'Mortal as I am, I know that I am born for a day. But when I follow at my pleasure the serried multitude of the stars in their circular course, my feet no longer touch the earth.'
 
HomeCalendarFAQSearchMemberlistRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Civilizational Machinery (Toward an outline of Tectonic Philosophy)

Go down 
AuthorMessage
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5542
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

PostSubject: Civilizational Machinery (Toward an outline of Tectonic Philosophy)   Mon Mar 19, 2018 6:07 am

Lacking an entry for Tower on my philosophy of tectonics, I will use this as a starting-point in that direction.



This will be a difficult post to write, only because it is difficult to find the words to accurately express what I am seeing.


I believe there is a vast machinery coming together in the human social, economic, political and cultural worlds, and it is being put together from many sides but generally aggregating from two directions, the so-called political left and right. The right and left worked together to build some of this machinery over the last century, starting small and working up from there, while at certain times either left or right breaks away and starts building in a frenzy and thus gains advantageous control over terrain that was formerly balanced, at which point the other side ups the competition and an arms race ensues; eventually the pace of production on both sides manages to be related to each other and co-production settles into status quo again.

I am not explaining this very well. Look: the 'left' (neoliberal but still skewed toward leftist ideology generally) is building this massive totalitarian scheme with big government and big corporations and big entertainment and all that, centralizing globalist control more and more; in response to this we now see the rise of nationalist, more right-leaning sentiments and political victories. Rebellion of the earth. What will probably happen is that this counter-movement will continue to grow and lead to the fracturing of many nations and political/economic systems, but I believe this fracturing will take place in such a way so that open war or civil war does not occur, at least on a large scale. It is hard for me to point to exactly why I think this is going to be the case, other than this is how I see it unfolding in a most likely scenario.

Now, the more centralized machinery which the left has been building for a while now is beginning to start converging into/with this newer more diffuse machinery developing on the right. This convergence is the key, because it signals the moment where the paradigm shifts and enmity changes over into co-production. What will be produced? Man. Humanity is the product of this machinery, specifically the self-consciousness of man, his inner substance, his mind, his awareness, his sanity; this machinery exists for one purpose only, to raise man further up within the Continuum of Being. Once man goes up a step or two it will be entirely up to man what to do with that newfound power, space, and vantage, the machines themselves couldn't care a fuck less what man does with himself, what cultures and civilizations he produces, all the machines (civilizational machines, for lack of a better term... these machines are techno-existential entities embedded phenomenologically in the world, as 'material', but they manifest absolutely concretely and in real terms (technologies, corporations, politicians, laws, cabal groups, etc.) care about is bumping mankind as a species, at the general level or average-point of the species, up a notch or two on that continuum.

This entire scheme of globalization and the counter-schemes, and the deeper unified scheming that we barely know anything about, all of this is merely a side-effect of truth's working in and as the world, and one primary way truth does this is by forming up these civilizational machines. I see them, very clearly, and a bit of how they work; I also see them beginning to converge. This will grind much of the world and we will see to what extent structures shake or collapse, but again I am convinced it is most likely that war will not be the case. Probably simply because the machines are clashing and clanging together at the surface levels primarily and that is where the ash and flack will be generated, there will be much fragmentation but the tectonic orders will remain largely intact.

I am sure there have been other civilizational machine buildup's and convergences in history, I am thinking of WWI and WWII for instance. But I am in the midst of this current one and thus have the most intimate understanding of it, I would need to go back and study a lot more of history to understand any former machineries. But I believe all of those former machineries have contributed to or been scraped and remade into these new machines.

And the machines now may only run a short while, once they are properly hooked up to each other. Such power can probably barely be tolerated by the earth. But for that brief span of time, humanity will rise. Then the breakdown in the machinery, because it will only be partial, will seed the ground of the future with new possibilities, on existing tectonics so that the achievement of elevation of the species is allowed to endure and work itself deeply enough into humanity, from which new micro-machines will start forming and beginning the whole process all over again.

 

___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”.  -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy


Last edited by Thrasymachus on Wed Mar 21, 2018 4:09 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5542
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

PostSubject: Re: Civilizational Machinery (Toward an outline of Tectonic Philosophy)   Wed Mar 21, 2018 4:08 am

From elsewhere, and written a long time ago, so I will need to edit/update this at some point.


