"First Metaphysics" by Dennis Kane

Dennis:

You too, eh? Luckily I worked myself out of this reputed depression by, oh, how shall I say it…coming to terms with the universe, I guess, around my twenty-sixth year. For me, my sense of despair is founded on being alone, really, without ‘connecting’ with friends, who have come and gone as long as I can remember. Being a somewhat unorthodox person my friendships inevitably end due to fundamental differences in priciples, or I just develop an outright disrespect for them, and vice-versa. I’ve always been a team-player but have been somewhat of a lone-wolf since twenty-seven. From that point I set a goal to find people of ‘philosophical inclination’ on the internet, and, if I played my cards right, hopefully meet them. Needless to say there is a shortage of intelligence in the world, and I lack the medium to find the ones that are out there; didn’t go to college, don’t do bars and clubs, and am not much of a socialite. Rarely do I become friends with my co-workers either, not many construction workers escape the stereotypical box they exist in.

I couldn’t agree more. There is a reality to such cynicism, however much it appears to be a great generalization. If only you coulda turned out ‘normal,’ eh? Kidding aside, my strongest objection, and perhaps my greatest shortcoming, is that I WILL NOT participate in a capitalist economy if I have a choice. This resolve has kept my pockets empty, reducing me to a wanderer of sorts…spend a little time here, make a few bucks to get by…and move on. In the last ten years I haven’t lived in the same place for over three months at a time. My pattern is seasonal, living in the mountains during the summer…the beach during the winter. I work outside and am quite particular about the climate.

On a another note, I see nothing better to do than to work to change those two situations, or get old and die trying. The option to ‘drop-out’ is always there, but I almost feel it to be my duty to have a positive influence on the matter. I can remove myself from the setting and also take efforts to change it, I think. If I fail, then I’ve lost nothing. If I succeed…

Don’t we all. I have a simple formula (well, not simple, but if I had to print it on a t-shirt it would look like this): live as if you are mortal, with the prospect that you might not be. What is certain is that life can be pleasurable, and enjoyed. We know this much, and it should come a logical consequence that we promote that possibility to its fullest potential. There is nothing terrible about dying, but I think there can be trouble if in living we become anxious and reckless. The irony I have found is that religion has caused this problem, as well as nihilistic atheism. Both need to be absolved.

Yes, of course. I think that while individuality should be preserved, there are also certain objective truths, or rules, which can exist to promote cooperation between individuals within a group. The community, as you say, can be founded on a set of basic imperatives, but also allow for improvisation and creative advancements. There is a fine line between a ‘cult’ and a free community, as you know, and I think a modified democratic political setting would work great.

Absolutely. Person to person philosophy is where its at, dude. Some of the greatest conversations I have ever had were struck up in a coffee shop with complete strangers. We got so jacked on coffee, owner included, that she kept the place open after closing time and we talked well into the morning hours. Party at the coffee shop. That’s the good stuff.

Bingo.

Check this out. I own five acres of land in Galax county Virginia. It is bordering a fourty-acre abandoned x-man tree farm (the black-furs grew up and overwhelmed the fraziar-furs) owned by my father. As far as I know, he hasn’t made any efforts to develop the land yet, and he doesn’t seen opposed to the idea of myself doing something with it. Actually, a few hundred of the x-mas trees are salvageable, but would have to be trimmed the previous spring in order to be sold that following winter. My father said I could have them, and I’ve been planning to sell them for a while, I just haven’t got around to it. Anyway, fourty-five acres is quite a stretch of land, and with a few permits for building (and there are ways to avoid having to get permits, too), why, one could design a fantastic community if one were so inclined. I am eventully going to build a simple cabin for myself if I don’t end up organizing a plan to create a ‘village’ of sorts on the property. Although in my mind I see a great complex with many people living there. Philosophers, and the most beautiful women you could imagine…walking around naked. We would have our own farms, hunt and fish, have festivals, music and games, arrange traveling,…oh it would be awesome!

How are you with a saw, a tractor, and a set of post-hole diggers? [wink]

The area is very rural, with rolling hills and woodlands, but there is a decent sized town a few miles from there, so its not off the map completely. It is settled in the blue-ridge mountains.

