The incoherent are forever lost if not governed by the coherent.
We lost god. He is not lost, we are. The incoherent result is absurd. Therefore God is absurd, or god-ness an absurdity. But not so,as the point made that god has his own reasons.I
It would better all around for the absurdity of asethetics than of god.
Look around You James, at the abstraxt, the absurd, do they not appeal? Can you not please, by loosing yourself in them? Lou Salome lost herself in the mirror. Is it not preferable to break his image out of madness? The madness of Deleuze’s mirror?
(Probably an anger against the gods)
Forgive james flights not fancy, of, but breaking the mirror literally, has been ongoing, a madness of impression, where none to well thread, -and again
we are discussing this as ratonally as we can, or may,there are 2 ways one this way, the other that, being and the interpretation, the aesthetics of reason. can we not give an inch, i promise to not to take a mile. Am i lost? (In a sense cause i do not have a port folio, so can give only poetic justice some excuse. the liscence, which i seek at moments of rarity. I feel lost, but holding , trying, to hold my head above water, not much ground, yet trying gracefully to fly. A poetic metaphysics.
They all buried the hatchet and for a good reason: for grace, so that the swalow may soar, fearlessly, through the azure of the infinite grace.
Force? Farce? only the difference between humble wovels, an a, and an o. a-the first letter of the first word, ever, a particular, ; and o, the vowel of wonder and the primal sound. and connect them- the realization emerges from the singular first, the farce of the ages, reduced, to a nominal essence, a fraud, to terrorize others in denial, BUT emerging victoriously, the fraud, as the communal essence, and we are all, therefore 1. OH! (But 1 in perhaps in infinity-1) How many infinities are there? As many as there are turtles laying upon turtles.
James: Honestly upon honesty, i am really trying to make myself seem agreeable here, and if You promise to sink me here, i will slip into the nearest pond, and hide my head within my shell. -Of course if You do that, i may harbor a mixture of some anger and guilt and shame.
Where is Fixed Cross, ? if You come across him, would You tell him HI fo me?
Well taking things to the limit is the other side of rationality, and that is where aesthetics, the forerunner of reality is leading the way. I feel therefore i exist. I wish i could take an epic journey at this time, but can only turn inward, with the ticket
i have.
Kundalini is a mindless serpent of use only to annihilate, not much different than a horde of Nietzscheans.
I am the hand on its tail.
What?
Will these hands ne’er be clean?
from Nietzche and Lady Machbeth, William Desmond
" Can i put the matter more positively? The equivocal approach demurs about the one good that runs through all goods, or relative to which the others can be subordinated hierarchically. Diversity does not immediately call for reduction to unity; unity is one value among others. Is it clear there is any unity of virtues? In this respect, the equivocal approach represents a return to the givenness of the middle , when we live and move through a variety of possibilities, without trouble about unity."
But i can almost post scribe Your comment : easily said, or maybe, what’s all the fuss about? maybe? i am guessing, but what does one expect from an Irish Catholic. This is obviously post Vatican Council II.
The German mathematician C. L. Ferdinand von Lindemann proved (published in 1882) that [size=150]π[/size] (pi) is a transcendental number, meaning it is not a root of any polynomial with rational coefficients.
[size=150]π[/size] is irrational, even transcendental. The transformation of the same area of a circle in a square is impossible. This impossibility was given the designation “quadrature of the circle” because no one knew what the reason for that impossibility was; but 1882 C. L. Ferdinand von Lindemann showed that this problem is in principle unsolvable.
Wolfgang Pauley used the principle to further connections to Jung’s idea of synchronicity. I am still on to the parapsychological ramifications of this puzzle going back thousands of years.
…
deleted
I guess you mean Wolfgang Pauli.
Of course, my bad. So the advancement of the insufficint logical basis of mathematics being in doubt is sustained.
On Your note, the irrational relates to the square, and the transcendent to the circle. Correct me on that, not that the irrational and the transcendent are in any way related. At least that is what i can understand from what i saw, and what i deduced from what You paraphrased.
