Attempt at an aphorism.

Ambiguous ambiguity.—An exoteric writer strains to leave no unnecessary ambiguity in his writings. But because he, too, is only human, others can never be certain that any meaningful ambiguity was intended. This is the flaw in his inverted pentagram.

Bur maybe no other way of describing whatever he may mean could be possible, leaving only contested ambiguity, whether intention is concerned. As such, some will see a ploy, others a clarity.

I will give a little masterclass in reading writing like this.

The title of my thread is “Attempt at an aphorism”. An ap-horism is an off-horizoning. My post, however, is only an attempt at such an off-horizoning–which is in perfect agreement with its content. Also, there is a Nietzschean “tradition” of associating attempting with tempting.

“An exoteric writer”: Note that that it doesn’t say “exoteric writers” or “every exoteric writer” or something like that; I’m in the first place, and possibly exclusively, talking about myself. Also, “exoteric writing” is how Leo Strauss called it; others may call it “esoteric writing”; the point is that exoteric writing is writing that obfuscates its deeper, esoteric meaning with an exoteric surface.

“strains”: Exoteric writing often sounds a bit strained–or, conversely, a bit “woolly” (Strauss).

“to leave no”: As we say in Holland, “to write is to scratch [out]”.

“unnecessary ambiguity”: By this I don’t just mean any meaningful ambiguity that the writer intends to have in his writing, but also any meaningless (insignificant, trivial) ambiguity that he can hardly avoid. An example of this is the word “flaw” in the final sentence. “Flaw” can also mean “gust”, but this would make no sense whatsoever in the context at hand and may therefore be disregarded.

“his writings”: This can refer both to the products of his writing activities and to those activities themselves, but that doesn’t really matter.

“But because he, too, is only human, others can never be certain that”: There are five instances of straining to leave no unnecessary ambiguity in this part: “because” (instead of, say, “as” or “since”), “too” (instead of, say, “also” or “as well”), “others” (instead of, say, “one”), “certain” (instead of, say, “sure”), and “that” (instead of, say, “if” or “whether”). Also, “only” is ambiguous, but this ambiguity is again trivial.

“that any meaningful ambiguity was intended”: By not italicizing “intended”, I made this part ambiguous. It now seems to say: “that, if there be any meaningful ambiguity at all in his writings, this was intended”. But what I rather meant is: “that any and all meaningful ambiguity in his writings was intended”. In other words, what I meant is that there will probably be meaningful ambiguity in his writings.

“the flaw in his inverted pentagram”: This is an allusion to Goethe’s Faust. In the first part of that tragedy, the Devil follows Faust into his lodgings in the shape of a poodle. But when they’ve had a chat and it’s time for him to go, he cannot leave, due to a flawed pentagram on the threshold. By making it an inverted pentagram, I’m trying to say that the flaw I’ve described, the ambiguity of the writer’s ambiguity, actually perfects his exotericism, because it keeps “the Devil”–the unfit among his readers–out… Also, as the inverted pentagram, contrary to the upright pentagram, is often considered Satanic, I mean to suggest that “the Devil” is rather “God”–the good, upstanding citizens, who are to be shielded from philosophy and vice versa…

I’ll rate this as a 2/10 as a attempt to show original thinking.

Your still heavily dependent on other thinkers here, and are largely afraid of thinking without heavy reference to other writers (so still quite the parasite, afraid to do your own thinking) but there is slight, so ever slight, evidence of independent thought.l here.

Might be the first post I’ve ever seen you make that qualifies you as a philosopher.

Let’s just say I’m not looking foreward to your final product, a Poetics, unless your able to condence your ideas into abstract, stand alone form capable of being judged on their own merits, instead of trying to seek legitimacy in other works in every other line. Especially disturbing your still talking about Goethe, Leo, and Nietzsche here… I mean damn, other people wrote books too. Eventually your going to have to leave the kiddy pool and swim out into the deep end.

This qualifies as the first compliment I’ve ever given you.

Of great merit, however is the bringing in of essential versus inessential paradigmns. The inversion plays a central role, in the idea of intentionality, and it is that, that is beyond the reach of most, who can not even begin to appreciate the difference.

Was the inversion such, that it can overcome the hindrances of the conflict between internal and external processes (of thought); or, can ecce homo
stand on his own, not-with-standing this put upon struggle he has to face on a daily basis?

Is ther an exit for him besides abdicating his sanity?

What? Dude… what is this? Don’t just explain what a paradigm is, but how one knows they are paradigming essence, much less non-essence in the first place. You presume something is happening here with introverted/extroverted thought called a paradigm.

You can see the issue with Sauwelios’ post in interpreting your Orbie:

He is presumably talking about Hermeunetics here.

He just said this post is consistently meaningless, and so it is.

Perhaps, but Pavlov advanced it by discovering Conditioned Response. Perhaps Nietzscheans will some day advance to the point of Salvating every time a bell is rung, and finally comprehend the phenomena.

More than likely your just talking about yourself.

Yes, we have all read Esoteric writers. Its a second cousin to jokes in the pursuit of wisdom, both are formulaic constructs of language, juxtapositioning situation against the variation of comprehension identity.

It doesn’t have to be assed up. Hardly, take this example of Kuan Tzu:

Your censoring thought here, I would bid you to look after the caution of Wittgenstein in the needless butchering of a artistic statement, the very phrasing that feels unnecessary or off is what makes it unique and worthwhile. I would recommend preserving this, and adjusting the rest of the meter, preserving context. You’ll find you can often double the informational load of a line this way, allowing it to say many things in a single reading.