Well, they got the right idea, as far as natural living is concerned, but they’re so burnt-out and too liberal. Lazy too. You can hide a bar of soap under a hippies work-boots and he’d never find it. But the women, oh yes, if I could get them to shave their legs I’d be in business. I’d be making babies alright.

Yes, always keep an eye on the latest discoveries in physics. Philosophy is indeed important, but science gives us the material to work with. Science gives us the form, philosophy gives it value. They work together and are crucial counter-parts.

I also think that eastern thought has its strength in using metaphor and allegory to arrive at ethical elucidations, many times far more powerful than what logical directives can inspire. Granted, it is not the calculated practice of westerm thinking, but it is indeed a very ‘anti-technological’ convention and has its merits in introducing aesthetic and conservative principles for living. Its quite fun, you’re right.

Phenomenology is da bomb, dude. Husserl was trying to bridge the gap between rationalism and empiricism, albeit his ‘epoche’ is a controversial method and many find it ridiculous. Still you should check it out, or at least survey an introduction and get a taste for it.

Yeah, that’s what I hear. It seems that those philosophers who invent their own terminologies get the worst reactions. But what is failed to be considered is that all philosophy terminology was invented some time or another, and often posthumously credited as being useful. I envisage a furture where “Dasein” is a household word.

Haha, that’s funny but true. Personally, and I might be the exception, I find Sartre’s philosophy to be extremely empowering. Not so much Camus, though. That guy was a party-pooper, smart, but terribly depressed.

In a nut-shell it means that if God does not exist there is at least one being that is not defined before it exists…and that being is man. If there is no artisan to design the image of man, then man will be determined through his choices, and his essence becomes historical, or what Sartre called a 'facticity’after the fact of his choosing.

This has been my agenda for several years now. Unfortunately, all my favorite posters don’t show any interest in organizing such a thing. Most of them are pursuing degrees in school, or are married with youngins’.

Its like this. I am tempermental and my moods swing like a pendulum. I love these people and I hate them. This is the problem with these fucking internet forums: one can never be sure what intentions are behind the posts. If I were in person, I doubt that I would ever get upset because I am an excellent character judge…I can smell honesty, I can see the eyes, hear the tone…watch the body language, etc. You can’t do this at these goddamn forums. Dealing with shady people all my life has caused me to be somewhat suspicious of most people and I rarely trade a benefit for a doubt.

Dennis

Obviously. But tell me, do we ever reach the point where we will be deemed to have ‘understood’ your philosophy?

It seems you criticise some of the responses here for supposedly under-crediting the power of your insight. But it also seems you are making some assumptions of your own in this regard.

Also, you seem to carry gems like these around with you;

(1) Immanently, I am an original and profound thinker.
(2) If you think I am wrong, you have misunderstood me, (for I am right.)

This reminds me of this parody of a prominent thinker’s mode of argument;

Anyway Dennis, keep posting; I will get a better sense of your ‘originality’ that way. If you must know (which I’m sure you don’t); as it stands, what you have said does not only sound unoriginal, but superficial compared to the power of the thinkers you cite.

I am for instance dubious on your use of the concept of identity. This may of course just be semantics.

You will have to tell me how this is adequate to Heidegger’s notion of Being-there, or if different why your notion is superior…

Detrop

I think the idea of a philosophical community is a good one.

Haha I ain’t that bad. :wink: I really have read Being and Nothingness.

That Dunamis is a real rogue, though…

:sunglasses:

Regards,

James

#2,

Let me ask you this. If you ever felt like you understood a philosophy, how would you prove it? You see the attempt begets itself, and we enter the language game. There is no more evidence that what is intended is expressed in the thoughts of the speaker as there is of an understanding of the intention in the ears of the listener. It should be obvious to the philosopher that language is a catalyst for actualizing an effect- a material significance- a physical application of a theory to the world by a joint effort: language serves the function of extending intention into space to unite other intentions for actualization. We do mean something when we speak, but we need not invest so much in lucidity if the alternative results in empirical effects, if even roughly and not exactly. Keep it simple. This is to say that rather then spending time conversing in extremity, that being an overcomplicated complex of language, one should ‘dumb down’ the vocabulary so that its corespondance is evidenced more easily, or, so coordination between intentions can yield definite results.

