Calling something one thing and claiming it to be another is the very reason for why differences between the two were found then, differentiated in the first place. One miscalculation, though, alikeness
seemed to progressively gain conceptual substance,
whereupon it became obvious, that the gain became unreasonably misleading, and frankly false. It was through revision, that loss became the preoccupation
of reason. Instead of the identity serving the cause
of reason, it became the taking the anomalie of identity apart and finding reasons for doing so. This became the basis for deconstructing these reasons,
because they turned out to be shallow, if not totally
hollow. James , isn’t it terribly coincidental, that we are back to the original logical justification? Your last critique had left me no other options. And it really
shows the repetition, (Kierkegaard), and it’s
application-Delueze. I am trying to disengage but can not, because it is in the process. The Nietzche recurrence was the premordial repetition, the eternal
return. This is no lie, it is just the way minds work.
Well, it is repeating because I want to make it clear.
Do you understand the difference between calling something by a name and it actually being what you call it? If you think that there is a cat in your basement and tell someone that a cat is in your basement, but later discover that it was a dog, do you believe that it changed from a cat to a dog? It seems that is what you are saying.
And with anything else, does it become whatever you call it, just because that’s what you thought it was? Is a square really a circle merely because in the dark, you thought it was a circle?
I am reading some of Your blogs, and in one of them You mentioned, the requirement for more subtely, than using man’s best friend as set up examples.
But seriously if i called a dog a cat, knowingly, i would be open to the charge of deception for some kind of gain. Being open parapsychologically i can not honestly say, that Your inferences are not totally altruistic. In fact i am kind of a loner type of guy, and hardly one to engage in convesations as exhausting, in the sense of covering all aspects. I appreciate that, but honestly, whom am i fooling, right? Would i honestly think myself cpable of that obvious an attempt to become so very disingenious? ON PURPOSE? ALL I AM IMPLYING IS THAT THE ‘SYSTEM’ makes us into characters we often don’t even recognise, and the gross philosophycal twsit and turns may mean a lot more than empty words, they do construct, destroy lives en masse. If a very well respected researcher would comeout tomorrow and claim that the cat displayed in his hand is nothing but a totally genetically transformed dog, who would disbelieve him? This is what i mean, that the impossible of the today is the very possible for tomorrow.
I am not talking about what might be impossible today only. I said, “totally impossible”, meaning that it can’t happen ever, such as constructing a square circle. You might be able to construct something that you call a “square-circle”, but an actual square-circle is an oxymoron and can never exist.
The definitonal impossibility may be totally arbitrary and adopted by convention. We can call, a square a square because that is what we have always called it. It is possible to call possible impossible. I can say, that a circle is the figure of a four sided object with
the
number of sides are approaching infinite. If that figure can be defined as such and such, and is defind as
such and such, then there is no room to wiggle, exept through re-defining it.
it differently. If the numver of sides increases on a
square it becomes a polygon and so on.
The point is adefinitional constant is replaced by a functionally variable function.
James, i typed this late in the night, and was very tired, so excuse the format and the computer errors.
Two contradictory definitions are obciously excluded
from a set , where oxymorons are totally reductive in the first place. Definitionally opposites can never made to be equivalent, because that’s the way they are defined, to be distinct. But functionally a figure
with four sides,- as the number of sides increase
toward infinite can approximate a circle. Here the square can approximate a circle if, ----…
If we define a proposition as all sets, where
everything is impossible, naturally that definition
holds, until we change that. An all inclusive definition s of everythingm can still have other everything above and below it, like a turtle upon a turtle upon a
turtle.
I see Your point, however.
So to you truth is arbitrary and acceptably incoherent.
An incoherent understanding creates weakness, insecurity, an impotence. Being made of the same substance, it destroys the mind merely more slowly than fear. It creates a population of incapacitated slaves, eventually replaced.
That’s exactly right, it is what it is, it functions to the best attainable/attained model of possibility. It doesen’t mean that it is a necessary condition, though.
It is not totally incoherent, though, only to the
degree it can not adhere to it’s own sense of coherency.
At a critical juncture, within the mix of under and over standing , a light inadvertantly shines in, and it is a source of renewal. It is a force to be reckoned with. It is never seen, with exception, understood, more felt.
It could clear the slate if it would be unimpeded.
At this point, if left to it’s own devices, the contingency would give way to the necessary. It would totally overlap any other chance or possibility.
It would appear as the necessary truth, of total credibility. The chancees for this may be slight, perhaps 5% if that, i would hazard more like .01, or a lot, lot less, maybe as it’s said, costing millions of lives. But;perhaps we (i) -drifting, far, afield.
Actualy , if the literal interpretation to be understood,
millions of lifetimes are not really that daunting, after all the sleep which surrounds us, is far vastr then the time it takes to wake up. One glance, in one lifetime, any glance includes all, at that moment, and that moment subsumes all time, but that one brief glance, and that isall we have at times.
The rest is tedious, and lengthy, but so worthwhile to set the stage, without which that glance would not be possible? Dauntng, because once realized, it may/could immobilize structure, making it deficient,
this is why the quantum moment for most would and should remain in the fictions of science, and God, put the three of knowledge not into the middle of the garden for no purpose, to make allusios that it is a seminal idea, an orgasmic outpouring of the kindness of creation.
Whereupon of course Eve was sure to take the bait, She herself is the only naive and deceitful being, who can pull this illusion off, and to her, it’s worth the pain, and can cast this unto everyone with her dance.
We are living all of us, witness to the magic of Salome’s dance , Lou should have known it, probably did.
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.