'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 | 

 Daemonic explosion of concepts

View previous topic View next topic Go down 

Posts : 3306
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: Daemonic explosion of concepts   Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:04 am

In terms of the excess, I decided to try breaking down some concepts.

"The good" is the ground and expanding space of excess that is latent to idealized conception in terms of that conception's imaginative-aesthetic base, essentially a kind of unitary series of principle reconciliations that emerge from that in our ideas which proceeds both from the concrete and the abstract, or specific and general concepts held together in a single idea. Good is distinct from pleasure in that pleasure is a form of reconciliation between the instinctual-hormonal network of chemical cause-effect systems in the body and the concepts (objects) in the mind. When we have an "idea" the mind is working with an internally modeled object that possesses space, time, form and content and bears relations to other such objects, and when these ideas are working in tandem with, or recall, or are recalled by those instinctual cause-effect systems we have forms of relation that we call feelings, such as pleasure or pain; a pleasure or pain is a stimulus-response paired to a cognitive object and associated relations thereof, for example; but where these ideas relate and give rise to forms of reconciliation amongst themselves, there we find not pleasure or pain or any other 'feeling' but rather ideal goods, what we call the moral self. Ethics is the consistency and configuration of relationships between objects of consciousness, and of course our pains and pleasures also become such objects, secondary to themselves, and thus enter via this route into the moral sphere.

The "idealized concepts" which are a part of the substantial ground of the good constitute a kind of excess of imagination and memory; the self emerges along with the capacity for active as opposed to merely passive recollection and along with this capacity's developed ability to project empty forms of itself within itself, to engender "imagination", namely objects that have never existed and do not exist yet become objects to the mind nonetheless. This 'empty form of memory' is an excess of memory, a kind of "overflow of strength" of the recollecting-synthetic system that has become able to posit formal objects with contents removed from those objects; we call such formal objects logic, grammar, mathematics and language. Language is the wider system that has grown up around these empty objects of memory as they have become inscribed external to the individual mind and become able to be related to each other in regular knowable patterns. The grammar underlying our languages has its basis in logic, which is to say correct in relation to reality, and it is not language nor its grammar that deceives consciousness as to that reality, but rather the imaginative sphere evoked necessarily when that consciousness fills in its mental objects with its own musings. Man's capacity for thought and knowledge are also his capacity for imagination, error, deception and falsity, these go hand in hand and the one speaks directly of the other. These temper each other which is the implicit 'goal' of reason, an effective self-regulation and active and engendering reflexivity between reality-apprehension and positing the imaginative-unreal.

The good occurs because this idealized system of abstract conception and its conjunctive workings with the memory system from which it came are drawn up into those principles of reconciliation for thought generally and become formal to those reconcilations: we begin to become capable of imagining what we might have done rather than what we did, we envisage goals, ends, and become in part teleological beings, for example; we project thoughts against each other and posit mental experiences and objects not just in terms of their generative reality or their immediate utility or effect/desirability but also in terms of their long-term predicted and anticipated outcomes, we generate imaginative images of future states of existence for ourselves and others and defer our ideas to these images, in order to weigh and judge between those ideas. The good is an implicit and emerging contextuality embedded within these kinds of imaginative-aesthetic affective judgments, for the entire understanding of morality lies in its being itself a formal kind of ground for this very imagination and aesthetic action, those which act as formal principles and delimitative constraints upon thought and affection generally are themselves delimited and formally bound by the most abstract, derivative and metaphysical ground as consequence of thought and its objects and which makes itself salient and essential to those thoughts and objects, to thinking generally. Morality is the highest-possible synthesis in potentia between series of conceptual and affective objects of consciousness, which necessarily manifests in a formal and "linguistic" sense operating on a kind of implicit grammar and logically-structured ordering but whose actual contents are immanent, often non-cognitive and also often quite non-moral contents, for example the excesses latent to the instinctual systems governing behavior or inclination, factors of personality and our psychologistical components which arise as consequence of the active workings of that personality, or even wholly abstract "pure thought" in the greater, most comprehensive and numinous echelons of our reason and philosophy; these sort of experiences point consciousness to its moral good but cannot instantiate or elaborate directly upon that good, for these appear within and in part as a direct consequence of that system of goodness itself so close to the linguistic-formal and imaginative-recollective framework of consciousness.

Daemonically we can identify the excess to concepts and draw out that excess in its antithetical forms in order to derive the concept itself, that ontological real ground which is in fact its sufficient cause for existing and often in term as its continuing to be a phenomenon to human consciousness; out human will and "will power" or "freedom of the will" for instance can be daemonically exploded in terms of the other series of concepts referred to as freedom and causality, which each become direct experiences to a mind, indicative of its limit and its powers and which thoughts bind the mind to experiencing itself and its objects in such a way as gives rise to an experience of being a willful, intentional self. Freedom is the antithetical non-dialectic counter pole to the causal, traditionally posited in the idea of God and human divinity, and it is in the active operation of these two kinds of objective systems of ideas which are each irreconcilable to each other qua experience and even abstractly in the mind, and even in terms generally of philosophy which has failed to derive the proper reconcilations between these two series of conceptualizations, where we find the human experience of will. Will is being for which its own being is felt dynamically as an active pressure under its own powers and control in so far as that pressure is experienced as arising solely from within the bounds of that being itself. External agencies and causes are reduced to secondary, contingent status as the mind's own structure and need form the only real and important ground of the will, thus man becomes convinced of his own absolute power of action, of intentionality and volition, of his own divinity and mentally "non-causal" status, namely man possesses a soul. The will is the daemonic outcome of the irreconcilable co-extensive systems of concepts loosely gathered under the terms "freedom" and "causation" and is the active and actual, living experience and subjectivity of that co-extensive, irreconcilable series. Likewise freedom and causation themselves, as concepts, can be daemonically exploded as well to reveal their own underlying serial co-extensive irreconcilabilities, for example the concepts of eternity and death or of the sensed infinitude/ boundlessness in the possible and finite limitation in the case of freedom, or of the concepts of the regularity, ordering and logical structure of the cosmos and our unknowability of essential aspects of those structures and our own experiences of contingency and irrationality in the case of causation.