The problem with philosophy is that often a specialized vocabulary has adverse effects on what its intentions, those of the speaker, wish to communicate. And do not be fooled. Even in an apparant cooperative exchange of technical jargon, which is evident by a lack of objection, it is still uncertain that there is true understanding, rather what is happening is a consistency within a web of language- that being the declared understanding of the terms therein in such a way that the many possible meanings produced by the greater expanse of language increases the probability that sense is made out of it, however, again, proving coherency is impossible. The progress of a discussion can appear to be homogenous in the absence of objection, but the more complex it is, the greater the area for ambiguity, though this doesn’t compromise the discussion. It passes unstated but nonetheless in consideration and without emphasis.

A language dissipates into thin air if it cannot form action through corespondance, which in turn is evident insofar as two combined efforts produce tangible results.

Do you understand why I am an anti-philosopher? It is not because I lack the conceptual continuity to be one, but that I see no results from 99% of it. I’ve got a thesaurus too, but I am also aware that there needn’t be fifteen ways to say one thing. Observe the dictionary: every word denotes another word which acts as its definition, ad infinitum. This is why I deduce language down to an empirical function and determine its value by its material effects in the world. A ‘conversation’ never did anything. It is work that creates. I am a worker, not a philosopher.

You’re invited, but only if you take back those terrible things you said about Jean-Paul and Simone.

Nientilin:

Fuck the shrinks. Tedious toads, as Nietzsche called them. Forever searching for origins, backwards…one becomes a crab.

Your thoughts are good, it is imagination and free-thinking. Einstein would love you, and he didn’t comb his hair. Does he need a shrink? Hell no.

Here’s a crazy idea for you, right up your alley:

A physicist once said “the moon is not there unless someone is looking at it.”

This is the application of the uncertainty principle on a macrocosmic scale. Now this is where it gets funky.

It takes observation for a particle to attain a definite position in a space, but upon this observation, its velocity cannot be determined. How is that? I dunno. Must be relativity. To determine the velocity of a particle, there must be a motionless reference point, but if all particles are moving simultaneously, nothing is motionless. What then is the reference point?

Aha! It is the collapse of the wave function, my friend. This is a double conundrum. Here’s how I think it works. The mind is a collaboration of particles itself, but the act of observation creates a time distortion by what I think Sartre meant as a nihilation of being. Yes, that’s right, Sartre was an idealist in disguise, but don’t tell anyone, the world is not ready for this yet. Consciousness occurs on a non-linear plane in which its act of observation cancels the synapse…when the neuron ceases to fire, a ‘blank’ in time and space is created, that blank, or total absence of Being is the observation, which extends into a parallel dimension. When a wave function is grounded into a synaptical event, the firing causes the distribution of particles to occur through an electro-chemicle medium, and the data is raw, or ‘unarranged.’ The ‘concept’, or the cognition of awareness, emerges from the parallel dimension, and takes form idealistically, or ‘intentionally’ as the ‘object observed,’ after the energy charge is grounded, or, when the particle position is definite. This is where Plato comes in. The ‘idea’ is the reversal of the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics. All concepts exist in another dimension (call it the mind of God) and cannot take shape until spirit, the emergent property of the neural-net, manifests the form of the idea by collapsing the wave function through the synaptical event.

The ‘mind’ is a mirror where essences come through, but as reflections, appearing as reversals. ‘Matter’ is the silhouette of the ‘idea,’ and cannot exist until it is observed or conceptualized, which is metaphorical to viewing the image in the mirror.

The ‘macrocosmic’ moon is an imprint of extremely slow particle positions, existing in a slower time frame then that of the synaptical acceleration. But the concept of the ‘moon’ only exists as the organized series of collapsed wave functions, or data receptions of each individual bit of particle information, as a series of synaptical events creating the observable image of the ‘moon’ as an object and not an idea. The moon is an idea, but cannot exist as such in a spacio-temporal framework. The raw particle information is formless until it is organized into the idea of the ‘moon’ which is already existing in a parallel dimension.

