Isometries of the soul

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.

It is here where isometries begin to be seen. We get glimpses of strange samenesses of form lurking beneath outward appearances, we are told these are archetypes or some reference is made to genetics or to common cohort-like effects. What is really going on here? To what extent can we state that creation dictates form if we merely fill in our own perhaps largely arbitrary contents upon always and everywhere prescribed forms? This quickly appears as the relative impotency of creatiion, which has yet to extend its influence into the more form-al. A certain condition of this extension clearly being a growing unwillingness for influence-qua-content, for influencing and being influenced by content/s. At an even higher peak threshold this unwillingness becomes inability, blindness. Even higher still, a willing blindness. Zarathustra stood on the mountain top and willed form, but he did not will UNDER form -- his willing was not itself a form. Even Zarathustra still willed under content, as a content/s, making use of possibility rather than making of use itself a new possibility as such.

Valuing might shed light here. What is the hand-rail along this pathway that winds and climbs up from the soul of whence to the soul of when to the soul of where-fore? Is the substance of this hand-railing composed of valuations and valuings? Here novelty seemingly aporiatic results from this insertion and we get what seems to be a new identity, a new count-as-one, incomprehensible, impenetrable even here. Even here, value is the ground from which ever-new questions and questionings spring. Heidegger's "Man is a question" might be as close as we come to a filled-in content-qua-abstraction, but value gives us the form after which we follow these contents questioningly.

It would appear we can ground the isometries of the soul in a values-ontological platform. Set therein we see these isometrical configurations as the still too silent guardians of our valuations, configurations which enable values and the valuings which produce them, isometrical as allows for the possible communication and transmission of these and their conditions from one level to another as well as from one individual to another. We might therefore make even the boldest claim and leap yet: that of isometry being the form-as-such of valuation, its most sufficient (self-)actualization. Does this make sense? Concerns here seem placated when we understand how self-valuing interact, how these valuings must co-occur to be said to have occurred at all. Herein opens forth a new space, unexplored and uncharted. Yet it seems, and even necessarily so, that we nonetheless already possess a certain familiarity with this space, itself still so alien to our consciousnesses! And is this not more precisely what Heidegger was reaching for with his notions of averge-everydayness, ontical proximity and the pre-ontological understanding of being? The point of further productive departure here, the way to continue forward seems to be a further analysis of Heidegger's meanings and terms/grammars from the position of a value-ontological perspective sufficiently configured so as to include essentially its own isometric conditions of possibility.

Here the next necessary step has been identified. It rises from the proper identification of the locus to which the first step, of formulating / understanding value-ontology, has brought us -- the aporia of completely renewed / stripped naked awareness of what existing means to a conscious being. We can no longer take consciousness as the thing that separates us from the non-rational, the animals and the stones, but we now see it, and with it ourselves, in a much sharper light, which illuminates us-as-consciousness, as still infant-like, as a seeming chaos of affects, with as the only consistency this one given, our valuing activity.

Where before, superstition gave us a sense of inner order, now we have the clear perception of an inner turmoil, revolving around itself much like the activities in an atmosphere, unpredictable and too complex to be rational in its interrelating, but to which self-valuing is the Earth and Sun, by which certain revolvings much of the weather-at-large can be predicted

Identifying/creating isometries to the rudimentary cause of these pre-rational conditions to which even our use of rationality must be counted, means creating a grid by which the axiom of self-valuing can be procreated, furthered as a logic, expanded while maintaining its structural integrity.

I propose that the notion of circularity / periodicality must be central to any such isometry. Thereby I mean that no entity may exist as a "block", with a number of "facets" but always as a coming-back-to-itself, whereby on every cyclus "it" may have acquired new contacts and therewith substance.

