

Nietzsche’s Fundamental Metaphysical Position
By Martin Heidegger

escapefromwatchtower.com/hei … zsche.html

Dunamis

59

WL,

I’ve already stated in this thread that Heidegger is my teacher. He taught me to inquire deeply into the “being” of time-itself.

I think I’m the last person to speak to my own psychological issues. If you want to ask me, you can throw everything in the bag. Whatever “disease” of the psyche you want to put in there, I think I got it. I don’t know why I got all these issues. Brain chemistry? Lack of a solid ethical constitution? Demonic possession?

I think Bill the Cat sums up my situation the best when he says, “Ack??? thbbththth…”

60

Dunamis,

Wow, good to see you speaking directly to me. Before I attempt to respond to you, let me just say that there is nothing I have been able to disagree with you about in all my “surfings” of this forum. You are good, there is no doubt.

About my supposed “iron grip” on Heidegger. I wouldn’t put in quite like that. I would just say that he inspired me to go off on tangents that he did not dare to go on himself.

But yes, I suppose one could interpret Nietzsche, and his philosophical implications all one wanted. But I would still maintain that one could not ever hope to understand a philosopher who attempted to “destroy” all possible meta-physical systems rather than building one of his own.

In other words, I don’t think that one can honestly take a position of authentically understanding a philosopher of Nihilism. To me, Understanding and Nihilism are necessary antipodes.