You see, there is no difference between the sensible data of an apple and an air-plane…its all particle activity. The mind is running on a circuit that ‘downloads’ forms from another time dimension…from ‘God’s mind,’ or, if you prefer a monism, from our mind…as we are God.

Now, the questions is, do I need a shrink?

Haha yeah. Sartre was taking LSD though whilst struggling to finish the final proof reading for the Critique. Don’t know anything about his sex life, though.

Regards,

James

Have read through everyone’s responses. Just saw a double feature of Red Eye and Bros. Grimm. Alone as usual. Not bad stuff.

I get tired of using the quote feature so much, so let me just wing it here.

James-
You guys were having a little bit of fun with that whole camels going East thing. So, I just took a little jab back. So sue me.

As far as me thinking that my philosophy is “so much more right” than everyone else’s… it goes without saying because it is my philosophy. And I am me. My farts don’t stink to me. Everyone else’s do.

Just a quick hit into why I think mine is so good. It is highly logical. It is light n’ tight. It begins with the concept of identity (the one, the ‘I’, time, Being) and derives the entire physical world (spatial dimensionality) from it. This concept of identity is my arch-arch-concept. It is what makes each one of us identical to our very selves. There is no way to know it or even understand it. It simply must be believed.

Also, as long as you all are simple blips on my screen, you do not exist as real people. You are me. I read your words as if it is me that is thinking them. Since I can be very harsh towards myself, any real people that may be out there – if they are sensitive enough – will be prone to feel a little sting.

detrop-
I’ve got to hand it to you. You are very good. Not quite good enough to get my exact brand of sarcasm, though. When I say things like, “whatever that means” when referring to a philosophical concept or school of thought, I am really saying that I find said schmeal to be wholly derivative or simply utterly pointless. What I really mean by this is that I simply don’t enjoy reading them. They don’t capture my imagination. Whatever else might be going on as we read a text, the first requirement is that we physically enjoy what we our doing. It is all too easy to give me brain cramps. I have read far too much philosophy to waste my time on texts that my brain refuses to allow me to ingest.

There are certain key words that cause me to run, kicking and screaming, from any philosophical text. Spirit is a big one (hello Hegel?). Even though I use the word “spirituality” in my own philosophy, I use it only colloquailly. Consciousness is another one (hello Husserl and Sartre?). I think this is a faux-concept. I find it utterly un-philosophical. In fact, my philosophy is much more dependent on what it leaves out than what is included. I do not have the reasons for this spelled out (at least at the present moment). For now, I will just say that there is an unpleasant whiff of “physicality” that I cannot get past. Mind is another one of these concepts. A big one. I don’t like them. I don’t like them in the least.

And finally, detrop, I am quick to go places at the drop of a dime (as you are probably aware.) Although, I have slowed down a little this past year. I just turned 30. I am in shape, able to do some useful work. Don’t have any specialized skills though. Used to wrestle in high school. Was able to bench about twice my weight (I’m not all that big). I joined the army when I was 22 (got discharged in seven months) and scored the highest on the Physical Fitness test out of my whole Basic Training company (scored 285 out of 300). As long as I can feel good about who/what I am working for, then I don’t have any problem busting my ass.

I don’t know. Maybe life can turn out okay after all. Was feeling slightly suicidal yesterday. Was that too honest?

To all you “Jameseans” out there:

I am just going to say this one more time. I have precisely no problem with any other philosophers out there, past, present, or future. I don’t need to refute them and I don’t need to “hijack” their concepts. Because my philosophical system is profoundly original, I couldn’t care less about Da-sein or anything else like that. It doesn’t do anything for me. Sure, I might have my own interpretation of it, but my philosophy has precisely no place for it. I don’t care. I just don’t.