It is not a sign of weakness that much of what will be formulated will sound familiar, refer to aspects of known mathematics, physics, common sense, mysticism, perhaps even all other fields of thought, as what we are doing is newly arranging what is already known / been observed. We may be the first to attempt to logically systematize in a fluid, non-exclusivist way. Indeed it would be wise to look at what Heidegger has already done. He did not yet propose such an order as is made possible by value-ontology, but he did outline the conditions of this new type of logic, so much greater in scope and more benevolent to man / nature than the binary method of definition by exclusion.

All is included. But how can we understand this myriad of contradictions, as one system? The key to this is given, the turning of it is requires that we formulate isometries, and establish a grid wherein this particular type of sameness can be repreoduced.

Additional related commentary:

Fixed Cross: It just occurred to me how fast and uniform things would go if time were in fact linear. It occurred to me that time is obviously spiraling, periodic. It moves "forward" in two directions at once: the curve of the spiral itself, and the consecutive levels of periodicity. Synchronicity then means that occurrences in the two levels of progressions are at positive interference with each other , due to ---

This then would be the way to further enlightenment: to find ones own periodicity. It is perhaps here that we maky speak of isometries of the soul.


Capable: I have heard somewhere before of how it is possible to learn one's own "periodicity" with respect to creative-productive energy, positive vs negative flows or cycles of mood and intellect. What you posit creates a possible rational basis for this idea.

Might we perhaps understand the curved nature of the 'forward' progression in the sense of this motion's impossibility for being totally linear? Linearity would seem to imply a flat medium/space, which appears never to be the case. So we get non-linearity as the possibility for motion, on even (and especially) the "smallest", most micro levels. Thus: curved traces, arcs cutting through "mediumistic space" (whatever happens to be that through which this particular or other movement moves) that would tend, after the manner of attraction/will to power/self-valuing (however we might conceptualize here), to organize around each other, forming arcs or loops.

What is most interesting to me, then, based on this model, is to try and see how such activity becomes circular, spiraling. As this seems to allow for an augmenting of the influence/s of that particular motion, maybe a simple evolutionary selective principle fills the gap here?

Quote :

maybe a simple evolutionary selective principle fills the gap here?

In general this is how I tend to interpret origins in the logic of causality, but it just occurs to me perhaps the very notion of linearity is misplaced, by its application of it to the physical world. Parallel with overcoming the belief that the Earth is flat, we may be headed towards overcoming the idea that linearity exists at all.

Every straight line is a segment of an ellipse, an energy-path (energy may have to be defined as a path, instead of a quantity-form following a path, being now here then there ). Any lineair demarcation of the wold seen as an uprooting of the physical world into a non-physical paradigm upheld only by learning of certain codes, methods. Linearity not as metaphysical, which I take to mean an unconditional definition, an astracted essence, but actually anti-physical, antithetical to 'nature', being.

How science cuts into life; blindly. Why it is always fundamentally wrong in predicting its effects, why the "side effects" are aways at least as significant as what is deliberately attained. There is not yet an experience of precision, the general method of science is a blunt instrument, designed to cut off, to uproot, to detach from self-valuing and submit. It is therefore a means to misunderstand, to remove understanding from the utilized, to dis-identify with the course of flux in which the object arises.

It is a powerful means - but to what? The notion of linearity has made it possible to dislocate self-valuing, to eliminate being.
If we know this, then we have a criterium to set a limit to what science may offer us -- the elimination of space-time.
As Aldous Huxley observed in a psychedelic vision, "speed provides the one genuinely modern pleasure". It may be the only thing that science is worth to us -- transportation and communication. All physiology may be dealt with by the mind.

To link the mind to the root of matter, energy-paths, is to overcome the adolescent will to know it all, to directly apply mind to form.
The well adjusted mind knows its periodicities instantly; the immediate mind, actuality. One can not solve a problem by destroying the context wherein it exists, the problem will live forth in the mind of the destroyer. The problem must be understood as an opportunity. This is the will to power in a political sense - power to interpret the other as oneself, oneself as the 'master' of the other - as being at root of the new other.
Real power makes the subjected stronger by subjecting it - it makes of the subjecter and the subjected one triumphant entity.