Point-i | Blog / 20210511

.01

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNaQ2HAj1rY

The necessity to chant-glorify* the nonsense philosophical terms mind and intention leaves me speechless. Also see intentionality at Wikipedia. God and intention are the same bottomlessly enslaved species of bullshit... re. the Newspeak bullshit for slavery: "empowerment."

.02

Everything is word, i.e., nothing is element or set.

Ontology and epistemology are the self as the self-contradiction that is the mayhem.

.03

A non-ontological or non-epistemological taxonomy is a word-taxonomy and not the utter nonsense "sense" of describing something else as [the content of one's real] self. It is a taxonomy that is not digital, not an everything that suffers the farcical absurdity of again having to be in something bigger than itself. It is analog... which is not "meta"-"phor" or having the necessity to be carried by something else.

.04

That everything is word is not that word is a set or that anything is an element.

.05

That everything is human error is not what Jaynes meant of consciousness.

He was analytical about it as somehow carried (metaphored) by non-conscious struction,* as is clear to me in The Origin. But if The Afterword is included Jaynes is very much troubled by the trouble of its consistency, or the problem of it's persistence.

* p.39 Invisible, like God's existence.

.06

It (the video-as-art) reflects the formal nonsense instigated by the wonder of Plato's Cave and the glimpses of what lies behind or then metaphorically in its shadows. Where Plato's Cave is the box of our enslavement oriented as we are, infinitely stupid yet "empowered" by "our existence" IN something infinitely greater than ourselves.

.07

I absolutely disagree that "our seeing is limited in any sense whatsoever, or indeed that we see at all. What I do think (and my disagreement or "thinking" here, as seeing in general, is that the things we call conscious are word, or in the terribly watered-down sense that it is but words, or reference: all "experience, value or meaning-as-such," i.e., without anything (as agent)behind it perceiving it.

And what is important here is that Jaynes was troubled by the trouble of consciousness, and the problem of persistence, specifically that we are chronically blaming each other for the trouble of its supposedly formal, normal and natural constitution.

Re. The Afterword.

.08

Jaynes wrote the whole of chapter 2, skirting the meaning that consciousness AS IDEA is not necessary. By virtue of act psychology being the new religion, everyone, including he himself (and is troubled by it), derives what follows exactly upside down. And never realizes that some other idea is necessary instead of mind or consciousness. Most certainly not that the answer is no consciousness, like the idea that nothingness is mindfulness. Incredible.

.09

Chapter 1 is the list of everything as what consciousness is not necessary for. Before that The Introduction is titled Problem as the statement of consciousness as the unsolvable problem.

I am trying to and will limit my "contribution" here, but the troubled Jaynes lies close to my heart.

.10

Paul Otteson

Pierre Rousseau , this becomes so obscure for me. I can't extract a clear point here.

But for some reason I'm inspired to respond with the observation that language process, and therefor consciousness, is a potent yet terribly frail conductor/critic to the seething orchestra that is direct, physical, neural being. Words can't touch the sunset. What I call 'direct apprehension' is by far the greater in mentation -- intuition, natural reason, seeing, 'getting.' These are the stuff of neural existence back 600M years.

To me, this video serves this older mentation. Coscious process should take a smoke break and let a deeper, native minding have the reins.

To me the ever new idea of mind as wonderfully suggestive of some older or deeper minding is no less the utter nonsense of our supposed deep psyche's action as being about the world outside the box of Plato's Cave than the [philosophical] Intention of God's Creation. Again, everything is word. Mind is sheer denial.

It's the logical error that is not only our destruction, but the end of word, which is what everything is.

What I don't understand is that Jaynesians are apparently denying that Jaynes was troubled by the institution of consciousness.

And it is apparently such a problem, they will shut down anyone who questions some official Jaynes, with the conclusion diametrically opposed to the point of that argument, namely that no word is in the least unclear, for it is exactly what it is, and nothing else.

In the world of existence and intentions (phil), "what you read" is not in the least "what I write" by virtue of some common reality.

The error is that such common reality is meta, deep or structural; as if God-given, i.e., infinitely greater than my writing or your reading of it. The bullshit held as magic is that it is. Yet all we ever experience is the full sense of my reading or your writing. Said agents (you and me vanishingly in the world) are the redundancy that is the mayhem.

.12

Direct apprehension is struction-based, which is invisible. Or like Kant (nomenon), or Plato (Universal), that what we see or sense is magic, for it is based on some invisible world beyond (outside and inside). No, it is not magic. It is exactly what it is. Why and how what anything is, is sense "made" nonsense by the total denial of it as sense, namely what it is.