forgot:
So to eschew the formidable formal, Kierkegaard broadly, very, reconsidered, as with my prof. Comment ions ago that “a little bit of Platois like a little bit of poison”, I could reply if there finally came to a travel through time( it’s self), -and that day is almost imminent for every or anybody, that-
He may have not said that- my earliest prof., because on principles sandwiching simulation, could have modified a gene to meme injection of venom, to provide immunity against such feared epidemic cross infections.
The singularity just has to keep on filling the ever expansive return to avoid the mistake of correlating an absolute identification with an infinh itely serious (series) suggesting the copy.
Even if….that is becoming inconceable, and in-sensible.
In reference to the German idealists, Heidegger, Nietzche, Hesse, et al. their Kirkegaardian despair was born of genetic simplex, where that extended to memetic singularity.
The memetic parallel, evolved intrinsically similarly, unnoticibly, but allowed for a linearly ascribed continuum, for a suppressive cyclic rapid oscillation, in case the cycle uncovered some suggestive anti-authoritarian strategically managed exxegarated marginally concentrated overlap, to affect the sensible reason for excluding , reviewing and revising in accordance with a programmed methodological accountability.
Nietzhe’s genetic singularity Cut off the post developing duplicity necessary to bar the utilization of the doubly bladed challenge, so their restraint led to internalized reaction masking a politically dangerous outcome.
In fact the turn of fateful events of Heidegger’s brilliance came through in tha motif established by the tonal functionality of Wagner’ brilliant leibnitzian
‘Insight’ through a general apathetic connection thereof, all the way to a Beethoven deafness to return to a a basic romantic idiom in the 9 th symphony.
The Wagnerian
▼
Sunday, 12 May 2013
Wagner on Beethoven
“Brought about by listening to Wagner’s piano transcript of Beethoven’s 9th (below should you have access to Spotify). I think it is sometimes easy to forget the, admitted, influence Beethoven and especially the 9th had on Wagner. All of the following is taken from Wagner’s Biography “My Life” which, despite its occasional unreliability, remains some of Wagner’s clearest prose work and can be read or downloaded in full and for free by clicking this link
“Another work also exercised a great fascination over me, namely, the overture to Fidelio in E major, the introduction to which affected me deeply. I asked my sisters about Beethoven, and learned that the news of his death had just arrived. Obsessed as I still was by the terrible grief caused by Weber’s death, this fresh loss, due to the decease of this great master of melody, who had only just entered my life, filled me with strange anguish, a feeling nearly akin to my childish dread of the ghostly fifths on the violin. It was now Beethoven’s music that I longed to know more thoroughly; I came to Leipzig, and found his music to Egmont on the piano at my sister Louisa’s. After that I tried to get hold of his sonatas. At last, at a concert at the Gewandthaus, I heard one of the master’s symphonies for the first time; it was the Symphony in A major. The effect on me was indescribable. To this must be added the impression produced on me by Beethoven’s features, which I saw in the lithographs that were circulated everywhere at that time, and by the fact that he was deaf, and lived a quiet secluded life. I soon conceived an image of him in my mind as a sublime and unique supernatural being, with whom none could compare. This image was associated in my brain with that of Shakespeare; in ecstatic dreams I met both of them, saw and spoke to them, and on awakening found myself bathed in tears.”
“I now wanted to set Leubald und Adelaide (sic) to music, similar to that which Beethoven wrote to Goethe’s Egmont; the various ghosts from the spirit world, who were each to display different characteristics, were to borrow their own distinctive colouring from appropriate musical accompaniment”
“On the other hand, this visit brought me a great treasure, which was responsible for leading me in a very different direction from that advised by Kuhnlein. This was the score of Beethoven’s great Quartette in E flat major, which had only been fairly recently published, and of which my brother-in-law had a copy made for me. Richer in experience, and in the possession of this treasure, I returned to Leipzig to the nursery of my queer musical studies”
“As my musical instruction also did me no good, I continued in my wilful process of self-education by copying out the scores of my beloved masters, and in so doing acquired a neat handwriting, which in later years has often been admired. I believe my copies of the C minor Symphony and the Ninth Symphony by Beethoven are still preserved as souvenirs.”
“Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony became the mystical goal of all my strange thoughts and desires about music. I was first attracted to it by the opinion prevalent among musicians, not only in Leipzig but elsewhere, that this work had been written by Beethoven when he was already half mad. It was considered the ‘non plus ultra’ of all that was fantastic and incomprehensible, and this was quite enough to rouse in me a passionate desire to study this mysterious work. At the very first glance at the score, of which I obtained possession with such difficulty, I felt irresistibly attracted by the long-sustained pure fifths with which the first phrase opens: these chords, which, as I related above, had played such a supernatural part in my childish impressions of music, seemed in this case to form the spiritual keynote of my own life. This, I thought, must surely contain the secret of all secrets, and accordingly the first thing to be done was to make the score my own by a process of laborious copying. I well remember that on one occasion the sudden appearance of the dawn made such an uncanny impression on my excited nerves that I jumped into bed with a scream as though I had seen a ghost. The symphony at that time had not yet been arranged for the piano; it had found so little favour that the publisher did not feel inclined to run the risk of producing it. I set to work at it, and actually composed a complete piano solo, which I tried to play to myself. I sent my work to Schott, the publisher of the score, at Mainz. I received in reply a letter saying ‘that the publishers had not yet decided to issue the Ninth Symphony for the piano, but that they would gladly keep my laborious work,’ and offered me remuneration in the shape of the score of the great Missa Solemnis in D, which I accepted with great pleasure.”
Below, the entire work on Spotify. It can also be heard on youtube. Much thanks to Ulysess Classical for finding this on Spotiify
"But another work of this period, an Overture in B flat major, left an indelible impression on my mind on account of an incident connected with it. This composition, in fact, was the outcome of my study of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony in about the same degree as Leubald und Adelaide (sic) was the result of my study of Shakespeare. I had made a special point of bringing out the mystic meaning in the orchestra, which I divided into three distinctly different and opposite elements. I wanted to make the characteristic nature of these elements clear to the score reader the moment he looked at it by a striking display of colour, and only the fact that I could not get any green ink made this picturesque idea impossible. I employed black ink for the brass instruments alone, the strings were to have red and the wind green ink. This extraordinary score I gave for perusal to Heinrich Dorn, who was at that time musical director of the Leipzig theatre. He was very young, and impressed me as being a very clever musician and a witty man of the world, whom the Leipzig public made much of.
“At this time I also wrote (as my third opus) an overture to Raupach’s drama, Konig Enzio, in which again Beethoven’s influence made itself even more strongly felt.”
“As regards style and design, this work was suggested by Beethoven’s Seventh and Eighth Symphonies, and, so far as I can remember, I should have had no need to be ashamed of it, had I been able to complete it, or keep the part I had actually finished. But I had already begun at this time to form the opinion that, to produce anything fresh and truly noteworthy in the realm of symphony, and according to Beethoven’s methods, was an impossibility. Whereas opera, to which I felt inwardly drawn, though I had no real example I wished to copy, presented itself to my mind in varied and alluring shapes as a most fascinating form of art. Thus, amid manifold and passionate agitations, and in the few leisure hours which were left to me, I completed the greater part of my operatic poem, taking infinitely more pains, both as regards words and versification, than with the text of my earlier Feen. Moreover, I found myself possessed of incomparably greater assurance in the arrangement and partial invention of situations than when writing that earlier work.”
The Wagnerian
Just on the road
Just doodling
syntactical priming
epimemetics
assignment giving myself: homeostasis (complexity irreducible w/o loss/privation of function) of hardwiring (not mere possibility) for language…see if loops like body systems’ homeostasis
& stuff
of all the things that must be learned or it dies
who taught it first
who wired us for the relay
the relay means this whole thang’s a we
For any person who experiences in one moment experiences from past or future moments, there is a question of whether their “I” was brought into future moments, or the future was brought to their “I” to see — the bringing a kind of traveling that doesn’t take sequential time (at least not within OUR sequence) because it brings parts of OUR sequence together from beyond OUR sequence.
