Meaning studies as the new philosophy 2200 and beyond

I am interested in how certain meanings imprint themselves upon us, why they do, how the meaning of this impacts the meaning of the experience as such within the terms of the original how and why of this event occurring in the first place. Random flux won’t cut it. Beneath the random is a layer of meaning. Also above it. Random means something to us. And this fact means something.

I hereupon announce the term under which the future kings and godly works of philosophers will take shape in the future 2200 and beyond,—— and Lo, thy name is Meaning.

What does it mean to mean? What is the meaning of a meaning? And what does that mean, and why? And why not rather some other meaning instead, some other ‘why’? What does a meaning mean and what does this mean?

First let’s approach foundations: what is (a) meaning? And then, what is meaning? Also what is the experience of meaning? What is the feeling of meaning? And what does that mean, to itself and to mean generally, and to us, and what is the meaning of that?

This topic is no joke. If is the precise opposite of a joke. So what does that mean?

Reverse Husserlian eidetic reduction within the shadow image of a Heideggerian mountain fixed upon the wheel of an Eternal Return.

What the f— does that mean?

Exactly.




I encourage the copying and dissemination of posts in this topic. Store them in safe places for this may be removed at any moment. None will yet perceive the hidden and most subtle power lying underneath these words which I will post in this topic. Only I have seen this most mysterious shape and discerned how it has its own form. Its own being and content. It’s own... meaning. I alone am the high prophet of this new territory which tectonics unknowingly foreshadowed. I will speak carefully the new words of the unfolding future when these come to me. You will benefit from reading these words. Because they will mean something to you. And they will also mean something.

Don’t try to decipher these words or what they mean. Don’t blaspheme. Pursue that which is highest for you and develop much needed and much enlightened pathways. Far better to mock this new effort here than dare to take it seriously.

“Value-ontology might show us a pathway through the winding, twisting sinew-like birthings of straying and new identities of forms -- and as we shall see, a point of arrival at Heidegger also marks the point of our next departure. What links derivations of difference to derivations of sameness? One emerges from the other in sequential patterns, as ideas give birth to precisely their own novelty-in-thought where pursued diligently to (an) end. This novelty emerges as an Identity to itself, being a fully-formed (completely derived) with respect to its incipient foregrounds. This 'with respect' extends into whatever merges into/alongside/with these foregrounds, and decreases to an comparable extent as does this element of association. Being an Identity, or a 'count-as-one' to employ Badiou, this emergence confounds exegesis and disseminates haphazardly on the basis thereof. To be sure, mechanisms exist which seek and succeed at limiting or outright blocking this dissemination. Analysis now raises to a new level, the level of meta-exegetical concerns which subordinates analysis to analysis-as-utility. This 'as-utility' is more properly defined by its "as-utility-for" which first falls within the purview of systems-management and containment-as-closure. This is containment as control. To the extent that methods of control have been raised out of the unconscious and into consciousness a lessening of the strictures of this closure may occur, where disseminated implications of identities are allowed increased freedom of movement to alter and set their own trajectories. It seems at about the point where this movement reaches a sufficient auto-regulating-as-utility-to-analyses that a new threshold of thinking emerges, a new possibility for a new sort of thought-engendering.”

- Isometries of the Soul, https://beforethelight.forumotion.com/t7-isometries-of-the-soul





^ put that in your meaning pipe and smoke it

What is the meaning of eight years?

Can you dare to even attempt to imagine the gulf, the span, the substance, the content, the terrain, the end-points and beginnings and mergers and dislocations and fractures and failures and breaks and epic eternal certitudes caught in the grip of this ‘8 years’?

What is the meaning of this? The meaning of it and of your approach to it, and of your experience or these, and the meaning of their combination, and the meaning of the experience of that. And the meaning of those.

Don’t you dare post in this topic. Only I post in this topic.

Make your own topic for your comments on this topic. And think on what that means.

I am very disappointed in philosophy thus far for only focusing on the “a” of the equation,


—the meaning of (a) meaning and the meaning of that—




And the failures and failed attempts to break out of that limitation only to fail at even the original limit. Not even false. Reduction and critical theory and analytic positivism and so many species of fucking nonsense. Dangerous nonsense because it’s not even nonsense.

The false which is not even false. For being false for that reason alone, defies reason. And this fucking means something.

Don’t you dare think about that.



And what do you suppose that means, dear philosophers?

That I fail only means, in this case, that I have succeeded in finding a new way to fail. That failure now means something new. Which means something in terms of success. Just as success means something, and as (a) success means something.

Before and after success came the meaning of success. So what is the meaning of success?

To seek the eternal absolute infinitum of abstraction as such is to seek after meaning.