Freedom in a psychological sense is edified subjectivity, edified in terms of its strengths and of the ranges of its felt powers and demonstrable effects. A wide-ranging, stronger system will be more free than a more narrow and weaker system. Human beings are examples of systems that are relatively wide-ranging and strong, relative to the other biological conscious systems we observe around us or imagine typically to be the case elsewhere. Daemonically it is our freedom and "free will" that unites the lesser strains of infinitude and limitation, of the pure-possible and the actual-real in us as the dynamic experience of these serial incongruences under which so much of our conscious subjective experience takes place. The good itself becomes instantiated in more particular and limited modes bound to historical, geographic, social concerns and becomes cultural, religious, racial, individual. Conscience is a monad within larger monads.

Daemonically exploding the will and the good relates also to the daemonic character of the self in terms of the real and ideal egos, to use Parodites terms. Freedom and goodness are ideas as principles of inter-relation between the real and the idea, ways in which divergent series manage to converge and cohere a kind of inter-formative ground of possible action and synthetic subjective understanding. The self is this very convergence and coherence, its character is both spatial and temporal, in the conventional sense as well as in how Kitaro applies these terms in his Logic of the Place of Nothingness and the Religious Worldview. We find that regret, nostalgia, every "existential suffering" of the psychological being has its roots ultimately in this selfhood which is constructed daemonically, namely these take their formal character and shape from the contesting reciprocal and reflexive relationship between real and idea in us, even as the individual character or content of these sufferings draws from our more cultural or individual experiences, namely as these express contingently with respect to the 'existential truth' itself. The ideal and real correspond generally to the imaginative-aesthetic and the psychological-willed beings respectively, what we might call mind and body in simpler terms, but truly are constructed in terms of memory and of that capacity to unite experiences with each other by holding an experience in existence in the mind longer than that experience exists in fact, or to hold the effects which impose upon us and are causal to those experiences longer in memory than otherwise would be the case, in order to compare, contrast, juxtapose and form active relations among our constituent experiences and those stimuli which act upon us, again as Parodites outlines. This edified capacity of memory is at the heart of what it means to be conscious, for without memory, either the backward-looking memory of active recollection or the forward-looking 'empty form of memory' of active imagination, consciousness would be collapsed to the flat dimension of the pure-present and would remain merely incipient, minimal and with no substantive content to speak of. The real-ideal system is that which is rooted directly in this dynamic inter-reflexive and oppositional contrastive system of memory acting upon our experiences at every moment, it is the multi-layered geometry of mind which forms out of the myriad tactile, imaginal or affective data-streams that flow into synthetic memory and embody the mind's character and content in terms of every present moment of consciousness, as just the objects of that consciousness at any given moment which objects are necessarily synthetic, abstracted and partial and as a whole constitute a kind of inner flux that we like to call "unconsciousness". We also have identified this setup with the name of self-valuing, and posit that every being in existence of any scope or character possesses this basically self-valuing, daemonic structure.

Thus every experience or idea, rather human, divine or otherwise can theoretically be subjected to daemonic analysis to obtain that formative series of irreducible, divergent yet co-extensive grounds out of which that experience or idea has come and from which it draws its own substance and enduring quality; this also therefore would reveal much about the larger relations between these and other ideas and experiences of ours, leading ultimately to a larger picture of the self, of consciousness, of life and the rules and natural laws that bind things to each other, rather our ideas to our ideas, humans to other humans, future to past, or life to death. And in so far as the mind and the ideal ego works dialectically in terms of kinds of analysis and synthesis there exists a derivative kind of contradiction between the mind and its own ground, or between various of the mind's objects and others in and of mentality; psychologically-speaking consciousness is both daemonic and anti-daemonic or "dialectical" and it is through reason and higher cognition that the dialectic emerges from the daemonic, as its own partiality and antithesis qua process. Thus a greater daemonism exists through which these two co-extensive series of daemonic consciousness and dialectical reasoning mind are united in their highest possible expression; terms under which this greater daemonism might be elaborated or explored seemingly do not yet exist, and pose the challenge and task for philosophy going forward, indeed this is already what takes place on the level of every genius when that genius invents its own personal philosophy and self out of the ashes of its old self, it has daemonically cohered and constructed itself anew and in terms of its own irreconcilable and inexhaustible self-relations, the terms of which go on to implicitly define that genius and the ways in which it acts and relates to itself and to the world. This process must be expanded beyond the individual, however, it must be formalized and rendered in philosophical terms that it be consciously grasped and allowed to re-make philosophy and the mind generally. For that, we will need more than an individual system of self-created greater daemonics, we will need a philosophically-articulated rational theory of daemonic explosion of every important concept in the history of thought. This would bring the "method of genius" directly to man, instantiating it in terms of his historical, spiritual, rational and psychological character.


"Since the old God has abdicated, I shall rule the world from now on." --Nietzsche
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Daemonic explosion of concepts
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Before The Light :: Tree :: Psychology-
Jump to: