Semiotics

[Parodites]

K well I explained why I write in this way in the context of metaphysical absence, because it demands that I write this way. In order to think outside of the Western, distorted philosophy of metaphysical presence, I must deploy an intrinsic operational semiotic, which takes the form of this highly horizontal, metaleptic language, absorbing terminology from disparate fields of knowledge, swarming references and foreign tongues, etc.

How did you task me with demonstrating Greek? I don’t video chat or voice chat so, what exactly did you ask me to do?

[Parodites]

Hold on a second- you never insulted me? Now I am starting to remember you, I don’t know what your old username was. You got banned for continually insulting me for no reason, which you’ve done EXACTLY as before with this new account. Have you not mentally grown up at all in that time?

And I follow YOU around?

I DIDN’T KNOW WHO YOU WERE 5 HOURS AGO. I’ve addressed, what is it now, three posts of my nearly 900 to you. Even though you insulted me first for no reason, I still felt bad for going hard on you, so I decided to try and calmly explain to you my own mission, why these texts are written like they are, and what I’m doin’. I was trying to be nice. Fuck off dude.

And I don’t know what the van clan is. Fixed was my friend, until he had a mental breakdown or something and refused to apologize for calling me an anti-American and a communist because I didn’t support the idiots who ran into the Capitol building or something. I don’t join clans, I don’t join clubs. I don’t want to be part of anything. I’m not in a movement. Not in a party.

I write incomprehensibly because my subject is the incomprehensible: nullity, the symbolic gap, the chiasmus, the metaphysical absence at the core of Western philosophy haunting the specter of Being:

@Parodites

It is a curious thing, that Schlegel also found himself “forced into speech”, though in his case, this was phrased as being “forced to produce irony
against one’s will” by an “irony that has run wild and can’t be controlled any longer”, (while writing about the different levels of irony to which
the author might dare to climb, running the danger that at some point he would find himself “unable to disentangle himself from the irony
anymore”, and therefor compelled ineluctably, as though by some external power, to perpetuate it mechanically, ie. by a free-mimesis.) Along
these lines, Schlegel writes incomprehensibly of the incomprehensible in his “Essay on Incomprehensibility”, in which he expounds upon his
conceptualization of irony and the recursive ad infinitum of an “irony of irony”. To paraphrase the contents of this text: the world’s greatest truths
are quite trivial, boring, and forgettable most of all, thus nothing is more important than finding, through idealism, poetry, distortions, lies, and
ever greater paradox, (ever greater irony) ever more novel and absurd ways of expressing them, such that man does not forget these ignoble
‘truths’,- or simply become too disaffected to acknowledge them anymore,- upon which his life and civilization, tedious as they are, certainly
depend. It is, in other words, the incomprehensible basis of our own human nature, through which we discover the necessary parallel to World,
Truth, and God,- a profane analogia through which we might develop these absurdities, paradoxes, and artistic irony,- arriving therefor, at a new
understanding of our un-understanding, which is to say: arriving finally, at a mis-understanding (an irony) of this new understanding. (of
our un-understanding.) Thus, if the world were to ever become comprehensible fully, man would on that account cease mis-understanding
himself: he would then be completely unable to understand the world now grown incomprehensible, and would simply perish while attempting
to nourish himself with stones.

@Parodites

“… to the excesses and extremes of his linguistic appropriation and style, which Seneca
reads as psychological imprints, one might further go beyond the boundary of the text and continue tracing an inherent instability,- a
metastasizing irrationality,- emerging from out of the heart of the Word itself, whose latent bent were felt,- should it be excavated from the
‘ambient’ linguistic trends and signal boosted,- from individual, to society, to the structure of the cosmos itself, embedding itself within the
Proteus of matter and numbering the days even of the decaying proton.”

[Lorikeet (Satyr)]

What is a nihilist of nihilism?
To them you are a negator of their negations of reality, which cannot be negated other than linguistically and theoretically.
I can choose to ignore, to dismiss, to forget; I can choose to fabricate excuses and elaborate word-games; I can choose to coerce, seduce, bribe others to validate my excuses…
Does this, in any way, change what I am dismissing, denying, and rejecting?

[Parodites]

I’m not a nihilist.

I simply propose that Western philosophical discourse is grounded on an ancient aporia, a silence it refuses to remember; a Freudo-Lacanian repression, a… fetish. One that lies in the conversion of all metaphysical negativity into a presence, the presence of Being, the ontos, an artificial construction.