I don’t understand the obsession on calling me out over this “identity” thing. In my very first post, I said that identity is time. I can’t be any more explicit than that. Now, since this idea has never before been explicitly stated, there is a good chance you haven’t been exposed to this kind of thinking. It is abstraction at is most profound depth. In fact, if your mind is even able to understand what I am saying here, then there is a good chance that you will develop a terrible brain-ache. My philosophy is intended to be a mind-fuck of the worst kind. It is like having you neural pathways “scrubbed cleaned” by one of those steel wool dishwashing pads. In my opinion, this kind of “pain” is necessary in order to be able truly get on a way towards transcendence. Of course, I fully realize that most people are not interested in feeling this kind of pain. Therefore, I will have no hurt feelings if my philosophy doesn’t make the New York Times Bestseller list.

Further, I am not trying to prove the “truth” of my philosophy. My philosophy is entirely contained within the first post starting with the words “my system begins with” and ending at the <===========> deal. I let it stand on its own two feet. Now, it happens to be my own opinion that my philosophy happens to be the best philosophy that has ever existed in any universe at any time. This is not strange, however. People always think that their philosophies are the best. Even people whose philosophies amount to “damn them Chinese” think that their philosophies are the best things ever. I’m no different.

There are no philosophies floating around “out there.” They exist in our minds. It may very well be that Sartre, for example, is the greatest thinker ever and that detrop is his prophet. I don’t pretend to understand anything that Sartre is trying to say (except in the most superficial of ways).

But I will say this. Very few of the major philosophers even attempt to create an honest to goodness metaphysical construct that attempts to explain “all that is the case” in a highly rigorous, formalized way. Wittgenstein’s Tractatus is the only example that I have of this kind of attempt. People such as Leibniz, Kant, Schopenhauer and Hegel have all attempted to create “meta-systems,” but the boundaries of their systems were not precisely defined.

The boundaries of my system are wholly contained within the “equation” at the top of this thread. It reads: Time-Identity transcends Space-Difference. Now you can take it or leave it. But it can’t be denied that it is compact to the point of scientific/mathematical precision. I’m trying to express a “First Metaphysics” in a way that Einstein, Feynman, or Kaku would “get.” I have no interest in appealing to the eloquent, loquacious, prosaic philosophical set. I am not any kind of novelist. Sartre was (and it shows). I’m not.

I’m more of a computer programmer than a “writer.” I know my way around loops, iterations, and other fun algorithms. I just want my system to be able to “execute” like any well written C++ program should. Good, clean “code” is what I want. Get rid of the excess baggage and let it be lean and mean.

In other words, no matter how hard you guys try, you can’t alter me from my course by asking questions of me that my philosophy is in no way “programmed” to address. Mine is wholly a transcendental philosophy. It has nothing whatever to do with so-called “epistemology,” which I’m sure you “Jameseans” are so fond of discussing. I want to be able to “get beyond” this world rather than revelling in its hopelessly confused swamp of details.

FREEZE, Kane!

I see you there, logged on.

Don’t do it, man, goddamit. You fuckin’ philosophers have lost your marbles. I got Dunamis over here telling me to find my Atma and jump off a fucking cliff. Then I got TheUndergroundMan writing a farewell suicide note to ILP, carrying on about how miserable he is. And Moonface, from the old school, that dude/chick went on and on for weeks about suicide and then…dissappeared.

I’m tellin’ you man, philosophy will make you crazy.

Besides, if you die, who’s gonna help me build the village? Satyr would do it, but it would cost more to fly his ass down here from Canada then the materials for building it. Then again, I want to make it rustic…cut down the trees, bark and notch them, so on and so forth.

Seriously though, I’m not kidding. We can do this thing if I get a decent group of people together. Don’t go killing yourself. I’ll be pissed if you do.

Time = the persistance of the experience of the ‘I’
Identity = the persistance of the experience of the ‘I’

Time=Identity

Time-Identity is the mode in which the ‘I’ experiences itself purely.

The “average” thinking of time is the constant “objective” changing of the ‘world.’ This is the mere appearance that is given by the degenerate mode of Space-Difference.

Now here’s a question…

If so much “scrutiny” is given to my conception of identity, why isn’t my concept of space as difference at all questioned?

It is because you are always only questioning from the mode of Space-Difference. From this mode, the fact that space and difference are identical is easy to “get.” From the mode of Space-Difference, it is impossible to “get” what time and identity truly mean.

