I’m not even sure I’m worthy of jamming with you guys anymore.
Guys, I’m completely off my routine and trajectory: Summer, and an extended weekend, and all that shit -not to mention the holiday. I spent some time reconnecting with real world friends that I grew up with. But I’ll get back to it as soon as I can.
But it really is good seeing both of you again. My heart is roaring.
Can you believe I actually managed to get kicked off of Face book for 12 hrs…
or maybe that shouldn’t be so surprising to you.
Anyway, I do love you, man. It’s just that when I jam with you again, I want to do it the right way, with the right routine…
For now, I find it hard to stop commenting on how good it is to see you guys again.
I guess I didn’t realized how much I missed you until I did. I thought about you. Just didn’t realize how much I missed you.
Hello d63. Missed you too, I’m just getting used to the heat, and plan to do some reading.Be well!
You know the cords, maybe your rhythm has gotten stale, there’s no better solution than to just pick it back up and improvise. If your worried about being critiqued just turn the distortion up until one is left silent:
Who anyway cares about giraffes and the oceans, interesting enough, and the words on the fathoms. Orchard news that’s absolutely essential, speaking to buffalo. And storks in ceramic paper and concrete peripheries, leaning on the negative grades. Axles bent, in a way it seems important, important that we look beyond the flat cakes, we must, and finally we mustn’t.
Now I’ll turn it up completely and not worry about spacing, feedback.
Feedback, that is interesting, the only feedback one gets while playing with feedback is negative feedback. What is negative feedback? (There full distortion is on!) IIIIIIIIIIItttttttttttttt coooooUUULLlllddd beee any thing negegaggtive feedback negafeed back andthnefeedne (Stand Back!) Giraffs!!! And ocean centrals??? I meaN!!! Absolutely essential buffalos on negative grades, making buffalo noises t0o close to each other, the high pitched buffalo noise, it’s not right, the storks break the peripheries they are stuck in, the insights, the profundities, the axiomatics, the CERamics! They do understand the axles, broken, BROKeN, AxleSS. Bent aNd Broken in the profundities of fathoms, fathomless fathoms (???) prufundless profundities (…!) Anddd then there’s more;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; I’m sick on flat cakes, I’m down and destitute on eatIng flat cak!!!es. We MU!!!stN’'‘tt, we damn well mus?tn’t, damn straight mu…stn’!t.
One of the interesting things that came up, Obe, in my time away and because of my recent focus on Deleuze, is an interesting paradox. It has to do with the univocity of Being which founds itself on the recognition that consciousness, as a form of being in itself, must, for our purposes, be the foundation of all other being and that, consequently, it can only follow that all being is equal in nature thereby rendering the notion of ontological status irrelevant. In other words, a thing either exists or it doesn’t. Therefore, it would be reasonable to argue that our thoughts, emotions, and imaginings have the same ontological status as the rock that stubs our toe.
But the paradox comes from the concept of non-being (or nothingness). Now on one hand, we could take the phenomenological approach of speaking in terms of presence and absence. That, of course, would be the less contentious route in that it would be hard to deny that we, at least, have a concept of non-being which, once again, would have the same ontological status as the rock that stubs your toe.
But to get to our paradox, let’s say that we took the ontological approach of admitting non-being did exist –something we can back with the possible non-existence of our consciousness. Now our instincts tell us that non-being, by its very definition, could not have being. However, if non-being did actually exist, wouldn’t it, due to our use of the term “exists”, still be a form of being with, once again, the same ontological status as the rock that stubs your toe.
Anyway, gotta get back to my The Walking Dead marathon. Just wanted to give you and Stuart something to chew on.
I agree with the last line, but I would relate consciousness itself to nothingness or non-being.
I agree that the concept of “non-being” would also have the same ontological status as that rock, but I don’t see the concept as being anything other than something convenient used to explain certain philosophical matters. Sartre puts it best when he says something to the affect of; nothing is not, nothing nothings, or nothing is nihilated.
Stuart: you can relate non consciousness to being, or the existence of consciousness , but such relationship is tenuous. You can relate anything to anything as qua equivalents, opposites, nominal interpretations, or whatever. Such relationship is nothing but another description.
That’s why the for-itself, or consciousness for the most part, is that which it is and that which it isn’t.