@Parodites

" Thought does not generate its objects from itself as in Hegel; (by extracting the ‘essences’ of things within the category of ‘existence as a secondary product of self-consciousness’ in which the primary product of absolute subjectivity is synthesized with its dialectical opposite, an inheritance of Fichtean idealism) it encodes its objects through properties of matter, (material objects; the objects-as-relations-of-objects in Harman’s epistemology) while its ultimate object (itself; the subject) remains irreducible to any such discovered properties, (‘pre-reflective disjunction’) and therefor, un-encoded by any representation in the symbolic order, maintaining the negative ‘essence’ that Harman’s speculative realism rejects as being swallowed up in relational meshes devoid of internal contents or qualia, while consequentially leaving a ‘metaxial’ gap in the preontological ‘spectral Real’, [By this gap, we are to understand the basis for a kind of operative nominalism in the resurgence of a latent ‘doxological difference’ in the function of the sign. Note Pickstock, in “After Writing: On the Liturgical Consummation of Philosophy”, 1997. Defending Plato against the Derridean critique of presence and the privileging of writing in the codification of knowledge’s discourse, we find here that the ‘true difference’, upon which the meaning of the Logos depends, has been rejected by modernity as an ‘uncontained doxological presence’ underpinning a sophistic choreography of pretended diversity, ‘intolerant tolerance’, and feign pluralism, all fabricated by an immanentist technogenesis of the divine city reduced to market-exchange values and algorithmically pre-empted capitalist acceleration,- one for which no true ‘authorship’ for the story of modernity can be located. Plato is defended here, namely in his having actually preserved a doxological distance beyond the mere ‘erasures of the word’, (Minkkjnen, writing about Kafka’s erasure of ‘the story of modernity’s authorship’ in “The Radiance of Justice: On the Minor Jurisprudence of Franz Kafka”: “The signature attempts to claim authorship and control for what has been written. With his name, a lover attempts to seal a letter to his beloved, but encounters only darkness; silence.”) that is, a true difference, within the initial binary of the subject and object, presence and absence, such that the later, which we would identify here with ‘pure negativity’, cannot be reduced to the immanent plane deterritorialized by infinite multiplicities of equivalent measure,- for such a self-differentiating difference, a ‘writing under erasure’ or ‘pure infinite deferral’, which all of modernity has falsely called ‘difference’, is completely meaningless.] delimiting both primary and secondary processes in tandem."

Since I am addressing Deleuzians in this passage, note that “deterritorialized, infinite multiplicities” is basically synonymous with what I earlier called “viral replication of the sign”, which results from free-mimesis, the suspension of the mimetic function, etc. ; these are both formula describing the meaningless kind of “difference” championed by modernity, academia, Leftists, etc.


There is a truer kind of difference, (one beyond the subject-object difference… an inherent difference) one needed to stabilize the binary, chiasmatic relationship between those concepts the dialectic would fuse. This relationship, the fundamental anti-dialectic, I refer to as the transcendental analogia.

@Parodites

( “ Who knows enough but Empedocles himself, to complete the haunting ellipsis Holderlin concludes one of his fragments with, which I will
include here in paraphrasis:

The wise ones- the wisest in fact amongst us who, having differentiated only through the movement of Spirit, 1 [Geist; as with the Hegelian
separation of the inorganic from the aorgic in order to constitute absolute spirit] and in that highest abstraction, quickly return to their image of
pure Being,- to their cherished eidos, and in this way, believing they have differentiated, fall back into an all the greater indifference,- now taking
the non-opposition to which they have returned for an eternal state of radical non-differentiation, and assuming for the construction of their
systems, the merely aesthetic unity [representation] of intelligbles as a perfect unity of essences. [truth] They have fooled their highest-most
nature with the lowest-most degree of reality,- with the shadow of reality, with the ideal opposition and differentiation, and thus nature takes its
revenge by … “

1. The deceived belief of the wise, who have “differentiated only with the spirit”, which Holderlin is writing about, recalls Thomasius’
   noble-analogue: "The first error consists in the fact that they thought they could ascend from the noblest analogue [being and nonbeing] to
   something more noble than the noblest, something prior to the first, something superior to the highest … "
   In having “differentiated only through Geist”, and in that way, pushed their own differentiation as ideal-ego from the rest of Creation to its most
   extreme conclusion, that is, Death, or the merely phenomenal reality of the real-ego, and realized in this the movement of spirit unrestricted by
   the course of Nature, the body, and time;- by taking the non-opposition or pure Being which, through this differentiation of absolute spirit, they
   have glimpsed behind the “veil of the multiple” or the prohodos of Nature, as eternal, so they- the wise ones, the philosophers- become indifferent
   and blinded to the duplicity in which the monon shatters the univocal reduction they have attempted, (ie. the shadow Holderlin refers to) and
   induces, if that indifference and blindness is not overcome by the epistrophe, the aporetic silence- the Loss of Being, in whose mysterious depths
   no answer has returned to us,- the flames of Aetna; so they- the philosophers, suffer revenge unto their stolen wisdom, and bear thereafter, in the
   struggle with the mighty daemon.)

