|
Blog 23.08 |
Roland Mann Greg Enge <But we do not create them in a vacuum. Something constrains us. Something resists our free creation. What could that be?> The concept of 'rules' in this thread could be expressed maybe better as 'interfaces', or even 'interaction'. This can be seen everywhere. It is very obvious that no system can ever be seen in isolation. The violin is unknowable without the bow, the bow is unknowable without the violin. The combination is entirely unlike either. And even that combination is unknowable without something activating the bow and presenting the violin. And none of it is knowable at all without something that is capable of forming knowledge. So this idea of separating things into systems and forces is on one level completely untenable. There is a Zen koan that asks, what is the sound of one hand clapping? The point here is that the only way of describing anything is through the medium of interaction, and that the part of that interaction that is the knowledge-creating self is as inseparable as the movements of the bow from the string of the fiddle. However on another level this division is totally indispensable. But this is only because of the perceived division of a system from everything else. The moment there is a continuing 'self', there is an interface with 'else' which describes the available behaviours of that self that support continuity of its separation. Thus a Self cannot deny its being within a context. For without that context it would have no being. But neither can it ever know anything about that context. All it can know is the interface of its interactions. So the enquiry into 'reality' is on the face of it absurd. What is more interesting is the enquiry into 'self', which is equally absurd but at least leads to the realisation of the problem. For according to this idea, the integrity of self depends on the success of its ability to resource its separated context. Which ironically suggests that the wider the perception of self, the greater the chance of success. This as I understand it is one of the deepest mysteries and apparent contradictions of self investigation, that the maintaining of separation of self from else dooms the self to extinction. And yet the expansion of self to include else does the same. Roland Mann Circular nonsense, i.e., confirmation. There is no interaction without action, and no action without existence, which is what 'there is' is. It is proverbially only that the subject/object is in the moment, here or in the past or future, there. Or whatever the why and how of that it is. Existence as such or in particular is not resolvable. The idea that why, how and that anything exists, subject/object, determines what it is, is the abysmal face(and mask) before truth or truth before face nonsense that is the mayhem. What something is, is not 'face'(subject) OR 'truth'(object). That, how and why it is, is the subject-and-object error. Roland Mann Of course it's circular. What else could it be! Roland Mann The circularity is the contradiction. Mathematics and music are language. They are word. The idea they explain anything more than that as if they are not that, but some kind of nonword word, i.e., the verb, is the contradiction. 'Of course it's circular. What else could it be!'=strawman If it is verb of course it is circular. At any resolution, the same thing doing its sinusoidal thing. The verb is the most bigoted fundamentalism. What it is, is word, never, ever the same thing in the ever-neverland, 'existence' but always word. Roland Mann The circularity arises from the hard-to-deny sense of continuity. It's nothing to do with language. Greg Enge Roland Mann you and Ronald Green represent the claims of atomistic individualism very ably, though I suspect this is not what you think you are doing. Roland Mann
This presumption of autonomous selfhood here is almost explicit. The interactions suggested are between one atom and other atoms. I am trying to suggest that this is an untenable view of the 'self'. That it is naive, even old-fashioned. Something our grandparents might approve of. In your defense, it IS a prevailing view. Almost universalized by now. In my hit and run comments I am suggesting it is deeply, fatally flawed. Roland Mann Greg Enge In my last post I presented two positions, not one. One of those positions corresponds to a limited extent to your criticism. The other is nothing like it. The post is about the relationship between the two. Your response suggests you have only read half of it, and then assumed that half is my viewpoint by stripping out the context. As a result you have wildly misunderstood it. I think you seem stuck on the idea of solipsism, and can't get past it. It's way deeper than that. Satanism is Secular Farce Everything is symbol, i.e., noun, which is word. Also icon(humorous imagery) or index(context-blurt) is utter symbol. The mayhem that it is not symbol, is the verb as if beyond word, i.e., the question what creates it, the questions that, how and why it 'exissstsss'. The subject/object dichotomy error is very far more secular (Satanic) than religious and the harping that as such it remains religious rather than farcically fallacious and self-deceptive, is Satanic obfuscation. Nothing whatsoever profane about it. It is the complex mayhem to saturation, the metastasis that the simple error of the explanation existence is. Humans do nothing. The error that they do, is the brutally farcical integral orders of personification that are the mayhem. 'Utilization' is the Most Terrible Farce IT IS LUCIFERIAN SECULARIST FARCE That verbalism as the overuse of words is the error of words rather than the sheer error that the nonword word, the verb is, i.e., 'use' or most fashionably these days, 'utilization' is the most terrible farce. |