As did Sartre: it was the foundation of existentialism:
the underlying nothingness of consciousness.
Yes, it would seem that Nothingness is an “effect of”: as in an effect of Being.
Excellent rift, brother! Profound.
It is truly a pleasure jamming with you. There is no doubt in my mind that I am going to grow with you. You understand me?
Obe, always a pleasure jamming with you as well.
During my time off, due to my broken wing, I have had a lot of time to catch up on things. One of the most recent was the AMC series, The Walking Dead. And I’m telling you guys, the series has multiple philosophical implications. If it hasn’t been part of the Philosophy and Popular Culture series, it will be.
However, I want to bring up one philosophical implication in particular:
In the episode where the main characters ended up in the Disease Control Center, the scientist there explained to them how the disease worked. First it basically destroyed the brain. Then what happened is that the base of the brain lit up thereby motivating the zombie to move in the way they do. And in a sense, based on that, we can reasonably argue (with the materialists) that they would not be the same person they were.
Still, we would have to recognize that they would remain a particular point in space in time. If I were a writer of that series, I would exploit that. I would put in a character, an intellectual, that happened to get bit, then asked to remain alive long enough to see what it was like. After that, they could shoot them in the brain.
Think: Hofstadter and the symbolic system through which we project: the nothingness becoming something…
Anyway, love ya man!
Gotta roll…
Sorry guys, nothing really philosophical to go into here. But then anything can turn philosophical and hopefully I’ll be able pull such out of the following ramble. I mean there is a reason I put this in Mundane Babble. Plus that, I’m hoping some of my Euro-brothers can give me some info on this since they have had a little more experience with it than most Americans.
Anyway, I’m looking at buying a new Chevy Spark. I apologize for the crass consumerism of it; but I kind of fell in love with it today. And it is within my price-range. But the important part is that it showed America starting to turn back to producing the compact cars they use to after the gasoline crisis of the 70’s. But what really warmed my heart was looking at the engine which felt like a return in that it was simple and uncluttered –with plenty of room to get at any component you needed to. It was like looking at an old Volkswagen engine. It was almost beautiful when you compare it to the cluttered engine compartments we’ve grown use to seeing lately –those designed to intimidate backyard mechanics and force everyone to depend on technicians. The car really had character.
But to bring it back to a more philosophical lean: in a way, it was kind of redemption for the silly return of American Phalligocentricism I witnessed back in the 90’s. And I had front row seat. Around 95, or shortly thereafter, I had given up a maintenance job to work in a garage booth so that I would have more time for my studies. And we were right at the peak of the Clinton boom. But more significant was the fact that gas had dropped to dirt cheap prices. This, however, proved to be a mixed blessing in that America’s response was a despicable form confidence. The next thing I knew I was watching everyone driving out in big ass 4 by 4 trucks and fucking Hummers. I’m watching this shit and thinking: don’t you fucking people remember? Now keep in mind that along with the economic boom came a confidence boom. It was a time of neo-Neitzschean over confidence as expressed in the “No Fear” movement. Everyone began to act as if everything was merely a matter of Will when, in truth, the circumstances that inspired that confidence had to do with forces beyond most people’s control. The next thing you knew, you had a lot of guys in sports bars, flush with success, acting as if they had done it all on their own and bitching about what they had to spare for the less fortunate:
Why should I have to give some to them? I worked for it.
Furthermore, I knew what the phallic aesthetic, when it came to cars, would lead to: a rise in demand that would lead to an eventual rise in the price of gasoline -not to mention the possible depletion of all fossil fuels. But it got even more despicable when American car manufacturers more or less abandoned the compact car and forced the bigger ones on us. They, of course, talked about the new technology that would provide fuel efficiency. But the whole time, all I’m thinking is: here’s a novel idea: how about we just make them smaller? Success, in a sense, like teenagers discovering a new drug, had made us ignorant –maybe even fascistic.
Ironically, because of this, I think that the success of Clinton’s economy is what led to the presidency of Bush Jr. I would also argue that the Darwinitus, the neo Neitzscheian gospel we tend to deal with on these boards (for instance: Satyr and KTS), what Putman referred to as Macho Ethics, is a residual byproduct of this dynamic.