This analogia, a kind of non-synthesis, expands into a four-fold division (thus, I call it the tetra-pole) instead of a dialectic stabilized in a third term. Drawing on Eriugena’s four-fold treatment of causality, in his theology:

@Parodites

The opposition of Man and God cannot be explicated by a univocal dualism, like that formulated
by the Hegelian dialectic. Instead, both man and God must be multivocally de-composed into
their own self-opposition, (their ‘bivalence’, recalling the term used at the beginning of this essay)
each revealing two principalities at work such that, in their dynamic rearrangement, a four-fold
pattern (the ‘tetrapole’) emerges through an ‘inner and outer’ dialectic that traces the
interpenetrating, spirognomic dance of the immanent and transcendent within the superimmanent
and supertranscendent prime-cause, as Eriugena calls it, which exists both outside and within
time,- inside of, external to, and within all of Nature. The first opposition: Being and Nonbeing,
the other, Dasein and Sosein. The two dialectics are developed by utilizing ‘dialectical triads’,
(these triads are worked out by Cusanus, namely in his diagrammatics of the enneagon) in which
the thesis, antithesis, and synthesis of the univocal dialectic are replaced by two agonistic
categories including a third category signifying a ‘non-opposition’ in which the other two are
reified negatively, following Bataille’s formulation of the ‘absent third’, or the ‘non-synthesis’ of
Spare’s symbolic hermaphrodite. [It is worth noting that this absent Third functions like the
‘differend’ proposed by Lyotard, which is a labile ontological minima that must be asserted for the
sake of maintaining the coherency of other differentiations and ‘differentiating schemes’, but one
which, due to other sets of differences and linguistic schemes, cannot be articulated, remaining
purely an ‘aporia of representation’ a la. Labarthe’s Darstellung,- a minima therefor reifying a
potentiality that cannot be made actual and an actuality that cannot be reduced to potentiality,
much like the ‘otherwise-than-Being’ of Meinong which, like the Kantian antinomies, can be
conceived despite the impossibility of its actuality or empirical justification, (like the concept of a
square circle) though here we are dealing with a fundamental differend, (hence a minima) upon
which the entire basis of the secondary-process of differentiation itself depends.]

…

@Parodites

The tetrapolar exchange thus makes its appearance in myriad forms, from Lacan’s four discourses
to the ancient Greek model of the four elements. Harman himself, speaking of the Quadruple
Object, tells us that the univocal dialectic of Hegel neuters the intrinsic agonism of the initial
binary opposition Being-Nonbeing (inasmuch as the two are synthesized to approximate the one
ternary component of the dialectic, or the ‘third term’ at the basis of our Aristotelian principium
identitatis, which Pierce more completely developed in its application to semiotic identity, for in
the later case we see how this third term both grounds and transcends the identity of either
member of the binary set) which, in a four-fold network, can exchange these members of the
binary set, moving pairwise between any two of its members, in 10 different ways. This is the
basis of Cusanus’ enneagon and the connection between it, spiromancy, and the tetrapole. The
tetrapole, in other words, re-embeds the initial polarity, or what I have named the outer dialectic,
within an inner dialectic, whose secondary polarity develops the agonistic potency of the
fundamental tension across the distinct vocities of the episteme without stabilizing the
motive-power of Thought in a metaphysics of presence, leading up to ‘Being per transcendentiam’,
or the mystery of the choraic co-participation of the One in the Multiple, and the re-dissolution of
the Multiple in the One: a perfect Greek archaism we might take as an image of this preserved
tension, or ‘negativity’, which in Bataille of course appears as an excessus accumulated by a
system’s free radicals. This ‘fourth term’ is the unwritten meaning of the Platonic
conceptualization of the aporia of discourse. Here, we find that a tetrapolar network can utilize
this ‘pure negativity’ as an ‘engine of thought’, a basic aporia, without compromising its own
strictures, that is,- without abandoning the terminal logic inherent to it, which produces the decad
from the 'four’, providing a richer model of the spirogram than that provided by the
nummogrammatic reduction of the continuum to ‘zero and nine’. The question of the fourth-term,
however, remains the same as it was for Plato himself: a question of ‘participation’. Harman
speaks of a continuous enfolding and unfolding of the two binary sets over the tetrapole,
remarkably similar to the spiromantic dance around the poles of the enneagon, as likewise the
four divisions of Yeat’s metaphysics.

It- this truer difference- requires the preservation of the category of the Negative, the Null, along with this tetrapolar arrangement. This difference is involved in what I call the apocrisis, this being my own coinage and original concept: it instigates a difference(/ing) within the structure of subjectivity itself, namely through the reversal of the Sign, which I have elaborated on in the thread.

