h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6

Friday, July 3, 2015

A muse on Galloway's "Laruelle - Against the Digital."

My understanding of the hermeneutics of philosophy is that a meaning is elicited. Among the perspectives is reading to one meaning. As poet I have a history of cognitive condensation when reading philosophy - an interpretive or hermetic drift. To the point of logocentric epistrophe.

The glimpse of Laruelle's non-standard philosophy in Alexander Galloway's Against the Digital offers on opportunity for such condensation.

On finishing the chapter I ask if the one or the a priori as "prevent" withdraws from the category of Possibility. I also thought that the a priori is a rivenness or decision at standard philosophy? Likely I'm encumbered with Laruelle's non-philosophy from his III or IV period.

Entertaining the view that apriorization is riven from at least standard philosophy and its world then we can posit a Non-Laruelle. I think Terence Blake of Agent Swarm blog wrote an article about Non-Laruelle.

Am yet to finish the book. Am yet to read Laruelle's primary texts. I'm familiarising myself some of the terminology like one-in-one, in-one, and still getting my head around vision-in-one and determination in the last instance. I grasp as I read - trust I can commit the terms to memory some time.

Also interested in Laruelle's quantum turn. Floating signification (suspension with a background of apriorization) and the semantic complexity of lived experience. I believe Laruelle is giving a seminar in November this year? A commentator hopes that Laruelle expands on non-Marxism and transit without trauma <--- I don't know what that means. Will posit a likely condensation that transit without trauma relates to amphobology or maybe the great withdrawal of one.


Saturday, June 20, 2015

Infinite Non-Consciousness in One

an engagement against vitalist-correlationism in "consciousness creates the universe" discourse. Drawing on the works of Laruelle and Meillassoux. exploring the category of non-consciousness as Derridean opposite and suture. Thank you to Artxell Knaphni- who is a dear One (including eliminativist and consciousnessist)

Work in progress.

Sunday, June 29, 2014

THE QUESTION

How could the multiverse theory affect a possible understanding of Nietzsche's idea, the eternal return of the same?

Edit
Nietzsche was struck by the ancient idea that time was cyclical, and this idea informed one of his highest concepts "The Eternal Return of the Same". Nietzsche explores this concept by having a demon approach you in your darkest hour to inform you that this darkest hour has happened forever, and will continue to happen infinitely. The physics behind this concept are sadly dated. How would a revamped "eternal return" look in terms of multiverse theory, or would multiverse theory make an "eternal return" mathematically impossible. What does this mean for affirmation of existence, how does one love fate?
Please be creative, and feel free to answer like an arrogant bastard, if you so choose!

THE ANSWER

Rob WeirB.A. Astronomy and Astrophysics (Harvard '91)
Votes by Shalin Patel and Bill McDonald.
I never took Nietzsche's "Eternal Recurrence of the Same" as a serious physical proposition but as his way to define a satisfying life.  It is a thought experiment.  This is clear if you quote the lines (from The Gay Science) that follow your paraphrase of the demon's statement:

Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the  demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment  when you would have answered him: 'You are a god and never have I heard  anything more divine'
In other words, Nietzsche is arguing, in his usual extravagant way, that this single transcendent moment can outweigh an infinite repetition of the remaining pain, suffering and banality of life.

Taking this literally misunderstands his argument and does not make physical sense then or now, with or without multiverses.  Sorry.
  
Upvote • 1 Comment •  • Thank • Report • Written 25 Jun
Rob Weir
1
Ariel Riveros PavezI'm still toasted bread Edit Bio
I will take both concepts seriously and see how they interlace.

My colleague Mr Weir quotes an irrelevant Nietzsche and that's a non sequitur. Poor form!!!

The Nietzschean concept of the Eternal Return, Eternal Recurrence or Eternal Return of the Same has to be established. There are various interpretations from the analytical to the continental and current hybridities.

To allow for easiest alignment to the physics I will view Nietzsche through a Cartesian coordinates frame. Such a reading will allow and interstitial transdisciplinary movement from philosophy to science - Descartes being the confluence between these two continuing rigours.

Thus I will choose Eternal Recurrence as the model - leaving the Eternal Return of the Same as a postmodern perspective and the Eternal Return as an existential/phenomenological ontotheology. [I don't have all day and this is a FREEBIE!]

Eternal Recurrence - Nietzsche qua Cartesian is thus quite easily graspable - eternal recursion, a if-then goto programming looping subroutine! So it's a recursion. Let's keep there and not yet evoke presumptions such as circular or spherical just yet...let's walk!

As looping recursion through the Cartesian coordinates reading this then systematises via x-y graph plotting and tesselation our looping recursion. Systematising via graph function, as any systems thinking does will lead to Cybernetics systems theory. Welcome mid 20th century! From Descartes to German bombast idealist [and great STYLIST!] to Norbert Elias, Gregory Bateson, Margaret Mead and Buckmister Fuller. Historically and discursively getting cuddly with science! All these thinkers span fields and approached science. They all interacted with science but let's go straight to physics but approach cosmology from behind, like Deleuzian hip hop doggy style!