That said, I’m not sure if I’m buying a car or I’m buying redemption –or maybe even hope.
It’s everywhere on these boards. We’ve encountered it –many times. Nor is it unknown among professional thinkers. Putman refers to it as macho ethics; Raymond Tallis: darwinitus. For myself, I like to think of it as the tightfisted Neo-Nietzschian Gospel –or, rather, I should say a selective and half-assed interpretation of him rooted in Social Darwinism and filtered through the smug sociopathy of Ayn Rand. And we know it when we see it. Too many of its advocates are all too willing to show as well as tell, taking every opportunity they can to demean others, bullying, making snide remarks (which often resort to the heavy-handed and cliché: pre-programmed responses to pre-programmed cues), and turning it all into an intellectual pissing contest, all of which they rationalize through such statements as “bullying is good” and appeals to “tough love” which boil down to their most deeply embraced motto, Nietzsche’s ironically quoted to death:
“What doesn’t kill me makes me strong.”
Beyond that, we get little in the form of a argument. They get away with it It’s everywhere on these boards. We’ve encountered it –many times. Nor is it unknown among professional thinkers. Putman refers to it as macho ethics; Raymond Tallis: darwinitus. For myself, I like to think of it as the tightfisted Neo-Nietzschian Gospel –or, rather, I should say a selective and half-assed interpretation of him rooted in Social Darwinism and filtered through the smug sociopathy of Ayn Rand. And we know it when we see it. Too many of its advocates are all too willing to show as well as tell, taking every opportunity they can to demean others, bullying, making snide remarks (which often resort to the heavy-handed and cliché: pre-programmed responses to pre-programmed cues), and turning it all into an intellectual pissing contest, all of which they rationalize through such statements as “bullying is good” and appeals to “tough love” which boil down to their most deeply embraced motto, Nietzsche’s ironically quoted to death:
“What doesn’t kill me makes me strong.”
Beyond that, we get little in the form of a argument. They get away with it due to a pervasive nihilism that recognizes there is no solid criterion for anything, that all our positions rest on assumptions that, in turn, float on nothing. And we will further see that theirs is the dark side of resonance and seduction that seems one of the more assertive criteria (a kind of praxis) in the face of that underlying nothingness.
Of course, most of us, being reasonable people less susceptible to the misguiding appeal of the purely radical purely for the sake of the radical, will recognize it for the nonsense it is. Never mind that no civil society could sustain such an ideology, it being the exact antithesis of such. Never mind that most people come on these boards for recreation and that if these boards are to be philosophically and intellectually productive, it will most likely be as an improvisation and in the same sense that a musician finds the jam creatively productive (that which cannot possibly be served by turning this into a pissing contest), and that the most likely result of their approach is to reduce a board to little more than an intellectual slum as the old MySpace boards demonstrated. Never mind that this kind of ideology has a history intimately entwined with every atrocity committed throughout it and that the smug and fascistic certainty they demonstrate is probably not that different than that expressed by every other tyrant –including the religious ones and most notably Nazi Germany. Never mind that their unquestioning faith in it reeks of the same kind of dogmatic a-rationality that characterizes the very religions they claim to be diametrically opposed to. Never mind that, while all people act out of self interest (a recognition that is a cornerstone to their self justification), the difference between reasonable and rational people and them is that rational people, to gain their ends, put the base of their brain in a back-and-forth league with the cognitive while the advocates put the cognitive purely in the service of the base of the brain. This, mind you, is why the reasonable can seem weak since they are always dealing the hesitation that comes from the back and forth while the smug certainty and a-rationality of the Neo-Nietzschian manages to evade hesitation by failing to recognize any reason to hesitate. For example, note the pro-capitalists that are, in the face of the growing number of failures of Capitalism, like a busted teenager who will throw out anything they can to rationalize in the hopes that something might stick. And never mind that if such a position can be experienced as valid, it can only be through the appeal of seeming radical while being part of a small in crowd –hence their propensity toward pre-programmed responses to pre-programmed cues: as long as their little group responds, it doesn’t matter what an outsider thinks. Never mind that it rides on what is basically a fad that took hold in the “no fear” 90’s based on an overconfidence driven by the Clinton boom. Yes, never mind that these people seem to be thinking through their dicks rather than their heads.