@Parodites

The irony
of the apocrisis however, has taken us in quite a different direction. The decoupling of the Real,
as the essence of trauma, induces a repulsion toward extrinsicity at the destabilized periphery of
the symbolic network, or what Bove calls the formation of a mere “simulacrum of the universe”,
(Utopia) thereby overloading the chiasmus occupying the space between the ‘abomenal’ vesture
of appearance and the un-nameable origin of the trauma within the Real, that is, a perilous
duplicity in the form of Ramazani’s stammered flight from the face of the ‘pallid mask’ or
monstrous Appearance out of fear on the one hand, and the “counter-violence” of Transcendence
on the other, which in his estimation simply recapitulates (ironically) the same fear as the basic
aporia of ethical discourse which, following Benjamin’s analysis of the Trauspiel, the allegorists
attempted to overcome symbolically, (Irony intuits something about the instability of human
experience by confirming a temporality conditioned by a succession of disconnected moments,-
one after another,- a tedium vitae for which the allegorists and symbolists labored to reconnect
with some higher, more eternal ‘order of things’ read out from beneath the veil of Nature, whose
temporalization they read as, like all passing things, ‘only a symbol’,- the 'rerum enigmata
clandistina’ or “perpetual circularity from the material world to God” [See Verner, The
Epistemology of the Monstrous in the Middle Ages.] educed from the metaphysical organization
of Aldhelm’s enigmata, echoed in the readings of Lapidge and Rosier as well.) while the
apocrisis, by recapitulating an internal division within the subject itself, further transmutes its
own predication and achieves the kind of aesthetic sublime entirely absent from Baudelaire and
the other decadents. This is a sublimity we must obviously, following the Platonic text, connect
to the holokleros or ‘whole man’, as is returned to perfection in the celebration of the mystery,-
(in the Socratic encomium, the mystery of Beauty, whereby lover and non-lover, as reason and
madness, are reified by the ‘wholeness’ recovered as mneme) indicating that the Socratic process
of recollection involves a reintegration of the sensory and the eidetic, appearance and essence,
etc. [Note: Griswold Jr., Self-knowledge in Plato’s Phaedrus. P. 111-113.] whereby dianoia
re-conforms the intellective hierarchy in a new synthetic arrangement [By the purely intellectual
hierarchy, I mean to indicate the ‘serpent-circle’ of the great titan Chronos,- the inculcation of a
redemptive, meaning an allegorical, configuration of the natural, ordinal, Pythagorean harmony
of the soul-universe; the tropic ‘music of the spheres’ as the basic melody of successive time
revered by the Pre-Socratics, as given in E. Scott, “Living with Indifference: Pythagoras,
Indifference, and the Beautiful Soul.”, while by the new synthetic arrangement, following the
Platonic-Socratic distinction, I refer to the logismotic ‘reckoning’ of Nature vs. the more
complete dia-noetic affirmation of Nature in the image of the ‘whole man’ for which the
daemono-maniacal element is productively incorporated at the level of extimacy, that is, through
an ‘irony of irony’ consequently perfected by philosophy’s ‘mad wisdom’ finally transubstantiated
by a Melvillean ‘wise madness’. * We might here recall also, a curious distinction made in
O’Leary’s “Gnostic Contagion: Robert Duncan and the Poetry of Illness” concerning the Gnostic
contagion which, springing forth from out of the body itself, as an intrinsic expression of the
organism’s own reproductive drive and self-sustaining mechanisms, emerges as a ‘devouring
knowledge’ flowering with a voluptuous, Sparean metastasis or a certain ‘cancer of poetry’, as
opposed to the contagion which, imposed from the outside,- from beyond the boundary of the
organism, and borne as an ‘alien spore’ originated somewhere outside the body, can for that very
reason do nothing else, but carry the subject outside of his body, even into a new inhabitancy,- a
Solgerian sublation of Geist or netherworld, that is, into a ‘land of ghosts’,- a world of invisible,
vampiric parasites bent on starving the poet upon whom they have attended with drear muses
through a ‘malady of words’.] for which the basic negativity inhabited by the trauma of a
subjectivity divided from itself is not repulsed as extrinsicity, or what Beckett named a
‘non-relation’, which would reify mere appearance or phenomenal reality as essence, but
sublimed internally ‘sub species hyperouranias’,- like those stars of Mallarme’s poet,- he who,
contemplating the night sky, could not strictly determine, if the stars had been torn from his
immortal heart, or his heart from the stars, and cast upon the unobserved, fiddled campaign of
mortality against a greater cosmos. (Thus ‘dia’-noia, which Socrates affirms as the ‘winged mind’
of the philosopher, would indicate a circulus around precisely that- around noia, or what
Leopardi regarded as the nullified core of both temporality and consciousness itself.)

My use of Duncan’s “gnostic contagion”, the “cancer of poetry”, the “Sparean metastasis” that has totally exploded my own prose, recalls my earlier digressions on Seneca’s “licentia oratio corruptis”,- a destabilizing corruption that springs from within the Word itself, as this true difference springs, out of the Negative, into the structure of subjectivity itself:

@Parodites

This ‘licentia oratio corruptis’,- this haunting instability lurking at the edges of language and, invisibly, peering out of
the “glimmering of things”, permeating them with a foretaste of its own immanentizing madness, is what Nathaniel Mackey calls, in
Engagements, the “creaking of the word”,- [Mackey: “… the name the Dogon of West Africa give their weaving block, the base on which the
loom they weave upon sits. They call it the “creaking of the word.” It is the noise (recall Kunze’s “stochastic resonances or white-nose”) upon
which the word is based, the discrepant foundation of all coherence and articulation, of the purchase upon the world fabrication affords.
Discrepant engagement, rather than suppressing or seeking to silence that noise, acknowledges it. In its anti-foundational acknowledgement of
founding noise, discrepant engagement sings “bass,” voicing reminders of the axiomatic exclusions upon which positings of identity and meaning
depend.”] serving for the basis of a “discrepant engagement” which denotes, citing Paul Naylor in “The Mired Sublime of Nathaniel Mackey’s
Song of the Andoumboulou”, “a theory of cross-culturality” which, like that of Benjaminian translation, “enacts one (such a theory, eg. itself) in
the structure of its definition.”

