Before The Light
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.


'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.'
 
HomeSearchRegisterLog in

 

 Non-reductionism: liminal philosophy. The agon, etc.

Go down 
AuthorMessage
Parodites
Tower
Tower
Parodites

Posts : 790
: 853
Join date : 2011-12-11

Non-reductionism: liminal philosophy. The agon, etc. Empty
PostSubject: Non-reductionism: liminal philosophy. The agon, etc.   Non-reductionism: liminal philosophy. The agon, etc. Icon_minitimeSat Jan 04, 2020 7:16 pm

The great soul tends toward solitude, spiritual solitude most of all; he does not enjoy congregating, and spurns the call to power when it comes to organizing and to sharing that power with others; his sense of taste rejects the possibility of being understood, which his instinct tells him is necessary for organizing with others; and his Ontos or image-of-Being is irreducible to any  other,- his philosophy represents a life and, like a life, it cannot be reduced to another, encouraging him in his isolation. But the weak soul is quite the opposite, and loves to organize and to gather its like; the weak soul craves power for no other reason than to have power, and thus has no shame in pursuing it, more than willing to share it with others if it means a net increase in his own power and influence. This is why the weak always rule the strong. The strong do not gather; the weak do; and a horde of 1000 weak souls will always bring the one great man down, no matter how strong he is. To prevent this from happening to philosophy, it is necessary to know how to properly organize without being either reductive, or unproductively fighting. Thus I will post an exchange here I had with Fixed, and then a central point I rewrote on the "Negative" or chiasmus in which our philosophies meet in a liminal sphere which allows the reorganization (what I call re-ification) of terms: preventing a reduction of one set of terms to another.





ParoditesYesterday at 4:35 PM







Of course the Negative is a sui generis concept, it is related only semantically to negation, etc.; it is an original concept not meant to be directly compared to what the word suggests, that is, nothingness, etc.







Sphinx777Yesterday at 4:36 PM







But Ive learned to very much beware of saying "value ontology" which suggests a positivistic idea







Ive already called it "valuator logic"







ParoditesYesterday at 4:36 PM







I only use it because it is the only one I can apply.







Sphinx777Yesterday at 4:36 PM







same for me and valuing. Its the only term that works.







obviously these point to very different approaches and lives and souls







ParoditesYesterday at 4:37 PM







When I speak of transcendent recursion, with the metaphor of an infinitely repeating number; the superontological status of such an arrangement is what I mean, very very loosely, by Negative; that is at least how you should think of it as opposed to, nothingness, or negation, etc.







Sphinx777Yesterday at 4:38 PM







Yes I do grasp this now and did grasp it n your writing on God, the past year and before.







ParoditesYesterday at 4:38 PM







Negative is the word I use to describe in-existent things upon which existent things depend for their existence.







Sphinx777Yesterday at 4:39 PM







Yes. In order to arrive at cosmology this proper ontology, self-valuing logic produces such a locus first.







ParoditesYesterday at 4:39 PM







It is a kind of repulsion. It's negative in the sense that dark matter is negative.







Sphinx777Yesterday at 4:39 PM







Self-valuing logic is how non-existence is organized so as for it to produce the dynamism of existence







but ve actually not explicated it in this way







because I figured it was too much work for one man to do







it could never be understood







but we've come at an interesting juncture













ParoditesYesterday at 4:41 PM







The structure of what I call the Limen; the liminal space through which the existent becomes articulate against the repulsion of the inexistent or Negative; that can more easily be explicated.







That is essentially what the epistemes are.







Sphinx777Yesterday at 4:44 PM







I think value is such a limen, and valuing the one thing we know that "touches" the limen and finds it as a medium.... but I am afraid this reduces again. Im honest though.















ParoditesYesterday at 4:45 PM







I don't feel that is reductive.







Sphinx777Yesterday at 5:02 PM







consider also this phrase:



Value increases with its absence.







valuing mediates the non existing attactor and existence







and therefore is existence a priori to the world.







ParoditesYesterday at 5:03 PM







The Negative (as the inexistent through which the existent gains existence) is the entropy that tears system from within and pulls it apart with its own excess,- 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 as Unity,- not the Unity before life, which would be merely a regressive call back to the inorganic and to Nirvana, but the Unity after Life, multiplicity, and phenomena. What is that second, liminal Unity; through which System transcends itself, instead of being annihilated? Such a monad functions like the bodies of two lovers flashing up in a moment of higher-ecstasy as a new, third being; this third being is the Negative, in my sense of this word, as it simultaneously does not exist, but it allows what does exist to transcend itself and to come into existence. This third being is known to you as well in terms of self-valuing; I believe this places the ideas without reducing them to each other.