To seek after meaning is to seek after meaning, and not to seek meaning.

What does this mean?

And what then is the meaning of that?

Meaning, bitches.



That’s one mean motherfucker.


Not really tho.


But still.





AND WHAT THE F@&$ DOES THAT EVEN MEAN AND WHAT IS THE MEANING BEHIND THAT AND WHY AND HOW AND WHAT-FOR AND WHAT IN THE FLYING F— DOES THAT MEAN??

AND WHAT IS THE GODDAMN MOTHERFUCKING MEANING OF THAT

We haven’t even scratched the surface yet.










Buckle up.

1=3
The Star is clear.

The first thing I thought as I was pondering this, absurdest and perhaps final question, after a while of probing clean depths, was that the meaning of meaning can only be the most intricate and comprehensive of all things - considering both the cosmic chaos of Nuit with its innumerable secret orders, and the self-valuing core of all reason and concept, self-valuing, which is the entity of thought, itself - namely, a plan.

Considering both past and future and understanding the present as such, but without neutrality.

Such a conception can only be a working of will, the will to truth, which is the will to a whole. Pure metaphysics says that a whole must have a centre. Thus we may propose meaning on the condition that it form the centre of a whole. The whole of meaning is not the whole of existence. The whole of existence isn't thinkable so it isn't meaningful. Meaning must be something to limit the full potentiality of existence into something which surpasses all of its conditions in a concentrated orchestra playing the metallurgical transitions of their instruments minerals so as to become these instruments and their meaning.

Meaning is not complete when it has been derived, it must be enacted, crafted, performed; not as representation but as will.
Meaning as such is the rudimentary ambition of a universe.

What is the meaning of God, the Creator? This concept, it has been the placeholder for the impossible answer to the question of meaning. Strategists have meanwhile devised, at the hands of the prevailing stars, methods of bringing God under their control. But meaning-as-such is elusive, and so power became keen and double edged, and strange orders of monarchs existed who priestly powers endowed with godlike stratagems and successful plans, and all this was in the pre-scientific age.

Meaning was a domain of intrigue and resolution behind closed doors in tower-walls, a labyrinth which unfolds into the heights of natural stone and honest labour, but not an arrogantly existing motherfucker.

As soon as one is drawn into (a) meaning one risks the danger of identity, ideology, master-signification supplanting meaning as such in (and thus for and as) the mind. To see the world in a grain of sand means to see a meaning and to see the meaning, simultaneously and without distortion or error. This is soul-work forging substance we call ...erm, ah well there isn’t a name for it.

Hey that’s not my fault. I’m just the one who discovered all this, don’t blame the messager.


How is the meaning of association-to so at odds with that meaning as such, and how does that all stack and link tectonically together, and what could possibly be the damn meaning of that?




F U C C




I see the red rose, the red rose sees me.

“Thus we may propose meaning on the condition that it form the centre of a whole. ”



No. This is the grave danger.

This is a grave danger, a dangerous grave indeed. We must not go there. Besides all of philosophy has already done precisely that.

There is a great deal that accords to my own vision here, Capable. 

It must be understood by all philosophers, that the "understanding" of the meaning of another philosopher's idea is to be approached by degrees only, and that this very meta-understanding is the basis of the kind of fraternity of intellects that existed very long ago, which is needed now. Like I write here:

True difference is difference from itself as well. The great error is in our trying to reduce
the terms of another to our own, as reduction is not agreement. To reduce our terms;
yours to mine or mine to yours, is what actually produces unhealthy conflict between
philosophers by the obscuring of the true difference, through which all reality of a
spiritual fraternity of intellects exists. Just the same as a life cannot be reduced to another
life, one must always respect the ideal of another philosopher as the product of his entire
life-process; incomprehensible for that reason to another philosopher in its fundament,- to
be approached only by degrees of understanding, and these won through the agon and by
healthy conflict. 

Recently, I got back on ILP.  We will see if I get banned again, as sometimes I cannot help myself or refrain from becoming inappropriately aggressive toward people. I am going to link to something I wrote there, ( http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=195457&p=2754778#p2754778 ) which will be necessary to understand the general conceptualization of those ideas in relation to your post that I'm about to share, part of which is a recent extension (the chiasmus) of my use of the concept of the limen.

Meaning is what allows meaning to be, ie. the chiastic structure at the limen in which philosophy can trade places with its object- like the Predicate and Universal reversing order in Vico's universal-imaginative. Eidesis is the self-generating self-deconstructing pattern of unity dissolving in the multiple and re-emerging as unity which captures the movement of thought itself, resulting from the practice of philosophy at the limen- repeated reversals of this nature, by which meaning is generated in continually unexpected, stranger, and more novel ways, ever in the image [ontos] of the 'alien third'. (And in which meaning and (a) meaning can trade places as well, thus rendering the question as its own answer- the question of meaning.)