[Lorikeet (Satyr)]

Nihilism - conventional meaning
A description of the world lacking a one-god, universal meaning, pre-existing purpose…lacking an absolute state of oneness, wholeness, a singularity - a static immutable, indivisible thingness.
Called god, or god-particle, or singularity, or absolute, or order/chaos, or one/nil, or whatever name one desires and is seductive - inspiring to as many minds as possible.
Since a nihilistic concept cannot exist outside minds it requires minds to convince, coerce, seduce or bribe, into holding it as true. It is entirely linguistic because it is an abstraction that needs language to be transmitted/communicated from mind to mind. Memetic fertilization.
Its utility is as a defensive barrier to an uncertain, threatening, uncaring reality.
Emerging as a school of thought a attitude, alongside self-awarness.
The concept offers the individual comfort, certainty, by reducing the uncertain and indifferent into the known, or by insinuating an alternate reality that usurps the experienced one.

Nihilism = any theory - spiritual or secular - which projects a mental abstraction which contradicts experienced reality. Beginning with the ideology or the metaphysical presumption of what negates, nullifies the physical world, i.e., empirical, tangible, multiplicity, fluctuating, interactive, we experience as existence. Example any complete, static, stable, inert state of being.
The experienced World is sampled or completely dismissed, so as to justify a noetic construct - an abstraction - with no external referents other than the ones man creates.

Nihilism = projection of abstractions into reality considered negative because it is lacking said abstractions.
Nihilism usurps the real with an ideal…an idea. It does so through art - language being an art-form.
Technology being an art form = externalization of man’s knowledge and understanding of himself.

The abstraction is itself a synthesis of multiple ideas existing as a theoretical, i.e., hypothetical, noumenon, that can then be projected in a beyond space/time or a beneath space/time - supernatural or occult realm, considered to be more real than the real.

[Magnus_Anderson]

@Lorikeet

Maybe disagreeing on semantics is the wrong approach.
Maybe, trying to find the proper definition of a term is a good approach.

Maybe, using the term “truth” not as it is written in a dictionary - referring to text, or to a conventional use - but how the term can be used to connect us to a shared world, is the better approach.

Dictionary definitions are maps, they are not territories. They are verbal descriptions of concepts that are attached to words, so of course, they can be, and in many cases are, wrong.

I am not interested in how people describe the concept that they attach to the word “truth”, I am interested in the concept itself. I want to know what concept they attach to the word regardless of how they describe it. Limited self-awareness coupled with many other things (such as political incentives) can easily lead to inaccurate descriptions, so relying merely on what people say isn’t a good strategy.

Take a look at Google’s definitions of the word “truth”. Not only are they poorly written but some of them are also false. For example, they say that “truth” is “a fact or belief that is accepted as true”. According to that, if everyone accepts that the Earth is flat, then the belief that the Earth is flat becomes true. Interesting. Their other definition, though correct, is poorly written and not particularly useful in philosophical contexts. What does “in accordance with fact” mean? Isn’t “that which is in accordance with reality” enough? I would say so.

By manipulating dictionary definitions, it is possible, at least in theory, to take whatever concepts you want and remove them from existence – thereby making it difficult for people to communicate with each other and cooperate. If you want to destroy the concept of truth, say because you don’t want people to figure out that you’re lying, all you have to do is popularize a false description of it and shame the true one. Albeit the current generation of people, knowing that it doesn’t quite capture the underlying concept, may resist such a definition, the future generations will have no choice but to learn from your dictionary definitions and come to associate the word “truth” with concepts for which other words already exist – concepts such as that of belief (or perspective) and that of reality. After many generations, people will no longer have a word for what was once called “truth” and the consequence of that may be complete and utter removal of the concept of truth from existence. The end result being the obliteration of a very useful and an important concept. (Concepts have no truth value, only use value.)

And what I think is happening here is you’re incorrectly describing the concept that you’re attaching to the word “truth”. The concept still exists – it’s not obliterated yet – it’s merely poorly understood. That’s the first stage of the disease. Disconnect the cognitive mind from the non-cognitive mind. Make one no longer understand oneself. i don’t think that truth is synonymous with perspective. Truth is a perspective but not any perspective. Truth is a true perspective i.e. one that corresponds to reality. Truth is also not synonymous with reality. It can be a portion of reality, sure, but it can’t be any portion of reality. The red apple in my hand is a portion of reality but it’s not truth. In order for a portion of reality to be truth, it must be a belief. The red apple in my hand is not a belief. Rather, my belief that I’m holding a red apple in my hand is a belief – and it is that that has the capacity of being truth.