When you do this, you position the reader on a mnemonic threshold in the mind, an anterograde amnesia that destroys the continuance of the presence and sucks the reader into their past, following the logic trains possible. In humor as well as esoteric thought, we make a assertion against congruency and contradiction. Is it beautiful, or disgusting… its a statement that is affirmed in how we carry ourselves. This whole process isn’t a Hermeunetics of Language, or of Internal/External Perspectives… these aspects of consciousness aren’t present, its one of affirming and rearranging memory consolidation.

No you didn’t. You presume too much here. Theory of Mind presumptions. One can take several interpretations of meaning in emphasis. I do this all the time with humor, taking a sober statement on its point of emphasis and turning it upside down. You yourself always seem to be in a state of utter shock when I do this to you.

If one can turn the meaning of a phrase upside down, one can write esoterically and meaningfully. You understand the manipulation of language and intent as far as comprehension is concerned on the part of others. There is always variability on the parts of others in understanding your intentions (if you even had them, sometimes deus ex machina comes mechanically without intention, like walking and thinking… you look up, and you’ve arrived unexpectedly).

Poetry is the art of divine madness, according to Plato, but it comes at a price that divides Conscious and Unconscious activities, your anticipation:

I typed Feuerstein while he was alive, INTP, so you should be abso to grasp the relevency of that. (Sauwelios)

The earliest concept of syllogisms we have is merely lateralizing Images and Language. It started off as a very primitive version of a PowerPoint presentation, which gives rise to the interpretation and critic of art, which in turn can lead to Theophrastrian Characterization:

This leads to the Mimicry of the Stoic Playwright Publius Syrus, who specialized in presenting one man, extremely short acts emphasizing a single kind of character trait and situation… basically, highly philosophical memes (a little more high brow than LOL Cats, but not much)

That’s all your presenting in this example of Goethe, walking over a Satanic Pentagram.

It doesn’t show that your valuation/revaluation is correct. Intact, it fails to be funny or insightful. You admittedly show its just a attempt, but I haven’t seen much evidence you have much of a imagination to begin with, given your low level of intellect and play.

An example… Pointing to intelligence isn’t intelligence as a self possessive quality in and of itself, as monkeys point at things all the time, but are neither that, nor can communicate why they point. Hence they find throwing shit at people to be the more useful activity.

Say you take a satanist, your average herd level Satanist like yourself, not a high performing intellectual, and give him a statue of the Virgin Mary, what do you get?

This doesn’t qualify as progress or creative spirit. Its just banal and pathetic. Its merely sacrilegious, but doesn’t yield to a higher principle or psychological level, merely eludes to the failure of artistry.

This doesn’t mean you can’t achieve artistry with those very mixtures of holy motherhood, feces, and sacrilege. Swami Vivekananda recalled his master RamaKrishna when serving in a goddesses temple as the priest would shock everyone by throwing shit at it, while cursing at it. This would be evidence of a Satanic act that progressively introduces a chance for reasoning via catharsis to emerge. However, 99.9999% of satanic activity is remarkably worthless and stupid, and is designed more to feed rebelous thoughts (rebellion against what?) and waste time. The activity in and of itself is a hindrance, and the very same positive progress can be achieved in other ways, via simple logic. Your a one trick pony, eluding to Satanism as a means, without comprehension of a end, beyond hopes of a overman. If anything, you make it even more difficult to increase your capacity to reason, as Satanism is more of a retardant, than a growth accelerator.

If all you worship is shit, then shit becomes your God.

Instead of taking Satanism as the standard of intellectual growth, why not toss this middle man aside and take a stab at being that which you have always sought. Its the tantric approach, just fucking being it. It means abandoning that weak, effeminate persona known as Sri Sauwelios, his thought processes, and embracing a better aspect of consciousness, and live in sincerely and fully. Most people are better and smarter than you, and far more imaginative. Your lucky, as you have so many living role models to emulate, given how low and pathetic your starting point is.

Poodle walking on pentogram… don’t you know All Dogs Go To Heaven?

This is a affirmation of life. Its not Satanic, as the satanist is the feminist. However, the technique (very rarely) can be both Satanic and Affirmative in a sense of insight to the good, bringing us closer to comprehension of the underlining paradoxes. Likewise, it can (and much more often) be exploited for the affirmation of life/God. It was a practice of the Cynics/Holy Fools that Christianity adopted that Leveyan Satanism borrowed ironically out of complete ignorance of its source! You see churches follow this generically to this day with their advertising scripture of the week.

The idea it even needs to take a Religious-Sacrilidge Dualism is beyond me, it can take countless forms. Just your obsessed with a tiny area of life (and this obsession has caused you to reject the goodness inherent in life).

The first two sentences are not clearly thought through.
The last sentence is complete nonsense and adds nothing but confusion. It’s not ambiguous, just bullshit.

Do I care whether or not you intended ambiguity? Not really. A statement can only be ambiguous if it has at least one clear meaning. I think you have word salad.

Interesting point, perhaps the problem is that others see ambiguity where none was meant, or otherwise don’t see the writing as it was written in it’s informational environment. They don’t get it or perceive the same words as having an ulterior meaning.

It is difficult to give background info as that tends to be more vague and hence takes us further away from the exoteric meaning in the actual text.