", a point of arrival at Heidegger also marks the point of our next departure. What links derivations of difference to derivations of sameness? One emerges from the other in sequential patterns, as ideas give birth to precisely their own novelty-in-thought where pursued diligently to (an) end. This novelty emerges as an Identity to itself, being a fully-formed (completely derived) with respect to its incipient foregrounds."

For my part, that departure involves Heidegger's 'bifurcation of truth'.

The bifurcation of the ontic and ontological, and the need to subsume one to the other,
which informs the radicalization of the Heideggarian critique, is dissolved when the
metaphysical Negative is preserved epistemically, so that the assertion of the ONTIC
which, through Heidegger's conceptualization of philosophic Angst, (which is responsible
for the intrinsic orientation of man's Being as subjectivity toward Death) is absorbed by
the ONTOLOGICAL and de-strukted along with any metaphysic or account of Being, (ie.
any account of the Ontic, that is, man's being; man's consciousness and qualitative
universe) as a viable ontogenetic category (ie. the Being of man's qualitative universe,
interiority and experience, or consciousness in face of any subsumption to the ontological
and quantitative reduction to the univocal) is possible. This is what the episteme I named
the Ontos signifies: the preservation of the Ontic, that is, man's Being, in face of the
Ontological, through which Angst subsumes all account of Being and orients Dasein
toward Death in Heidegger's ultimate cynicism, by whose conformation the Hegelian
struggle of the consciousness of Freedom in the inherent "nothingness of Being", (in
Hegel's words) or material reality is terminated. *

  ...

The Episteme is primarily a model of Truth, and one both implicitly and explicitly
configured throughout my works in its relationship to the competing models of Truth in
the Hegelian and historical-materialist schemes, as well as that assumed by the
framework upon which the security of the domain of the natural sciences is couched.
Accordingly, the first episteme, that is, the Ontos, is situated in an intermediary
relationship between the two modes of Truth we are left with following the Heideggarian
bifurcation of Truth (as aletheia) into the ontic and ontological,- (an intercession to be
merely formally considered, given the fact that, within the greater philosophy of which it
is particular, the independence of the ontic and ontological is not strictly admitted) a
bifurcation on which ground Heidegger asserts the ontic as a phenomenological closure of
Being imposed upon consciousness as Dasein, a "horizon of meaning' oriented toward
Death, and within which this closure is reconstructed as an ontology in that secondary
mode of Truth to which, for Heidegger, Western metaphysics entirely reduced the first,
that is, the ontic,- thereby dispelling the "true truth" of the closure of Being to man,-- of
that fundamental, or first-order datum whose abnegation signaled, for Heidegger, the
reality of our untenable philosophical project,- a project which he then sought to wholly
refute-- and thus the truth of the unknowable God,- the transcendent Gnostic entity
infinitely separated from us and firmly rested beyond this closure, whose mysteria it is not
within the power of either sophia or techne, that is, Philosophy or Science, to grasp. Such
a series of conclusions satisfied Heidegger, who, in his philosophy of Angst, existential
torment, and hopeless distrust of man,- a true, refined misanthropy, sought to indemnify
the order of Nature as his favorite poet had done, from the arresting labor of mankind's
cultural evolution and more general intellectual enterprise. Thus his other line of
criticism, ontotheology, ie. reducing God to Being in a similar manner; reducing theology
to ontology, as the ontic was reduced to ontology. In Nietzsche,- or, moreso in the
doctrine of the Eternal Return than Nietzsche,- in the great circle of the Recurrence,
Heidegger found the perfect image of his phenomenological closure of Being to man-
Dasein.

The Ontos asserts Being, not as an ontic closure beyond which Consciousness is eternally
separated from the Ground of its own existentia, as it is through the registers of the
Lacanian psychoanalytic, [To here address the Lacanian theory with my own philosophy,
it is sufficient to note that the traumatic register of the Real, through the decoupling of the
subject-object function at the level of the Virtual, (the domain of culture par excellence;
the storehouse of our shared ancestral memory, our language, and those memetic
complexes with which we are capable of asserting a tribal identity, be it on the grounds of
politics, race, age, era, etc.) modifies the Symbolic in which it is concatenated by a series
of nested hierarchies and recursively embedded within the original psychoanalytic triad,-
that is, the level of reality within which the conversion of the symbolic-exchange is
negotiated.