Two basic tenants of Tectonics:

1.

Something exists if it exists; something is real if it is real; something is the case if it is the case; something is true if it is true. To say any of those words, "exist, real, the case, true" is a mere truism, and I tend to use each of these words interchangeably although subtle connotative differences or stylistic concerns will impel me toward one or the other based on the circumstance.

This is basic: Everything exists of which we can speak, and many things exist of which we cannot speak because we are not aware enough of their existence; the fact of their existence has not entered into our consciousness yet.

Ideas exist, so do chairs, so do numbers, so do emotions, so do values, so do facts, so do stars, so do atoms. Every concept and every experience we have points to the reality of that conceived or experienced thing, and conception is nothing less than another, higher form of experience; even the concept itself is also a thing with its own reality, so that this all stacks upward toward infinity because of how concepts invoke each other, build upon each other, comprehend each other, etc. The reality of the concept will interact with the reality to which the concept refers and with the larger reality generally, in ways partly dependent on the accuracy of the concept itself to its referent and partly dependent on a lot of other circumstantial factors. And in addition to all that, concepts interact 'physically' with each other as well.

Most people hold a standard for "what is real" that means "physical things" in the sense of materialism, things they can see and feel and move around, etc., and this is a very low standard. Many things exist which are not "physical" like that, which are not composed of atoms and in such a way so that the outer ranges of those atoms come up against the outer ranges of atoms in our bodies and force of resistance is produced between them, allowing us to feel the object as massive and as impacting us. There is no reason to reduce all of existence to this kind of gross materiality, and every reason not to.

Name it, anything at all, and it exists. It is real. It is the case. It is true. "Flying pink unicorns", yes those exist, they are real, they are the case, they are true-- how? As an idea, as a concept, perhaps even as a value. You can then phenomenologically (reverse eidetic reduction, as I call it; basically reversing Husserl's method for this) dissect this concept to understand from where and why/how it came to be: I have a concept for flying, a concept for pink, and a concept for unicorns; I have experience with flying, and experience with the color pink, and I have some experience with unicorns from movies and books; I have a larger secondary space of extended referenced meanings and experiences and facts that link up to these more primary concepts and experiences of mine, which forms a larger kind of cloud around the primary concept (in this case, the flying pink unicorns) from which cloud I can extract further significance and meaning and add it into the primary concept. And beyond the cloud is the larger mental universe, my mind, and factual existence which doubles including everything in my own mental universe including ideas, feelings, experiences/memories, meaning, and maps that with what is actually going on in existence independent of all of that stuff in and as my own consciousness/subjectivity/being. So even the cloud interacts with what is beyond it, allowing me, potentially, to draw unlimited significance and meaning into the primary concept.

And that is just one example. In any given moment of your life, there are hundreds, probably thousands of examples like this occurring all the time in and as your mind. And that is only the more salient dimension; if you want to get deeper into the unconscious aspects and workings of the mind, extend that from say a thousand up to a thousand thousand, and then to a thousand thousand thousand... that is how deep your mind is, how sensitive and tectonically layered are the neurologies in our heads. And these all link up, form derivative and meta-level connections, triadic sign-systems as Parodites noted of Pierce's system for this where A links to B through C and C actually embodies A and B together, as-together and therefore includes them as separate also, and C is a "third term" that actually raises A and B higher without refuting or "synthesizing" them. No synthesis occurs, no averaging, merely the combination and drawing out of latent excess from each term A and B, and then expressing these excesses together in a new way. It is by such things that reality itself expands, that any thinking is even possible. See Parodites' psychology for more information on this.

2.

No thing is ever refuted, belied, or found wanting merely because it has reasons for existing. This may seem obvious at first, but you will notice people violate this principle all of the time. For example, you bring up something or say that something is the case, "X is the case", to which they reply, "Yeah well X is only because of this other thing!" They act like merely identifying the cause/s of X somehow negates or refutes your point as to X's existence and to the significance of that.