I touched on that many years ago in studying why Pi could not be represented in digital form. All irrational numbers and calculus are about converting a “natural unknown into an unnatural known” or “perfectly describing nature”. At that time, I considered creating a number system based on Pi such that the number “1” represented our current number “Pi”. All measurements would be in the form of Pi-units. And although there would be a few advantages of that, I didn’t see it as resolving the more serious problems at hand.
I haven’t verified that it is impossible to square a circle and these days, it would probably be a waste of time to try. But seeing where I am now, I suspect that I should have looked into the squaring of the circle issue more seriously long ago. These days, I am far, far past being tired of resolving issues that no one really cares about. If I proved that it really is possible to square the circle and posted that, nothing would change. Society is past the point of no return from its musings.
But if a particular number isn’t exactly known, such as Pi, no portion or exponent of it can be known. And since the “squaring of the circle” requires a square with exactly the square root of Pi as its dimensions, to resolve the issue would probably mean resolving Pi perfectly, which cannot be done in digital form. Although perhaps some exponential of Pi can be digitally represented.
The transcendentals are a subset of the irrationals. A “square” refers to an exactly knowable entity, always unnatural or conceptual, not existing in the physical universe. The “curve”, or “circle” in this case, refers to a natural entity that might actually physically exist. The effort was to find a way to exactly describe the physical universe. Calculus is as close as they got. RM:AO explains all of the actual ontological issues (“what is there”) but current mathematics can’t deal with all that RM:AO presents (“how much is there”). RM:AO presents an infinite matrix of infinite series wherein no one variable can be calculated without simultaneously resolving all the others. I have a program that approximates that effort so as to emulate space and the formation of sub-atomic particles, but really needs better programming and a bigger computer.
Might not synchronous events coincide with this idea? And James, how big a computer would be needed for this kind of verification? Supercomputers are becoming smaller, heard great progress is made with Craig types. Could a day arrive, when, such devices may be available on the market for commercial use, for about the price a lap top costs today? Of course by that time, perhaps, everyone may loose interest.
The “verification”, I have already done. That wasn’t the issue, although extremely complex to first resolve. The issue now is merely one of properly emulating such as to yield usable measurements in practical physics, economics, psychology, and sociology. The size of the computer required for such a thing depends upon the programming method. I could create a hard-wire programmed computer that would do the job very, very quickly, but it wouldn’t be very small. Semiconductor Valley could probably then reduce that into your wrist watch.
And interestingly, such a hard-wire computer actually forms the metaphysical into the physical. If a person was programmed into the metaphysical emulation, an actual real person would be in that watch, just as real as you.
And the world has already “lost interest” in any truth, as you have demonstrated.
Which can perhaps “be digitally represented”?
The algebraic irrational numbers and the transcendental irrational numbers (for example “π” [“Pi”] or “e” [“Euler’s number”]) belong - of course -to the irrational numbers (cp. in the following Illustration):
I don’t understand the question. Which what?
And giving the squaring of the circle a little thought this morning, I realize that I can describe both circles and squares in terms of angles. And if I can get a rational relationship between those angle measurements, I could “square the circle”. But I haven’t gone that far yet.
Exponential of Pi.
You “could ‘square the circle’”?
I don’t know what exponential. I said that perhaps there might be one. It would have to be a pretty complicated one, but I think that I might have found a better approach.
And realize that “squaring the circle” has nothing to do with a “square-circle”.
Just because someone, as brilliant as he was, said that something couldn’t be done, it doesn’t mean that it is impossible. But a “square-circle” is impossible by definition of “square” and “circle” - obviously impossible, although you could have a “squarish-circle” or a “circlish-square”.
If you will “square the circle” someday, then those who have the power to determine or even dictate the relations between humans and their language, especially its semantics, will probably shange the definition of “circle” and the definition of “square”. 
But “someday never comes”, said John Fogerty:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJ7Rnu8MVYo[/youtube]
“Someday Never Comes” by Creedence Clearwater Revival (John Fogerty, Tom Fogerty, Stu Cook, Doug Clifford), 1972.