What came first...

[Parodites]

I’ve developed a whole theory of language, working off generative anthropology, where evolutionary processes are combined with both Freudo-Lacanian psychoanalysis and economics. Firstly:

@Parodites

" Language evolved to negotiate the hyperinflation of the aura
surrounding the Event: my favored example would be the constant tribal struggle over
food investing it with greater and greater cathected-libido or apparent value by the
population as the original value of the object as mere food was exaggerated over time and
eventually transformed into a social commodity,- fetishized as Marx would say,- and
more than that, a marker of status, that is,- a mere function of symbolic-exchange, until
language simply emerged to aid in negotiating a value that had transcended its material
basis and threatened to absorb the total organization of society into a mere function."

So excess libido is cathected, attached (What Zapffecalls “anchored”) to something like food as members of a tribe internally compete for it, or perhaps the right to breed- things like this. Eventually, the “value” or cathexis has begun to virally replicate and grow, until it becomes a holy object or sacred sight, the center of some kind of religious worship. It has transcended the level of ‘guy with the biggest stick gets it’: here we begin to invoke the symbolic function. We develop what I call an “ecotic network” to negotiate the value of these mimetically inflated objects:

@Parodites

“The developing ‘ecotic network’ undergirding the libidinal economy is grounded in what Rene Girard called “mimetic desire”, wherein our
neighbor’s desire serves as a model for our own, through which we ‘learn’,- that is, are normatively enculturated,- to participate in an ‘energetic
field of associable drives’, as the Lacanian school formulates the initial stages of corporeal re-composition through the four discourses. The
mechanisms behind this association, however, are not firmly regulated by any evaluative criterion besides that produced tautologically
(tautegorically) out of its own ‘syntaxis’.”

This network forms a “chiasmus” at its center: a structure of up-down, sacred-profane, heaven-earth: the basis of the symbolic-function upon which the structured semiotic universe of our language rests:

@Parodites

" This associability
stabilizes a chiasmus, like that articulated in the Platonic account, wherein eros (desire) serves as a metaxy, [It is important to note here that the
Platonic metaxy does not yet achieve verticality, and must therefor be continually sustained by the eroto-daemonic circulus of the Socratic
dianoia, through which the vertical element is precipitated in materia,- the ‘simpliciter omnem rationalem substantiam’,- (The commentaries on
Aristotelian psychology and metaphysics, mainly those on the de Anima within the pseudo-Philoponus collection, elaborate a critique in terms of
an active intellect that separates perception from the sensory domain of the objects of perception, thereby reproducing a form of knowledge
identical to the res onta, or the ‘thing’,- the object of knowledge, having now been converted into an ‘image’ stored within the Intellect:
“Intellectum hic autem dicit Aristoteles simpliciter omnem rationalem substantiam, et hunc intellectum partem animae ait, abutens nomine. Non
enim est pars totius animae rationalis substantia : esset enim utique sic aut omnis anima immortalis aut omnis mortalis; pars enim toti est
homousion.” Themestius extrapolates the koine aisthesis as a Plotinian, spiritual faculty, whereby the field of ‘metaleptic discourse’, containing
diffuse, disparate and even contradictory impressions, as received by the senses, is unified through the pneuma, which ascends the vertical
Hierarchy of Being, like the metaxy of Plato, toward a “Truth” perhaps even more Parmenidean in type than Platonic,- that is, an ultimate
identification of Knowledge with its Object, insofar as the philosopher is able to self-reflectively posit his own self as just such an object, whose
identification would be precisely “Truth”.) and recycled, or, in Platonic language, ‘reincarnated’ until the mystery of the Forms is beheld, as does
the impossible union of transcendent and immanent, god and man, infinite and finite depicted in the Incarnation of the Word,- a charged
intersection indicated by the double-participation of lepsis and methexis which opens up the human limen to a “concipience” of the God-Man, ie.
a dual decipience-recipience. For more on this interpretation of Andrewes’ neologism, refer to: G. Atkins, in “T.S. Eliot, Lancelot Andrewes, and
the Word; Intersections of Literature and Christianity.”] or point of correspondence between the earthly domain and the Forms. (“The
vertical-daemonic element” within which eros propagates the pneumatic-seed of a new Universe,- a noesis counterbalancing the metaleptic
discourse, limited as it is to a dehierarchialized or ‘unlimited’ semiotic.) Desire is morally neutral of course, and self-propagates when detached
from external evaluative criterion like that of the Christian morality which, emerging from certain Platonisms, conceptualized a ‘good’ and a ‘bad’
desire,- an agape and an eros,- whose differentiation it was the task of philosophy to navigate and firmly ground, (Note the following paper:
Miles, “Facie ad Faciem”: Visuality, Desire, and the Discourse of the other. The Journal of Religion; 2007.) calling to mind the Dantean revision
of the philosopher-king, <!> who attends by a double end, the double nature of the human being,- an anthropos whose divine nature, carefully
differentiated, demands a theogon, though whose earthly nature demands an emperor who has borne the struggle with the mighty daemon and
learned the Height of Sovereignty, having mastered the reigns of finite happiness and earthly power, as indicated in the Monarchia, that a mortal
ethos might be articulated which, curbing the excesses of the instincts, does not reduce human nature to them: [ethos anthropos daemon]
Imperatore, qui secundum philosophica genus humanum ad temporalem felicitatem dirigeret. [Dante, De Monarchia.]