Don’t tell me you’re one of those nutty pro-lifers!

I have a very interesting passage from the novel Trainspotting concerning this exact issue → here.

You know what actually makes me feel good? The thought that my life span is highly limited. There is very little difference between a generalized contemplation of mortality and an explicit one of suicide.

I’ve never planned anything out, mind you. I look at myself a little like Hunter Thompson. I don’t mind talking and thinking about it. And I most likely will never do it. But I need that as an ever present option, dammit. If I ever DO do it, it will probably be when I’m sick of getting old and sick, and I’ll toss myself from a great height. I’ll go out with a bang!

But seriously, I’ve been dealing with this anxiety and depression shit for 10 years. I’ve flung myself across the country in an constant attempt to “escape myself.” I can’t do it. I just continue to get further and further detached from “this” world. Consequently, I think this is what gives me some really good philosophical insight. But in the meanwhile, I just can’t get myself to give a shit about anything. I want to, but I just don’t.

What is space?
What is the “diffirence” you refer to when you say: “space-diffirence”

“Time-Identity is the mode in which the ‘I’ experiences itself purely.”

As opposed to? What is the mode in which “I” experiences itslef “un-purely?”

“Time = the persistance of the experience of the ‘I’
Identity = the persistance of the experience of the ‘I’”

I can understand the defenition of Identity. But from my previous understanding of time, would this expression of it have some validity by your standards?:

Time = A tool of measurement of the presistance of the experience of the ‘I’

RedTank,

Thanks for being the first to call me out on the “inner workings” of my philosophy.

It was important to me that I figure out how the archetypal concept of “space” (pure absence) could at all be given to us. I decided to begin with the primordial I-world unity (ie perfect existential bliss). This unity is “annihilated” for no knowable reason. You can call this reason biological necessity or the devil: it really doesn’t matter to the question at hand.

Upon annihilation, the ‘I’ and ‘world’ are now “opposite” one another. The world becomes a mere appearance for the I. As such, the world has been “thrown into question.” It has become an indeterminacy, or an infinity.

Space, then, is defined as the period of the awaiting of the resolution of the annihilation of the primordial I-world unity (plenty of “of’s” there to work out). In other words, the concept of space can only be given to us in the mode in which the I is “held in suspense.”

The difference I refer to is difference-as-such. It is the ‘not.’ It is the annihilation of identity. Difference is space. Space is difference. Space-Difference is the mode in which the world merely appears to the I.

I guess that would be the mode of Space-Difference, huh? In this mode, the ‘I’ itself is annihilated into many-I’s that are all based upon the mere appearances of the world.

What you are trying to do here is very dangerous. By introducing the concept of a “tool of measurement,” you are invoking the concept of simple usefulness. Mind you, there is nothing wrong with this concept, but it must remain in its proper place in the mode of Space-Difference, whereby anything like a “measurement” can at all be done.

In other words, I am trying to draw a clear distinction between time-itself and the set of tools that are used to “count” (eg clocks) as time-itself persists. We must always be careful to keep in mind this distinction between time-itself and the devices that are used to “count” it.

As I really don’t have any other philosophers to turn to in order to help me out with what I am trying to say, I am always looking for better ways to say things. Don’t take any of this as gospel. You simply have to meditate on these questions: What is time itself? Is it anything other than the enduring persistance of the ‘I’? Does time-itself really have anything to do with all of these arbitrary calendars, clocks, and other human inventions?

These are all very difficult questions. Every bit of “common sense” inside of us tends to “pull us” into the mode of Space-Difference whereby we measure the world in its simple appearance. It is indeed very hard work to transcend the constant desire to measure, count, categorize, etc., and to simply remain, persistantly, as an ‘I’ that is primordially united with the world (the primordial I-world unity).

dkane,

your philosophy reminds me alot of some buddhist texts ive read if Im drawing the parallels correctly:

The annihilation of time-identity can be drawn parallel to the creation of the subject-object dichotomy (i vs. the world)

there is a external, false self and a true self. The external self is what is created when time-identity is annihilated, but we can restore, become, or get in touch with our true selves.