All just a small clarification on this part:

[the chiastic structure at the limen in which philosophy can trade places with its object- like the Predicate and Universal reversing order in Vico's universal-imaginative  ]

The master-signifier relation, too, which you had used, is another set of terms by which to understand this reversal of predicate/universal, master/signifier/, Being (b)eing, Meaning (a) meaning, philosophy and philosophized.

When a man loves language he falls out of love with truth. The meaning of this means something to each of us, and it means something. But language also means something and also means something in relation to this meaning as to falling out with truth. Because language is needed. For what? What would be the meaning of the necessity of language with regard to the meaning of why also language prevents truth access? Master signifier terms or well defined concepts which are use in words as concrete ‘things’ unto themselves is precisely the root of the problem when we think about meaning. But what about when we don’t think about meaning and it’s a pure excess within the entire world of not only language but also power, image and all forms of signification and relations of actions, identifications but also identifies? An identity is a self valuing, a ‘that from which perspective and (a) perspective obtains’; within the entire massive cosmic structure of value, power, language, actions, all energetic occurrences there is a hidden remainder or excess in Parodites term. This excess and remainder is meaning. Once we approach this it would become bound within the terms of the overall cosmic structure at any given point, thus further preventing access.

So the meaning of this would mean that in order to properly approach meaning one must do so on its own terms. This is the future philosophy which has as far as I know never been properly tried yet— and yet also this has determined much of the philosophical effort already.

“Show me the man who has forgotten words, that I might speak with him.”

Meaning is the interference arcs on the hard angles.

So yeah I agree with your rejection of what I said about the centre.

Meaning is always a rune.

Runing means questing, (self-)searching, a rune is such a questing, a character.

Yes, meaning is character.

Since words are words by virtue of their meaning, and the meaning of words' meaning is that it is limited, limiting, the whole of meaning is already missed when a words is spoken and driven down deeper into oblivion as more words are added.

But we can use words to indicate methods to approach meaning.

Before there was the word, there was the character.
Before there was the thing, there was the character.

"When a man loves language he falls out of love with truth. The meaning of this means something to each of us, and it means something. But language also means something and also means something in relation to this meaning as to falling out with truth. Because language is needed. For what? What would be the meaning of the necessity of language with regard to the meaning of why also language prevents truth access? "




This aleph null (more than a simple paradox) captures the essence of what the "chiasmus" actually is. It reflects the duplicity of language and truth and the 'truth of language". As there is a unity before life and a unity after life, so there is a meaning before language, and aftrer language:




The
Negative (as the inexistent through which the existent gains existence; as the Bataillean
Non-Knowledge whose repulsive counteractivity or 'dark energy' allows knowledge to
become articulate) is the entropy that tears system from within and pulls it apart with its
own excesses,- systems of philosophy, languages, biological organisms, etc. To escape
that fate, the Negative must be grasped through the veil of the Multiple and allowed to
release itself therefrom as Unity,- not the Unity before life, which would be merely a
regressive call back to the inorganic, to the death drive and to Nirvana, but the Unity after
Life, multiplicity, and phenomena, through which the chiasmus engraves the nuclear
reorganization of elementary predicative elements at the limen. What is that second,
liminal Unity, through which System transcends itself, instead of being annihilated, that
is, 'negated'? Such a monon or Unity functions like the bodies of two lovers flashing up in
a moment of higher-ecstasy as a new, third being; this third being is precisely the
Negative, in my sense of this word, as it simultaneously does not exist and allows what
does exist to transcend itself and to come into existence, inasmuch as existence is just that
liminal state of transition and apotheosis. The Negative is in this way a guarantor of
existence, not by combining the lovers into a binary fusion or univocal synthesis, but
through the in-existent third being; for it is always third,- for it must remain inaccessible
to System like the Schellingian Un-Intuitable and unabsorbed by System, as the
asyntheme. Because it must remain in this sense unfulfilled, that is, unabsorbed, it is a
threat to the System whose existence it enables, that is,- to all things (like the Bataillean
share) that cannot or refuse to glimpse the Negative and allow it to release itself from
them,- from the System it would otherwise tear apart from within by its own excesses.
Thus when I implore philosophy to reify its own Negativity, I mean, to reify this
mysterious third or asyntheme, while by the term reify, I indicate the chiastic
rearrangement of the monon-mone, that is, this pattern of Unity--Multiplicity--Unity, as
had been engraved in the mystic sigil of the god Apollo in the Delphic Tetractys.

Parodites wrote:

When a man loves language he falls out of love with truth. The meaning of this means something to each of us, and it means something. But language also means something and also means something in relation to this meaning as to falling out with truth. Because language is needed. For what? What would be the meaning of the necessity of language with regard to the meaning of why also language prevents truth access? 

Seduction.

The evolution of being-valued.