What we really need to look at, in order to get at the root of it, the essential silliness that would make it comical if it hadn’t have proved itself dangerous, is that natural element of the human makeup that it is driven by and is most dependent on: fancy. I mean given the relationship we know, for a fact, to exist between all this (all of us as individuals, our computers, and the cyberspace that connects us), we can reasonably imagine such advocates sitting, in an environmentally controlled environment, in front of their computers, telling us what a tough world it is and how stupid we are for not accepting the reality of it. And while it’s all good and well to sit in such an environment and act as if one is more than ready for the kind of dog-eat-dog (possibly post-apocalyptic, Mad-Maxian) world they think we should welcome, we have to wonder if they’re really as ready for action as they claim to be. We have to wonder if it isn’t more about adolescent fancy passing itself off as hubris.
to a pervasive nihilism that recognizes there is no solid criterion for anything, that all our positions rest on assumptions that, in turn, float on nothing. And we will further see that theirs is the dark side of resonance and seduction that seems one of the more assertive criteria (a kind of praxis) in the face of that underlying nothingness.
Of course, most of us, being reasonable people less susceptible to the misguiding appeal of the purely radical purely for the sake of the radical, will recognize it for the nonsense it is. Never mind that no civil society could sustain such an ideology, it being the exact antithesis of such. Never mind that most people come on these boards for recreation and that if these boards are to be philosophically and intellectually productive, it will most likely be as an improvisation and in the same sense that a musician finds the jam creatively productive (that which cannot possibly be served by turning this into a pissing contest), and that the most likely result of their approach is to reduce a board to little more than an intellectual slum as the old MySpace boards demonstrated. Never mind that this kind of ideology has a history intimately entwined with every atrocity committed throughout it and that the smug and fascistic certainty they demonstrate is probably not that different than that expressed by every other tyrant –including the religious ones and most notably Nazi Germany. Never mind that their unquestioning faith in it reeks of the same kind of dogmatic a-rationality that characterizes the very religions they claim to be diametrically opposed to. Never mind that, while all people act out self interest (a recognition that is a cornerstone to their self justification), the difference between reasonable and rational people and them is that rational people, to gain their ends, put the base of their brain in a back-and-forth league with the cognitive while the advocates put the cognitive purely in the service of the base of the brain. This, mind you, is why the reasonable can seem weak since they are always dealing the hesitation that comes from the back and forth while the smug certainty and a-rationality of the Neo-Nietzschian manages to evade hesitation by failing to recognize any reason to hesitate. For example, note the pro-capitalists that are, in the face of the growing number of failures of Capitalism, like a busted teenager who will throw out anything they can to rationalize in the hopes that something might stick. And never mind that if such a position can be experienced as valid, it can only be through the appeal of seeming radical while being part of a small in crowd –hence their propensity toward pre-programmed responses to pre-programmed cues: as long as their little group responds, it doesn’t matter what an outsider thinks. Never mind that it rides on what is basically a fad that took hold in the “no fear” 90’s based on an overconfidence driven by the Clinton boom. Yes, never mind that these people seem to be thinking through their dicks rather than their heads.
What we really need to look at, in order to get at the root of it, the essential silliness that would make it comical if it hadn’t have proved itself dangerous, is that natural element of the human makeup that it is driven by and is most dependent on: fancy. I mean given the relationship we know, for a fact, to exist between all this (all of us as individuals, our computers, and the cyberspace that connects us), we can reasonably imagine such advocates sitting, in an environmentally controlled environment, in front of their computers, telling us what a tough world it is and how stupid we are for not accepting the reality of it. And while it’s all good and well to sit in such an environment and act as if one is more than ready for the kind of dog-eat-dog (possibly post-apocalyptic, Mad-Maxian) world they think we should welcome, we have to wonder if they’re really as ready for action as they claim to be. We have to wonder if it isn’t more about adolescent fancy passing itself off as hubris.
Today: nothing; just existed.
The cool thing about it is that point at which you’ve done your footwork. You can just relax, drink your beer, and admire the work you’ve done.
Above all else:
I love what I’m doing.
It is worth the work.
If I have any goal in this:
it is to be the Van Gogh of philosophy.
I want to make Deleuze proud.