There is the rebellion against logical thought which helps reinforce the false self by using language, symbols, etc to draw a line between the self and the world.

How does one use your philosophy? You say you have been practicing it for several years ;]

How does one go about re-uniting time-identity (if possible?)?

No sir. I support abortion fervently. I also support the ideals of eugenics.

Thanks for the faith, but I don’t consider myself a prophet of Sartre. I do consider him to be one of the most profound minds of documented history, along with a few other favorites: Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Descartes, Spinoza, and Hume, if I had to pick five more.

It is strange to watch you proceed with such confidence and lack of consideration for other philosophers as you apparantly emerge from the depths of Being and Time. Were you not greatly inspired by Heidegger, then?

Don’t get me wrong, originality is everything, although technically speaking it is somewhat impossible to do in the language game. Every ‘word’ thought is evoked from digestion and doesn’t appear out of a void. Some can, of course, feel that they have made additions, or even come up with something unique, however in the realm of ‘talking philosophy’ this is not the case.

Another question I have is this. Do you think your ideas are pragmatic in the sense that they can be applied univerally and developed for everyone, or do you consider yourself an elite with a philosophy for only a few exceptional thinkers?

I love your confidence, dude, but you seem to take an agressive stance againt all other philosophies. Personally I view philosophy as an organism, an ongoing activity, and not something that is ever truely original.

Keep writing. I’m still pondering over your ideas and I don’t want to comment just yet.

detrop,

I’ve already said, near the beginning of this thread, that I absolutely love all people who attempt original thought. I really don’t care about connecting names with particular concepts (which I’m sure keeps me away from any academic career.) And yes, I am highly inspired by Heidegger. He is my teacher.

Again, I am not trying to “refute” any kind of philosophy. I love them all. What I am trying to do is delineate the “mode” in which all particular philosophies can be “thought.”

By the way, please don’t take offense about my comments on Sartre. I am simply utterly incapable of enduring his writing. I’m sure I would’ve enjoyed the hell out of sitting down at one of those French coffeehouses with him and just “shooting the shit.” In fact, I really do hope this is something I can do with you (and anyone else on this forum) one day in the not too distant future.

You have to understand my purpose for this thread. I simply want to advocate my own philosophy here. I want to get my name “out there” in internet land as being the originator of the philosophy that is given by the phrase “Time-Identity transcends Space-Difference.” It’s a “branding” thing. I am not using this thread to make friends. I am using it purely for my own self-interest.

As long as I stay within the confines of this thread, then I feel I have the right to be as arbitrary or dictatorial as I want to concerning the philosophy of any others. As I stated earlier, I do not currently intend to post on any else’s threads. If I do, then I understand that I relinquish the right to be such a “Nazi.”

Concerning the concept of “originality.” Following Heidegger, I do not consider this to mean a thinking that is “novel” or “new.” I consider it to mean a thinking that “gets at” the origin of all that is the case. For me, this origin is a “First Metaphysics” that is able to derive how anything like spatial dimensionality (world space) can at all be given.

Concerning the question of the "usefulness " (pragmatism) of my philosophy. The short answer is a wholehearted NO! I call mine “transcendental” philosophy rather than “epistemological” philosophy. It is only good for anyone who may want to “transcend” “this world.” But I really don’t even believe in the “actuality” of any kind of state of transcendence. So, it would be more precise for me to say that I want my philosophy to hold open the door for the “possibility” of anything like a state of spiritual transcendence. I borrow this kind of language from Kant.

So yes, if you take “originality” as being something that is new and cutting edge, then I fully admit that my philosophy is profoundly un-original. I fully agree with your idea of the “language game” that is philosophy. I do not pretend to say that my philosophy somehow “gets beyond” the whole language game thing. In fact, this is what makes the activity of philosophizing so much fun for me. I’m playing a game that is infinitely engaging with some of the best minds that have ever existed. Like any other kind of player, I am motivated to “win.” I want to go down in the text books as the guy that “figured it all out.” I call my philosophy the “Grand Unified Theory of Everything.” (Incidentally, Ken Wilber calls his only the “Theory of Everything.” Nothing grand or unified about that, huh?)