This is the same question Paul implied in 2 Corinthians 12:1-10.
A flashback is when a memory or experience is relived in now—what was lost to the past comes back to you.
Something from the future cannot be a flashback (basic reliving) because you haven’t been through it yet, but the feeling that you have been through it is the flashback coming to you for the first time from the future… a prelived reliving… you remembering what was lost to the past (which is NOW, or before now, when it overlaps—the first kind of overlapping). The second kind of overlapping is that two experiences from the future got blended together in the past (now). So you premember those two experiences (separated by time) in the same moment in the past (now). Massive overlapping is when you premember (prelive the reliving—note: not all remembering or reliving is this kind of reliving—or is it?) a lot of experiences/moments at once. If that is being flooded at you and you have zero context, if you try to explain it to anyone, they will label you as insane. You will label yourself as insane in that moment, unless you have experienced this before, with the fruition (the actual living).
Bring back in the question — which of your minds (separated by time) was there first? Similar question: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … 9#p2873029 (quoted above)
Answer the question, and you understand Time & Trinity.
Bring a barf bag.
We are all sock puppets, as none of us are omniscient. There is only one man who is not a sock puppet—the one incarnated aware of the necessary categories before they sorted any contingent information (learned) via them. For the rest of us, sorting according to categories requires that the categories are known without knowing them, at least initially. Kind of like how sorting food into vitamins you can put throughout your body requires your body knows how to do that without your mind knowing it, at least initially.
Treat every communicating sock puppet as a person, as we are ALL programmed by persons — by design with inbuilt categories (the unprogrammed person in whose image we are made*), and conditions nurtured by persons. We are a pretend-person to the degree our belief can be defeated and we still hold it. However, we are told to love our pretend-persons, so you never stop treating them as a person — reply to all the way each prefer that does not violate consent for any stakeholder/interlocutor.
*When we say “not naturally occurring in nature” we mean it has to happen by design, because stuff like that would be a miracle if it happened on its own, and by that we imply that if it occurs in nature, it did not happen by design. Either we have to give up the idea that things we normally consider designed cannot naturally occur, or we have to give up the idea that if it happens in nature it absolutely did not happen by design. Keep in mind…everything that normally happens by design… happens in nature. Nature must be more than what happens on its own without design. How else could we have necessary categories before we could ever process contingent information, especially considering memories are not (unless by “after-market” design!) epigenetically preserved?
unpolished:
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … 5#p2924835
¿What came “first” — the “Alpha/Omega Particle” propagated /by/ the convergence of electric and magnetic fields (or yada yada yada) … or … the “Alpha/Omega Particle” propagat/ing/ electric and magnetic fields?
Follow up question:
Is the Alpha/Omega Particle a perfect vacuum?
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … m#p2887992
barycenter everywhere how
Dumbass, there is no first…
By asking the question you’ve already assumed too much.
You expose your presumptive superstitions, even by posing the question the way you do.
Like asking:
“Why is your mother not a whore?”
The point you can understand as the “beginning” is but the other side of an ending.
A time/space choke point that reaches closest to a singularity, but never attains it, because if it did there would be no existence.
Dumbass Homo Americanus…the Greek and Indian - all Indo-Euroepan mythologies - use metaphors to help man understand what is incomprehensible.
From chaos and then back to chaos…
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKIl9cxesR8[/youtube]
Chaos, dumbass, is a state of turmoil - the lowest state of order, yet it exists as it is interactive and dynamic.
In chaos a infinitesimal degree of order exists, and this expands into what you experience as existence…and this expands, gradually deteriorating, loosing order, due to attrition; chaos gradually increasing…until the process repeats.
No non-existence, from where existence emerges.
No creator.