Now here is the problem. This runaway cathexis of desire invokes the symbolic function, language emerges; but then language actually magnifies the desire even more through mimesis, in an accelerating bent. Technology and, eventually, the Internet, further accelerate the mimetic replication and eventual inflation of desire:

@Parodites

Desire is modelled, not through gesture, but through language; as our language models itself after that of our neighbor’s, so our desire models
itself after his desire,- a desire already distorted by the linguistic medium of the correspondence and the separation, tear, or ‘symbolic gap’
intrinsic to its signifying mode, for which the immediacy of more primitive gesture is entirely lost, with the ‘somatic’ or integral body fragmented
by the runaway somatomimetic transfer of Robinson’s evolutionary protocols. To paraphrase and re-read Armen Avanessian, in “Irony and the
Logic of Modernity”, we find that the difference of pathological or “merely human madness”, citing AGR, from the ‘divine’ madness of irony,- of
language’s triumphal self-perfection, which, bearing a song like that of the mad hope or mortale pensiero animatrici of Foscolo’s poetics,
“gladdens the howling desert and conquers time”,- (“… il tempo con sue fredde ale vi spazza fin le rovine, le Pimplee fan lieti di lor canto i
deserti, e l’ armonia vince di mille secoli il silenzio.”) or the final madness completed by the severance of the inscribed Self from the ascriptive
process, lies in the madness of language’s “repeated (ie. mimesis) self-reflection on its own madness”,- what we here indicate as an inflationary
mimesis. Continuing from “Irony and the Logic of Modernity”, we have the following: “Acknowledging its finitude, the self can laugh about
itself. Yet in doing so, it no longer laughs about itself in the service of the infinite but rather laughs against itself, so to speak,- this side of
madness.” The intensifying moment of linguicity itself, as Avanessian calls it, amplifies the distancing moment of language, that is,- the distortive
mirror or profane speculum of desire, out of whose image a new desire is torn from the mire of finitude and reformulated as a monstrous parody
of the divine, of God’s agape or love for man- an ultimate “irony” which, most of all, fueled the visionary ecstasies of the Gnostics.

We are in the middle of this runaway process, beyond which nobody is prepared to see. Postmodernity, the current culture war, the total madness, confusion of gender, etc.- all that is a symptom of this inner transformation, and the end of it, the thing we are transforming into… is beyond any of us.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

if the mind is not a concept like a hand is not a cup, and awareness goes away until it is needed, and so is not always about something (subsconscious/ground awareness… like a T-Rex that only sees when stuff moves…)… then… I can’t come back here until I have those other two papers written.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

facebook.com/10000369670299 … 38253/?d=n

[Meno2 (Meno_)]

“What came first, the word or the ability to produce and/or comprehend it?”

This a recollection from a very recent thought, how recent? It could have occurred far in the past, or far in the future, and comprehension would vary accordingly, if so, then move fad enough away ( past or future( then a simultaniety would appear as a signal, between them.
The would not be hard wired, if that means a perfect linkage without any temporality between them could manifest.

Then, alpha and omega would become a closed sphere, and whatever consciousness could be supposed to 'exist in that sphere, could not escape or, be penetrated.

A double association / dissociation may occur, perhaps, progressively and/or regressively.as closure must occur at some point.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

way to put the cookies on the bottom shelf

[Meno2 (Meno_)]

Higher shelved ones become near impossible to see not to speak of being reachable, …
As a matter of opinion they may have been shelved in a past, at the same time.
Course falling , is always a concern.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

Don’t look at me. Look at him.

[Meno2 (Meno_)]

I did , it was invisible in a red and green turned brown place. I thought for a second I was in hell but it was from a refiner’s fire’.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

You know the Infinite Well

[Meno2 (Meno_)]

@Ichthus77

You know the Infinite Well

Yes, but not in the sense that most people associate with knowledge, but through my heart,
that gained some light from darkness.

[Gloominary]

@Ichthus77

What came first, the word or the ability to produce and/or comprehend it?

The latter of course.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

Why am I just now seeing this?

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

@Gloominary

@Ichthus77

What came first, the word or the ability to produce and/or comprehend it?

The latter of course.

Are you just gonna leave it like that without explaining your thinking?

[Pedro_I_Rengel (PZR)]

THE CHICKEN IS THE E-

Oh, it’s a different question.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

@Pedro I Rengel

THE CHICKEN IS THE E-

Oh, it’s a different question.

shhh I’m watching a Christopher Nolan movie.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

A clue in here tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trinitydefense.php

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

Wanna know why they don’t wanna call aminal language LANGUAGE? Cuz then they’d have to explain how it GOT THERE. DNA says: AwkWORD!

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

@obsrvr524

@Ichthus

What came first, the word or the ability to produce and/or comprehend it?

How could a word exist at all if there is no means to produce or comprehend it? What would it be?

A word without a mind is a pretty mindless word

dancing

[Meno2 (Meno_)]

If You mind, It matters, if I don’t mind it ; it doesen’t matter ~ one way or another.

youtu.be/FGa5qi-kBSE

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

@Meno_

If You mind, It matters, if I don’t mind it ; it doesen’t matter ~ one way or another.

Ok but what if I mind that it (something you do that I mind) doesn’t matter to you?

Also: Why do what doesn’t matter?

Lying to yourself.