Another way for me to put it is this. All people are “always already” in the transcendental mode in which the I-world spiritual unity is given. As long as people simply go about their daily lives laughing, living and loving (and once in awhile working), then there in no godly reason to start to get into the abyss that is philosophy-proper (the academic version). I am extremely jealous of those people who simply ignore all of the shit “out there” and live their lives in blissful ignorance. As far as I am concerned, these are the real philosophical geniuses. I have a haunting suspicion that their minds were “hardwired” with the absolute Truth already included. But here I am, dangling in the breeze, having to somehow figure it all out myself.

I mean, just how in the fuck am I supposed to pull myself out of this mental hell in which I find myself? Is there a doctor in the house? A faith-healer? God?

anvildoc,

Before I respond to your message, let me remind anyone out there that it is necessary to read this entire thread from the beginning. It also helps to read this site: http://geocities.com/spiral2theend.

The quick response is that you pretty much nailed everything on the head. You also hinted at the major problem that we all face: How does one go about actually transcending “this world”? I am perhaps the last person to answer this question. I am 30 years old, with no job prospects and no social life. I can’t stand living like this!

This is why I came on this board. I just want to connect with other like-minded people. I want to be-with others in an authentic way. I want to “come together” with other people who have an insane desire to think so I don’t feel so crazy all the time. It is only when I am around other insane people (or in insane situations) that my mind is able to “calm down.”

As I’ve said earlier in this thread, I am highly interested in the idea of some kind of “philosophical community” where some of the greatest ideas known to man can be constantly be discussed. I absolutely love this kind of shit. I can’t get enough of it.

I haven’t been “practicing” my philosophy for several years. It has only been a little over a year since the philosophy given by the phrase “Time-Identity transcends Space-Difference” came to my mind. Again, I am just as clueless as anyone as how to implement it. Perhaps the great Buddhist masters are the ones to ask on how this is done. I don’t know. But I do have the feeling that this is simply the open-ended task of the authentic existential project. It’s up to each one of us, ourselves, to figure this out.

Some people like to run for miles and miles. Some prefer basketball, and some take up an instrument. I have had a tendency to get rid of all my shit and take off to different parts of the country. This has allowed me to “come back into myself” in the past. But I am getting older and lazier now, and I have much more of a desire to “connect” with others out there in a highly honest way. This is why I give my real name and give links to everything that you could possibly want to know about me. I’m done with living behind some kind of bullshit avatar. This is not only done online, but in the “real world.” The way we walk and talk and act and dress is to freaking contrived at times. I just don’t want to live my life like that anymore.

Hush.

Do you know how many morons would kill to be half as smart as you, Kane?

Because you got nothin’…you got everything.

“The things you own end up owning you”- Tyler Durden

Look, if you are going to go insane, hurry up and get it over with.

As my friend Malbus once suggested to me in times of despair: “die then, so something good might grow from your ashes.”

Otherwise, keep writing (I enjoy reading you) and save your money up so we can start our utopian society in the near future.

I want to officially apologize to you for my lousy sense of humor. I am an idiot, there is no doubt.

False modesty will win you nothing, Dr. Kane.

You are a bad-ass, don’t play games with me.

Dkane:

I have been on a similar quest, reading philosophy of east and west, mixing ideas, trying to get to some existential “truth”. Certainly the fact that so many texts are emerging that are a commentary on similar topics is promising.

Heck, over the weekend I found a book “Seeds of Contemplation” by Thomas Mergot (name might be wrong), but the guy was a Christian monk and basically he wrote about the same concepts. As you mentioned, some Western philosophers approached these concepts as well. Not to mention all the explicitly Buddhist writings out there.

I dont really know what all this means, that is… I dont “feel” what all this means. I’m still well off from any “enlightenment”, I will definitely put Heidigger and Derrida on my reading lists.

I like your ideas, I suppose, aesthetically, because I dont really understand them. Maybe in a couple years I can address this topic more intelligently ;]

In the mean time I hope you are not satisfied with your progress and will continue to plow ahead into uncharted territory.