This error goes even deeper, and in fact this simply example of the error, which if you notice carefully you will see many people do a lot of the time, especially in "philosophy", is just a symbol for it, a kind of identifier image or picture that is expressed in the world in ways that can relate to the world, that link the person doing the error to the world around them, although those links are made of illusions and deceptions for the most part due to the erroneous method applied. But the method itself, regardless of its error, is only an external expression of a much deeper error. This error can perhaps be expressed most basically as a failure of tectonic plate cohesion; the individual does not have a certain and stable and significant enough "ground" on which to posit him or herself, on which to pronounce words and from which to launch conceptual investigations, therefore every word and every concept (also every action, or most of them anyway) acts to destabilize that ground from which it came. When these people have thoughts, feelings, actions, most of the time these threaten the very thing from which the thoughts, feelings or actions came. Try to imagine a flower attempting to grow up in very shallow soil, the soil is not dense enough and keeps breaking up as the flower attempts to push its roots deeper to secure itself.

Because of this failure at the tectonic level, which level can best be thought of not only onto-epistemologically but also psycho-existentially, to borrow another term from Parodites' own writings, proper ideation, sentimentality, and action cannot take root. Because of this failure, a natural aversion and hostility to too much identification with the causality of a thing is the case, in so far as that thing whose causality is being examined lies rooted in the self who examines it and in so far as that self is composed of such fragmented tectonics, such 'weak' psychological and philosophical foundations. Because of this aversion and hostility, thought (and feeling, and action, but those would require separate investigations to more properly trace out exactly how this works for them as opposed to how it works for thought (the investigation into how this works for feeling would yield much insight into so-called mental illnesses, incidentally)) attempts to cancel itself out, it grows only to a point and then throws up a barrier and limit there, where faced with the required strength to continue and balking at that strength for having no sure foundation into which to launch such an exertion; this relates to courage, for courage is something that has to be build up over time based on many successes we have had and which we are able to identify mostly or entirely to our own efforts, so that what we call 'courage' is actually little more than this accumulated substance of past successes manifesting itself in the present moment as a kind of excess and externalization, which requires something about the present moment to link into and sync up with something of that substance of courage. But I digress.

Because thought attempts to cancel itself out, thinking becomes impossible and becomes merely an exercise in psychologistical games of deception, rationalization, and mere power-seeking; thought becomes a vessel for the furthering of other drives and aspects of ourselves than thought itself. Thus people who are like this will instinctively refuse a truth you mention to them if that truth has nowhere to sit inside of them, no firm foundation, and if the thinking of it will threaten further fragmentation within themselves; this resistance can take many possible forms, one of them being a basic denial/dismissal of the truth itself and/or of its significance merely by pointing to the fact that it has some cause other than itself... yes, everything has some cause/s other than itself, that is a basic fundamental truth. The Principle of Sufficient Reason is absolutely necessary to understand, and I would say also absolutely necessary to accept except that if one does not accept it then one merely does not understand it.

 

___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”.  -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5542
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

PostSubject: Re: Civilizational Machinery (Toward an outline of Tectonic Philosophy)   Sun Jun 10, 2018 12:08 pm

I’ve come to discover that tectonics is primarily a philosophy of digging up the automatic earth in order to find ways of showing this earth to others so that they might be elevated to a higher position in truth, so that they can gain greater understanding of truth and thus overcome errors. But I don’t particularly like digging up the earth in that way.

Nietzsche was a tectonic philosopher of course. He wrote for the average man, “for none and all”.

My books are similar, I have written them as guides to elevate oneself in truth. As explanations and remedies of error. That’s good, but I don’t think I have much more to say on the subject. Also it is clear most people have no interest in elevating themselves in this manner. To do so is actually harmful to them, not just painful but causes them harm, and they are generally not willing to endure that harm long enough to come out the other side of it, at which point they would be transformed in similar manner as Kant noted that when he wrote that to change in so fundamental a way is to also change in the aspect of oneself which cared originally about preserving what one is, so that not only do we change but we lose also the ability to even care that we have changed, and this is a terrifying possibility that most people reject instinctively; or to put it as Kierkegaard said too, with his notion of the knight of faith. The leap of faith is terrifying, subjectively speaking.

Anyway, I am leaving tectonics. I am no longer considering myself a philosopher of tectonics, and I do not intend to write tectonically anymore. I may still use the method from time to time when I really want to ennoble someone on a certain point, mostly I’ll do that with people whom I already care deeply for and when I think it is especially important to offer this to them, but otherwise I am done with the method.