Another thing that you seem to be saying, and that I disagree with, is that truth value can only be expressed in terms of degrees. I think that 1) truth value can be expressed in binary terms as well, 2) the binary method was the dominant way of expressing truth value throughout the history of mankind, 2) it’s also the oldest method, and 3) it’s the most useful method – even today. Expressing truth value in terms of degrees is a useful method too but it’s probably a recent invention and it has a limited value. Basically, the point is that they are two different methods that are legitimate and that have different pros and cons.

[Lorikeet (Satyr)]

Binary method is efficient, and has developed into being effective.
Simplification/generalization of interactivity by reducing fluid space/time into either/or.

A simple method and so one that would develop easily.
Founded on metabolic rhythms:
Systolic/Diastolic.
Inflated cell = on
Deflated cell = off

Neural pulse moving through a neural cluster = on, positive, thought
No neural pulse moving through a neural cluster= off, negative, passive.

If clarity is the motive then probabilities is the method.
If success, utility, is the motive - gratification/satisfaction, pleasure - then the primal, simple binary method suffices.
Absoluteness is but a surrender to necessity. Whatever works, no matter how or why it works.
Animals don’t need to understand why they go into a mating frenzy once a year, or why they do this or that. they only want to know how.
Knowing would, in fact, make their performance less efficient and therefore reduce its effectiveness - self-conscious.

Political motives can be placed in the category of probability of survival and reproduction shaping an r/ or K/ strategy and a masculine/feminine attitude.
Here, degrees is also a factor in understanding an individual.
Categories are absolute - binaries - to clarify, to discriminate, to distinguish using abstracted, static, extremes of what is fluctuating and governed by probabilities.
Reducing flux to objects, things, ideas; converting the phenomenon into noumenon.
In math this is accomplished by fractions based on the binary 1/0. Fractions, the decimal point, is how the mind compensates for the dissonance between fluid reality and the static idea.
Precision is sought in moving the decimal point as far away from the numerical symbol.

Truth is a determination - judgment - of what is “good enough”, which approximation suffices.
But for some this is not enough. Precision is an objective…and so the pursuit of truth is a constant search for the absolute…movement towards the divine which is nothing other than non-existence.

Read apple = interpretation of what is present, as presence.
Appearance is what we call this interpretation - object subjectively perceived and evaluated, mostly through a priori genetically evolved methods.
Presence/present = past manifesting as presence.
Nature = sum of all past nurturing.

Past is never absent it is constantly made present, and we participate in what is made present - in the causal chains we are conscious and unconscious participating willful agencies.

Fact = a conventionally approved and agreed upon event in space/time - and its understanding.
Because knowing is not understanding. Understanding is deciphering patterns in data - knowledge, information.
So, conventional understanding is how the majority understands shared knowledge - how they’ve been taught meaning.

Meaning = how events in space time interlace - matrices - interconnect, relate…like points on a map. Meaning is what distances, elevations are ascribed to these points.
World is not menaingless…it is full of meaning, if we correctly understand and define the term “meaning”.
But this is true for many concepts, e.g., god, value, male/female, morality, love/hate etc…especially those that have been corrupted over two thousand years of social engineering, producing modern/postmodern conventional understanding.
Science itself is infected. It seeks for non-existence, for the non-existent when it seeks the one, the whole, the singular. A singularity.

[Fixed_Cross]

@Parodites

The opposition of Man and God cannot be explicated by a univocal dualism, like that formulated
by the Hegelian dialectic. Instead, both man and God must be multivocally de-composed into
their own self-opposition, (their ‘bivalence’, recalling the term used at the beginning of this essay)
each revealing two principalities at work such that, in their dynamic rearrangement, a four-fold
pattern (the ‘tetrapole’) emerges through an ‘inner and outer’ dialectic that traces the
interpenetrating, spirognomic dance of the immanent and transcendent within the superimmanent
and supertranscendent prime-cause, as Eriugena calls it, which exists both outside and within
time,- inside of, external to, and within all of Nature. The first opposition: Being and Nonbeing,
the other, Dasein and Sosein. The two dialectics are developed by utilizing ‘dialectical triads’,
(these triads are worked out by Cusanus, namely in his diagrammatics of the enneagon) in which
the thesis, antithesis, and synthesis of the univocal dialectic are replaced by two agonistic
categories including a third category signifying a ‘non-opposition’ in which the other two are
reified negatively, following Bataille’s formulation of the ‘absent third’, or the ‘non-synthesis’ of
Spare’s symbolic hermaphrodite. [It is worth noting that this absent Third functions like the
‘differend’ proposed by Lyotard, which is a labile ontological minima that must be asserted for the
sake of maintaining the coherency of other differentiations and ‘differentiating schemes’, but one
which, due to other sets of differences and linguistic schemes, cannot be articulated, remaining
purely an ‘aporia of representation’ a la. Labarthe’s Darstellung,- a minima therefor reifying a
potentiality that cannot be made actual and an actuality that cannot be reduced to potentiality,
much like the ‘otherwise-than-Being’ of Meinong which, like the Kantian antinomies, can be
conceived despite the impossibility of its actuality or empirical justification, (like the concept of a
square circle) though here we are dealing with a fundamental differend, (hence a minima) upon
which the entire basis of the secondary-process of differentiation itself depends.]

Indeed to reduce being to itself, if such were the task, one would have to pass through the entire ten-dimensional architecture and resolve all the various juxtapositions through completing, mastering their dynamisms therein; to simply posit two categories as opposites that neatly resolve into a finality is unbelievably facile and it is hard to imagine people actually take stock in it.

I like this opposition of Dasein and Sosein as well; there-being and thus-being; Sosein, is this related to the eastern “suchness”? Presence and suchness, to combine the two is a quite violent matter, of the sort that compels the zen master to frenzied tai chi against his ‘imaginary’ dragons and the likes of Jesus into their violent cleansing of the temple and other radical acts and speeches; wherever a true connection of being with its ground is forged there is chaos or miracle.

The opposition of Man and God cannot be explicated by a univocal dualism

Man gloriously being in fact that very opposition between himself and god; this opposition doesn’t resolve in abstraction.

The irony
of the apocrisis however, has taken us in quite a different direction. The decoupling of the Real,
as the essence of trauma, induces a repulsion toward extrinsicity at the destabilized periphery of
the symbolic network, or what Bove calls the formation of a mere “simulacrum of the universe”,
(Utopia) thereby overloading the chiasmus occupying the space between the ‘abomenal’ vesture
of appearance and the un-nameable origin of the trauma within the Real, that is, a perilous
duplicity in the form of Ramazani’s stammered flight from the face of the ‘pallid mask’ or
monstrous Appearance out of fear on the one hand, and the “counter-violence” of Transcendence
on the other, which in his estimation simply recapitulates (ironically) the same fear as the basic
aporia of ethical discourse which, following Benjamin’s analysis of the Trauspiel, the allegorists
attempted to overcome symbolically,

I think this chiasmus is the basic ‘method’ that constructed the popular myths of the Christian west; including the logics of Hollywood, but most especially, religious scripture. The gospels of Jesus especially (noting that they were composed by bewildered men having perceived something quite unnamable) seem to represent this turmoil between the unnameable origin of the trauma within the real and this ‘abdominal’ vesture of appearance; a very vital struggle in fact where it concerns art and its power to radically transform a species of consciousness, without ever encountering the truly sublime, and yet deriving awe-inspiring power precisely from that failure; a depth is created, the value of which is only in the bewildered terror it inspires, a fascination with - nothing, really, except with its own ground, which has no name and not even that.

This ‘licentia oratio corruptis’,- this haunting instability lurking at the edges of language and, invisibly, peering out of
the “glimmering of things”, permeating them with a foretaste of its own immanentizing madness, is what Nathaniel Mackey calls, in
Engagements, the “creaking of the word”,- [Mackey: “… the name the Dogon of West Africa give their weaving block, the base on which the
loom they weave upon sits. They call it the “creaking of the word.” It is the noise (recall Kunze’s “stochastic resonances or white-nose”) upon
which the word is based, the discrepant foundation of all coherence and articulation, of the purchase upon the world fabrication affords.
Discrepant engagement, rather than suppressing or seeking to silence that noise, acknowledges it. In its anti-foundational acknowledgement of
founding noise, discrepant engagement sings “bass,” voicing reminders of the axiomatic exclusions upon which positings of identity and meaning
depend.”] serving for the basis of a “discrepant engagement” which denotes, citing Paul Naylor in “The Mired Sublime of Nathaniel Mackey’s
Song of the Andoumboulou”, “a theory of cross-culturality” which, like that of Benjaminian translation, “enacts one (such a theory, eg. itself) in
the structure of its definition.”

Hence, the form of worship consisting of repetition of the most seemingly meaningless, unimportant phrases of holy texts, I think. The power of the word lies largely in its precariousness, which means the depths which it defies.

[Lorikeet (Satyr)]

The great guru, the leader of the van clan, cometh to grace us with his genius.
Pretentiousness using meaningless superstitions, pretending to be profound wisdom?
Yes…you know him as the Value Oncologist.
The reinventor of Abrahamism?
Love Ontology.
Love Lovingly.
Loving Love. Love Loving.

Judaism is the mother to her daughter Christianity and of her son Islam.
Two bastard children…one of a Greek, the other of…a tribal Bedouin?

[Lorikeet (Satyr)]

Two distinct ways of using semiotics, related to Art and FArt.