Fucking Jews really fucked up generations of gullible idiots.
Only cycles.
Dumbass…because the human mind is organic - of order - it can only perceive and comprehend what is ordeed…what has a pattern it can interpret, translate, into form, colour, taste, smell, sound…etc.
What lacks patterns, is void of order, cannot be perceived nor comprehended.
Literally no-thingness…because ‘things’ are how minds interpret patterns.
There was change, interactivity, but no time because time is how humans measure change - or it is a relationship between a fluctuating other, and a observer’s metabolism - the minds processing speeds.
Time is movement through expanding fields of possibilities (space); if order is present then these are fields of probabilities (matter).
This state was represented by the primordial gods…giving way to the state of turmoil (big bang) they represented by the Titans. Titans were replaced by the Olympian gods, representing the next phase in the cycle, the one we’re in. Cooling, expanding… until we reach chaotic circumstances once more.
Asshat,
I put “first” in scarequotes…without the added scare quotes. Go back and reread it. If everything you said is a response to “first” (in scare quotes) then I will (may) read what you said.
beginning completing
the end
Follow up:
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … 7#p2925257
Individuals appear to be programmed to die. If you look at the rise and fall of bacterial populations, and all similarly extinct species, they too, as a group, appear to be programmed to die. It appears that it is not the individual’s survival—or the population’s—that has been selected for. Granted that if there is no selector, nothing is being selected for. And you can’t select for survival if there isn’t any individual/group to survive in the first place. But the point is what works—what is doable in the realm of possibility. What swims rather than sinks. If the individual or group’s survival is not necessary in order for something to work and swim, then this something is not the individual or the group, but what the individual or group passes on (has in common) between other individuals or groups (which geneticists can harvest from amber… DNA…the program…which is not ALIVE…but…dormant? hybernating? dead? an artifact/sign of intelligence?). However, how did the first individual even get off the ground if this “program in common” is about all the individuals or groups? Especially if it requires a surviving thing (all the individuals of a group—either the first individual of an asexually reproducing group, or the first pair of the sexually reproducing group) to already exist/survive? How can there be an original copy of something that only exists a) if it is copied, & b) if all the individual(s) it is about (programs for… copies)… already exist(ed)? What came first: the program (DNA’s information), or the individual/group (material/hardware configured/structured in such a way that it can run it)? There must be an uncopied copier.
Copy?
_
To no-one in particular:
…apparently the egg came first…
Dawkin’s “selfish gene”…an individual is a means, not an end.
Genes to Memes
Selfish meme, like Abrahamism - an individual is, again, a means not an end.
Logically speaking…egg proceeds from organism, it can never precede it…since reproduction begins as mitosis and meiosis, not as sexual intercourse.
Sexual reproduction evolved later, as a method of synthesis that adapts faster to environmental changes.
This is why it is so vulnerable to slight hormonal variations…and if culling is reduced mutations compound manifesting mind/body dissonance, or psychosomatic dysfunctions…like homosexuality, transexuality, insanity etc.
Interestingly…
www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/07/14/eng … index.html
youtu.be/mscjvqtBWIQ?feature=shared
Run
/chicken
The information in DNA codes for the entire being it runs on. How is that not Spacely Space Sprockets? It’s locked in with error correction! Fricken esplain that one, Lucy!
Natural selection and chaos.
Random mutations that offer an advantage, survive and are passed on.
The process is gradual…not magical…nor immediate.
The eye, for example, evolved from a light sensitive cell that offered an advantage to the individual where it emerged, as a random mutation.
Feeding - reappropriating energies being lost to constant attrition (interactivity) - evolved in the same way.
Cellular division was the primary method of replication.
Synthesis evolved later… synthesis of two different individuals offered an advantage…
Sexes - reproductive specialization - developed from there.
Genders are a further development, culturally adapting these naturally evolved specialized roles.
Ignorance is not a justification for the supernatural, dear.
Ignorance is not a justification for absurdity.
Everything that exists can be explained from within existence.