Sphinx777Yesterday at 5:07 PM







I must not respond too quickly. I have too much to say.







what I mean with self-valuing is each lover, in as far as the object of their love allows them to persist in love - what is in between, the love "itself" - this indeed becomes a third being including both, as they are lovers (in terms of their love)







however the term valuing indicates an approach of otherness, without requiring fulfillment - the question is only what is the standard of that otherness, by virtue of which it might "appear"-







stand forth, exist.







as a force, as something which has an empirical existence, "impact".







this approach, which is indeed a negative attractor, "requiring" something, yet in this negativity it is the only guarantor of existence.







haha - the requirement of existence as a guarantor of existence. How lawful. There are many ways of saying this, but valuing touches the limen







there are by the way very nice accounts of nirvana in terms of multiplicity, cosmically beautiful flower gardens and paradises







ParoditesYesterday at 5:18 PM







The Negative is a guarantor of existence, not by combining the lovers into a binary fusion, but through the in-existent third being,- for it is always third, the asyntheme, the unabsorbed. Because it must remain unfulfilled, unabsorbed, it is a threat to all that cannot or refuses to glimpse the Negative and allow it to release itself from the System it would otherwise tear apart with its own excesses, meaning: to allow the third being to appear without the strictures of that system, and its obligations. So I did not mean to imply the need of fulfillment in my other statement.









Sphinx777Yesterday at 5:20 PM







Nice







yeah this is good







feels good, too.







ParoditesYesterday at 5:21 PM







This is not a reduction, but a placement; putting two parts of something together does not reduce the one to the other.







Sphinx777Yesterday at 5:23 PM







No, it adds in my case a layer; something for which I did not have terms yet 

by which to unfold.



This is not a reduction, but a placement; putting two parts of something together does not reduce the one to the other.




Rewritten into Mone and Monon:

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. The limitations of language often force philosophers to adopt a word
from a more common lexicon with which to provide a point of entry for the unfamiliar to
a more refined lexicon applicable to their work alone, and consequently more specialized
for the task; for me, this word is: the Negative. Negative is the word I use to describe in-
existent things upon which existent things depend for their existence.

Thus, when I speak of transcendental recursion, or the transcendental auton, using things
like the metaphor of an infinitely repeating series, it is the super-ontological yet para-ontic
status of such an arrangement which I aim very loosely imply by the word
Negative,- as opposed to the sense of merely nothingness or negation, by which one
might be led when considering only the semantic associations of these later terms. 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.


The Negative is Gnostic fire: Gnosis or true philosophic-understanding neither as the
subsumption of the ontic or ontological; neither as the enlightenment or the madness
inspired by the riddle of the Tree of Knowledge at the Garden of Life around which the
old rabbis gathered in hope of wisdom, having already denied themselves by taking
wisdom as something that could be hoped for, that is, predicated by something else,
something that would need to be "wiser than wisdom"; neither as Paradise or the wage of
death, as imposed by the angel Raziel at the foothold of the Garden,- but gnosis as the
Fall into Sin itself, and understanding as that incomprehensible datum by which the two
might be differentiated within the episteme (ie. one as a predicate to the other, instead of
reducing both to a univocity) by the still more mysterious element, namely the agapeic
transformation of redemption and the excessus of human nature, ie. the Christus;
understanding neither as belonging unto the perfect God or the Demiurge,- YHWH or
Lucifer; neither as one term within the binary structure of the predicates (predicate-
universal) or another, but rather, what Vico called the imaginative-universal in which all
Predicates take shape as an eddy in the historical circulus of the Universal, and through
which the Universal is in turn drawn into the vortices of the particular; above all of this--
understanding as the understanding that understanding itself is neither a Predication
consequent to a binary judgement nor the univocity of a monological reduction of a
predicate to a Universal, but rather, the mythopoietic chiasmus on whose scintillating
surface all dramatic emergences are reversibly organized,- simultaneously automaton-ized
by the circulis universalis and concatenated by the replicating dyad of serial logic, and
in whose limen the nucleus of discourse is perpetually generated, deconstructed, and
reconstructed by itself,- asyntheme renewed beyond the imaginative syntheme and the
intuition of the Ontos by the ineradicable silence of Negativity, and that Loss hemmed
around all Being,- the inarticulation and ALEPH at the mysterious border or NULL of all
speech, through which alone speech might reckon with its own finitude and thereby
produce actual meaning.

 

___________
ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum; 
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata. 

[                                          The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
                                                                                     the First.]

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.


                                        -- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.
Back to top Go down
 
Non-reductionism: liminal philosophy. The agon, etc.
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

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