Let someone else take up the banner of deep earth-mining that is tectonics. I prefer to speak and see from the mountaintops now.

 

___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”.  -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5542
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

PostSubject: Re: Civilizational Machinery (Toward an outline of Tectonic Philosophy)   Sat Jun 16, 2018 4:50 am

Going beyond tectonics now,



I realized a new way of looking at things. People do not really think, they are just tracing along some lines of present moment activity in this gigantic cloud thing, like a massive thought-substance. Humanity is basically just this thought-thing, not even "thinking", but thinking is just the temporal activation of some areas of that thought-thing. The thought-thing contains all ideas, all perspectives and realizations and facts pertinent in any way to humanity, ever known by anyone. It is all thoughts and realizations. It is like a collective consciousness (not unconsciousness). And most people are so fucking unbearably stupid because their brains have not been trained to manage more than the smallest possibly quantity of this thought-thing in thinking, which means there is not enough physical literal room in their fucking skulls for enough of this thought-thing substance to manifest such that it could manifest in the way where contradictions could be seen and naturally overcome. Because that is the thing, all contradictions are contained in it, and yet in it nothing is contradicted by anything else. Everything makes perfect sense and fits in lock-step like pieces of a puzzle, but from finite petty little human perspectives of "individuals" who are only mentally able to see such a small area of the substance at once, things appear to contradict. Something here seems in conflict with something over there, things become mutually exclusive in time and space. These people are not able to understand how contradiction is merely difference at the higher level, different aspects, variety of insight, nuance, conditional setups, etc.

Also, the individual is the primary category of human persons, you and me and everyone else, but it is not the primary category from the higher perspective of the thought-thing. From that higher perspective, an individual only exists as some data point within itself, within the substance of the thought-thing; the individual actualizes some scope of the substance, and the larger and deeper that scope is the more an individual can be said to actually be existing, from the perspective of the substance and probably objectively speaking as well.

So history is really just the gradual increase in the size and depth of the thought-thing, and is also the changing nature of the human individual who exists only in so far as being a little data point of accumulated accesses to reading and understanding some areas of the thought-thing. Philosophers are those who become more adept at reading more of the thought-thing, we are more sensitive to it, however even we face limits here because the more sensitive we are and thus the more of the substance we are able to read and understand, the more overwhelmed we can become by the sheer magnitude of it and it can be too much to cognitively or emotionally handle not even to mention socially and in the world of interactions with others, such interactions as basically being determined by the limitation and lack of having any decent access to reading and understanding the substance. Also the more of the substance we are able to read and understand, the more philosophical we are, the more of an individual we are, the more we exist, etc.; the more of these that we are, the stronger we must be. It takes a kind of strength to hold all of this substance in us as our individuality, to manage it and work it out and translate it into present moments of our lives, so there is a sort of catch-22 here where the more sensitive we are the stronger we must be, until such point is reached of maximum tension between increasing sensitivity and increasing strength. Eventually this strength will negate the sensitivity increasing anymore, or at least slow it down.



Most people are unable to access and activate more than the smallest scope within the substance, so they become confused; to them everything seems to conflict and contradict... because they are too small to see enough of the suibtance at once to make sense of it. It is like looking at a painting in a museum, the non-philosopher is staring at a square cm at a time, not forming any connection or information for what is actually going on, while the philosopher broadens his scope of vision to see more of the painting at once, begins to have a faint idea of what is going on ("this appears to be an image of some sort...") and begins scanning the total frame section by section to piece together the final image.

 

___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”.  -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5542
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

PostSubject: Re: Civilizational Machinery (Toward an outline of Tectonic Philosophy)   Sat Jul 14, 2018 12:37 pm

the three cores prefigure the destruction of tectonics or rather perhaps it’s gross delimitation; likewise the social webs theory is the emergence of a post-tectonic philosophy applying literally the three core theory to one’s own lived experience.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Civilizational Machinery (Toward an outline of Tectonic Philosophy)   

Back to top Go down
 
Civilizational Machinery (Toward an outline of Tectonic Philosophy)
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Before The Light :: Crown :: The Tower-
Jump to: