But if you would like to hear about some unrelated irony, here is some. Last time I posted these aphorisms I entitled the post simply “aphorisms.” The comments I got consisted of people posting other aphorisms, from other people. It is only when I add “from my book” that I have to deal with your envy, with your so-appreciated commentary.
Probably this should not have become a pissing match, but I have no idea what you are talking about in these aphorisms, either, Ascolo. I find myself with the same questions as Jake does, more or less.
Good luck with the book, though.
I answered some of his questions.
Yeah, I know. But I think a good aphorism invites exegesis - which is not to say that it requires explanation.
How long is this book of yours?
You run ahead? Are you doing it as a shepherd? Or as an exception? A third case would be as a fugitive. First question of conscience.
Heh. Nice.
im glad you like my commentary. most people around here do. 
youre totally right that im so envious, i wish i could write like you. if only i could be that good. man, tough luck for me 
is it hard getting to be so awesome at writing these things? i know it LOOKS easy and all, making short little single sentences sound deep and vague and metaphorical, but of course i realise how very hard it actually is. 
perhaps you can teach me? please?
I’d be happy to teach you about aphorisms. I thought I went over some of it already, but then again you have struck me as somewhat dense.
- “An aphorism is a dissolution of psychological impulses which, before being suddenly isolated, must have been thoroughly confounded. The philosopher must first be repleted with all sorts of experience and thought before he can incense the aphorism with the friction of adherent and determined social critique, so that the slightest friendly or hostile touch can elicit brilliant shows of embers from it- or dangerous flames.”
Aphorisms are not composed on spot like commentary or essay-writing. An aphorism is a dissolution of psychological impulses which- before being dissolved, before being isolated- must have been thoroughly confounded. You begin writing an aphorism in either boredom- in which case it usually evolves into a psychological observation; or in a state of ignorance about something in which case it becomes an experiment. The aphorism is both an experiment and its own result; be the result affirmative or negative, destructive or creative, helpful or iatrogenic.
you are saying that aphorisms should be written with the audience in mind, written for the reader? or at least with respect to the common social field(s) of the day? this is interesting, however as the aphorism is designed to be a tool by which larger and abstract knowledge/awareness is compressed into a very short communicative space, it seems that such inner meaning can only come from within the individual… for the writer to create the aphorism “for” anyone else seems as much a contradiction as for the reader of an aphorism to be able to correctly interpret the meaning/depth/clarity of the aphorism “for” someone else.
The hermeneutic circle between reader and writer is broken through the aphorism; neither has any priority at all anymore. The reader and writer become engaged in a single, therapeutic- aphorism.
- “To understand man, however, we must look beyond the individual and his activities or interests, and behold him at work with his fellows; partes Epimethei etiam ad Prometheum rite transferri possint- the lightning-spark of Thought, generated, or say rather heaven-kindled, in the solitary mind, however Prometheus-like, awakens it’s express similitudes in another, and all minds begin to work together in memoria baptismi and Epimethian constitution.”
in the interpretation or grasping of the meaning of an aphorism, perhaps; but not in the writing of them. to write an aphorism is to grasp mentally and completely a broad or deep truth/awareness with sufficient clarity means looking within yourself introspectively. developing deep introspection and then allowing this vision to condense or form as a relatively short set of words, whose relations to each other suggest definitively that prior vision itself… but ONLY to the writer.
it can never be the case that the reader will grasp this prior vision in the same manner as the writer. there is no direct correspondence or transferrence of content. every person has unique perspectives and concepts, and will conceptualize the aphorism differently. hermaneutics is all fine and good, and certainly we grasp the meaning in such a way that the WAY it is grasped, the relations between components, is particularly relevant; but hermaneutics overlooks the essentially individual role of creation in the interpretive process. aphorisms are successful precisely because they provide a sufficiently complex and subtle arrangement of content with which the creative process may work to generate meaning. no two meanings will ever be alike; if this is what you mean by transcendence of the writer/reader interaction, yes that is correct. however, im talking about the initial writing of the aphorism itself, not at the moment of its later reading by others. in the case of creation, the writer must only dive within himself and let emerge the words that he intuits best clarify the completeness of his inner vision… but of course, if done correctly, there is a greater chance that others will also graps this meaning as well, to the extent that their own inner mental interpretive process or awareness/perceptions are similarly tuned to those of the writer.
experiences are key here. youll notice that most people, at least here on ILP, dont grasp the deep or complete meaning that you do from your aphorisms. this is not because these people are “wrong” or “dense”; its because the nature of the aphorism is such that it will only “work” in generating a similarity of interpreted meaning (the prior meaning) as long as there is sufficient similarity between the writer’s and reader’s mental schemas, conceptual paradigms and interpretive/perceptive processes (but note that this is NOT a meaning which is communicated; in the case of such correspondence of meaning this reflects the parallels between two or more individual mental processing, not the merging of two processes via a common element-- and this itself, of course, is more indicative of a prior similarity of experiences and/or psychological function, than anything else). of course, the writer’s success in creating the aphorism comes heavily into play also, BUT, this success (or failure) at constructing the aphorism may only be judged by the writer himself, with reference only to himself. indeed the ability or frequency with which others grasp his prior meaning can be used to evaluate his success as well, but ultimately his success does not hinge on this. THIS is why the writer who keeps in mind his audience while writing the aphorism will most certainly fail. and this is also why the writer properly should not be concerned at all, or very little, with the reaction of others to his works. by definition, the ONLY judge of the success or failure of an aphorism is the individual himself, for himself-- you are the judge of your aphorism’s value for you, just as i am for myself. neither is “correct”.