One to engage the world directly, the other to engage the world via proxies, i.e., humanity, individuals.
One in order to manipulate the world, the other to manipulate humanity and through it the world.

[Lorikeet (Satyr)]

From the interplay of chaotic energy (non-patterned), order emerges.
From the interplay of ordered energy (patterned), chaos emerges.

Cycle of linear time.
From near-absute chaos towards near-absoltue chaos.

Since chaos cannot rise to the level of sensual perception - cannot produce stable, harmonious unities - it can only interact with itself and order on a subatomic level, continuously receding, manifesting our observable world.
Metaphysically chaos/order interact.
Physically, physis, is our perceptible level, how we perceive existence.
The ideal is how we project the perceived - idealize and use this projection as a focus, a buoy on the tumultuous seas of energy.

Beneath, an abyss, full of currents.
Above sky, translucent, full of winds.
We are the boat on the surface…some of our keels deeper than others…some of our sails higher than others.

[Fixed_Cross]

Reminds me of Sauwelios, in a mushroom trip, contemplating the two syllables of the word Chaos.

There is no order without chaos, as a chaos-less system is a closed system which builds up entropy, which is… chaos.

Chaos is a a fundamental part of order. It is the ‘space’ in which the time of order proceeds.

There is no order without movement, and no movement without chaos.

[Lorikeet (Satyr)]

Victim’s suffer their burden of being born to lead men out of misery.
It reduces the mass of the weight…and they dance with joy, having been gifted by divinity to be the bearer’s of such delights.

[Lorikeet (Satyr)]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGMgBtmAPlc[/youtube]

Procreative is to the body what creativity is to the mind.
Fertilizing another body corresponds to the linguistic fertilization of another mind, where ideas gestate and then give birth to new combinations.
Art is libidinal, requiring excess organic energies to be expunged.
Art, technologies are the externalizations of a mind’s understanding of himself, in relation to the environment - the birth of an idea via a medium.
Genes to Memes.

Nihilistic memes - to the degree that they negate the experienced world - can only fertilize minds with impotent ideas. Ideas that cannot be externalized but must remain ideas, in the mind - transmitted from mind to mind, unable to survive in the real world independently from a human mind, or a collective of minds
For this reason such ideas/ideals require proselytization to expand their field of effect - to use organism, via their minds, as proxies to engage a world they cannot survive outside minds.

[Fixed_Cross]

By the way my comments on Parodites merely serve to further allow enjoyment of the depth of his writing, I offer a tangent out of it here and there, as it were to prove that depth, to show that it is not mere impenetrable text-wall. There are so many ideas, or not merely ideas, fundamental thought-structures interwoven there that it is impossible to just ‘comment’ to it, ‘reply’ to it.

What Im doing is producing a record of my having read it. Ive not embraced fully his whole methodology, Ive not grasped all the implications, Ive just investigated the meteor, so to speak.

Parodites’ posts have become more complex over the past years, compare for example his recent posts with this thread here, from 2011 or '12
beforethelight.forumotion.com/t41-the-daemonic
Which is complex enough to baffle most minds but not quite as abstract.

Ive resisted for some years this moving deeper into abstraction, and this ultimately allowed me to completely stop reading his work, but this was unhealthy.
It does, to be honest, take a fair amount of ‘exercise’ to get back into reading the dude, reading his posts is obviously harder work than reading other philosophers. There’s no other philosopher that is this dense, that’s just a fact.

[Lorikeet (Satyr)]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U99dQrZdVTg[/youtube]

[Fixed_Cross]

Philosophy has to be challenging, it cant be just some reiteration of concepts like chaos… (profound dot-dot-dot suggesting the deep silence of thought)… order… CHAOS… (!!!) ORDER…

I mean you can keep doing that but it won’t reverberate in the celestial spheres.

[Lorikeet (Satyr)]

Yes Van Clan guru…Value Ontology, I get it…I shall give it the respect it warrants. I already have.
Into the recycling bin.

Bye…back to the celestial spheres…in your head.
Sparks of light to be returned to the divine.

[Lorikeet (Satyr)]

Yes Van Clan guru…Value Ontology, I get it…I shall give it the respect it warrants. I already have.
Into the recycling bin.

Bye…back to the celestial spheres…in your head.
Sparks of light to be returned to the divine.

[Lorikeet (Satyr)]

Semiotics
Sign referring to the primary method of communication, of sharing, externalizing internal states: oral, vocalizations…but also the subtle, gestures movement, and the inconspicuous, e.g., scent, pheromones, energies, vibrations…

Language develops from a method of revealing, to a method of concealing, redirecting, imitating, i.e., imitating.
Language not used to reveal but to conceal, as it pretends to be revealing, redirecting, convoluting, obscuring, tying up the mind in knots, Gordian loops of entrapment.

Words used to imply, to promise - feminine seduction. Surrender to the words and great pleasures, powers, await you as a reward for your sacrifice.