those individuals who do not “get it” with respect to your aphorisms here arent wrong per se; they are just differently-constituted mentally. or, perhaps they lack the required intellectual honesty. or perhaps they have TOO MUCH intellectual honesty. really it doesnt matter WHY an aphorism fails to generate that prior meaning/vision intended by the writer… there are no “good” or “bad” reasons why this happens, not in any real sense which can be compared from one individual to another.
so my point is that you display not only a certain pretentiousness but also a fundamental ignorance in how you react against others here on ILP when they do not speak favorably of your work. first of all if you truly know and see the meaning and success of your aphorisms then you would be unconcerned with how they are taken by others; you would have a lack of emotional attachment to how they are received. secondly, you seem ignorant of the process by which the aphorism is generated, which is a wholly individual endeavor. traditional signitification is indeed transcended to a great extent in the READING of an aphorism; but in the creation thereof, there is a “perfect” (ideally) signification (i.e. ideally, a perfect correspondence) between the writer’s prior meaning/vision and the writer’s perception/interpretation of his own words… and it is precisely this signifying aspect which can only take place within the individual himself, for himself. if you react negatively or judgmentally to the opinions of others here, it betrays an emotional attachment to your work which itself betrays a lack of either personal awareness, confidence or certainty in the success of your accomplishment… or, maybe just a lack in realization that meaning cannot be COMMUNICATED via the aphorism-- it can only be CREATED.
Ernst werklempter is too optimistic for my taste.
I thoroughly enjoyed these OP, and i will attempt to give some feedback on some of them in the near future . As a side note i write aphorisms as well.
You keep overlooking the fact that this vision condenses without your control and automatically. The aphorism is not an intentional condensation of meanings but the unintentional dissolution of those meanings; because its form is a dissolution the meaning of the aphorism cannot be cleaved from the words in which it is embodied. There is no point in distilling wisdom for the sake of distilling it; I have no control over the fact that my thoughts find their release in aphoristic form. What you are talking about is a basic Nietzschean interpretation of the aphorisms’ function. In my perspective, the content of any aphorism is not positive. The content is attained by its destructive, decomposing effect: the aphorism is intended to dissolve, to destroy- insofar as it achieves this, a content is transfered from writer to reader.
on the contrary, the creation of a successful aphorism is intended and emerges from a conscious process of deep reflective awareness. yes they “bubble up” from deep in the mind, but the author subtly guides and reflects on this process, forming it slowly to his will and needs, directing its flows as he desires so that the final product is representative of that prior meaning, which is grasped comprehensively and simultaleously, as a whole as well as – at the same time – as its parts.
yes there is.
yes you do.
and as for destruction or dissolution, aphorisms destroy only while they create. true creation IS destruction; the labels are arbitrary. destruction can come only at the price of creation. the successful aphorism is a particularly apt illustration of this.
3XGreat:
"distill" means - to extract the essential elements of;
“sake” means - cause, account, interest, or benefit: for the sake of all students.
purpose or end: for the sake of appearances.
…and so - where does this action take “wisdom” ? or how is wisdom served here? is this the same as “wisdom for wisdom’s sake”? Doesn’t distilling wisdom for the sake of distilling wisdom lead absolutely nowhere? What is the point?
“Distill” means - to boil a compound to separate mixtures. Usually used in the creation of liquor
“Sake” means - a rice ‘beer’ that’s really more like vodka
…and so - where does this action take “sake?” Or how is “sake” served here? in warm cups? is this the same as “sake for sake’s sake?” Or do you have to pair it with a good pair of short ribs? Doesn’t distilling ‘sake’ for the sake of sake-distilling itself lead to us drinking absolut somewhere? What is the point?
[size=50]they don’t distill sake[/size]
that was really cool, ity - i enjoyed it. but we are simply talking about distilling sake for the sake of distilling sake - it doesn’t necessarily have to lead anywhere, especially if i was the one distilling it. am i wrong? is my thinking flawed 
Asking me if your thinking is flawed is like asking a thirsty man in the middle of the desert what water tastes like. 
hmmm - that is actually a very interesting statement that at the moment i do not have an answer to albeit you didn’t ask a question. But it is still like a riddle to me - i love riddles. when the universe perhaps sends one a riddle, it is best to ruminate on before one - goes jumping over the moon!! 
seriously though, i will have to ponder this and see where it takes me.
your statement reminded of something a Desert (no pun intended) Father might make. so very good ity. And do not explain it!!!
when is he coming back?