Bateson as cyberneticist saw systemics and then an overarching systemics he called Universe or Mind. I though think this is a clumsy conflation - sorry fella, you move too fast! Let's just call it Universe to pay loving attention to such a great question. So there are systems, and they can be river systems, weather systems etc those natural systems are a biosphere or biome [to me these are interchangable - if anyone can delineate and/or differentiation them please be my friend and let's have skype or coffee if you live in Sydney AU]

Natural Systems, then we have constructed systems - infrastructure, energy, architecture, military, governance, finance, economics, these are human made, for the sake of overall brevity, let's called the constructed system GRID. [made up of many spheres - networks, cultures] There are many other such spheres

let's evoke them - abstractly Teilhard Chardin posited the noo-sphere. A sphere where ideas congregate, thus why inventions happen simulataneously. The infosphere, blogosphere, the semiosphere [for you language buffs out there] 

Multiple spheres. Interlacing spheres because it all overlaps, interlaces, doubles, phases in and out, [like solid geometry Venn Diagrams in TIME] move.

And what began as linear system, line becomes geometry becomes solid geometry, then multiple hypergeometries and if they are in motion [time] then from these planes, multiplanar and dimensional moving solidity ie 3 dimensional with time. Then that's the 4 dimensions. Moving allows for VECTOR and immediacy within vector...that allows for inertia AND the concept of NOMADISM in Deleuze and Guattari continental philosophy. AND remember Gilles Deleuze wrote a book, amomg his catalogue, on Nietzsche.

I understand in Quantum early copenhagen interpretation there is theory, physics, mechanics and field theory. Various Quantum theories applying to their particular intensity [both science and Deleuze - here Deleuze is your buddy hi fiving you all the way on a surfboard! You can paint him Silver if you want! LOL]

Some key notions that contemporary philosophy and science share are non-locality, knot theory, field [habitus of Elias, Bourdieu and later Copenhagen] uncertainty, partiality, shifting scale, 

And I have my own contributions and talk about things like continua [multiple continuums and their recursions], philosophically let's return to Derrida

his "differance" [not difference] is another type of difference.

Tradition difference encapsulate quantitative and qualitative difference. Pure Qualitative difference is differance!

Pure quantitave difference is I DUNNO ASK LEVI BRYANT hahahahah or someone.

Daniel Dennett thinks Multiverse theory qua the SAME, ie the same universe repeating like a photocopy, is absurd! Perhaps! But Daniel, if you're reading where is your POETIC side and your literary flair!!

Science allows for multiverses - the Big Bang theory as immersive universe means we are embedded and talking about a before-the-big-Bang is bullshit. This has consequences for our friend Bateson. Me sorry, you can't have second level cybernetics - there is no mind or overmind, or second order or meta level in this sense ie even meta level is still a level! 

Or corrollary to Derrida "even metalanguage is still language"! Whoah, deconstruction and science. Martin Hagglund is an expert here. He's my friend on FB, he goes for Netherlands in the World Cup. Chile drew 1-1 with Brazil and lost on shoot out. My cousin is shitty! LOLZ

I am putting my smiley happy facebook face on because the Internet is from the US and so is Facebook! Otherwise, I'm Benicio del Toro and all the hotchicks, cool architects and even my philosophical and art frenemies wouldn't begrudge me if YOU PAID ME or gave me a job.HAHA Long live fair economies where someone with my mind is on struggle street. Please friend me on Facebook if or twitter if you think I rock the socks of the locks!

But just cos my colleague Rob is BLOWN OUT OF THE WATER

By a Sydney University poetry nerd who knows the one inch punch this can also mean he is free to find his portal here in what I've written and contribute at his best.

But I'm telling ya, Sydney Uni is kicking the shit out of Harvard here!!!

Big deal it's quora...gimme your money sez Morrissey in one of those songs by The Smiths.

This was written in fell swoop, any typos, please allow me grace.

I'm a writer not a grammar nazi AHEM rude proofreader who doesn't know their place!!! :)

Friday, May 23, 2014

Jedi Psi


Now, there's a dark side of the force. Therefore the Force at a necessary and sufficient minimal level is non-dark. And that's the reference - non-dark

The Dark side as geometric, optic or umbral difference on spectrum or continua is the other but with a One (the Force) without ascription or qualia. The force is uninscribed by either geometry or photosensitive categorical classification.

The Force as uninscribed is centre as such and arguably a non-centre.

A non-centre centre. The Double which is not one. A unbraided recursion.

Do not doubt the power of the Force!

Or as the Dark side sayeth - I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Sunday, May 11, 2014

Science and Philosophy


Scientists will traditionally take centralised constructed logic and end at continua of complexity

Continental philosophers will posit decentralised nominalised diachrony as a language tendency but will affirm the univocal.

That's a hell of spectrum for both disciplines - and there's a dynamic relation

Personally I prefer scientist being philosophical than the other way around unless philosopher informed on early Copenhagen

Though Krauss was unfair to David Z Albert which is being noted in transdisciplinary circles as scientific bullying

Some philosophy is returning to truth discourse. To me, they had enough of the polysemic posture and are asking for articulation. Wonderful, a lot of the polysemy was lazy but here's to a nonludic revision of continental thought

Analytical philosophers don't get away scott free either - if postmodernity was wilfully ludic to the point of postured opacity then the analytic tendency for outlandish speculations comes for a challenge as well - the Swampman hypothesis and notion of perdurantism in question. Fine for me to work with as poet but otherwise a large scale philosophical non sequitur. A strain of Wittgensteinian fallaciousness is also noted and scoffed at - "I don't understand what you mean..." as rhetorical ploy has been disentangled as basically a metaphilosophical destabilising gesture which says more about the ignorance of this hackneyed Wittgensteinian ploy than the epistemological suspiciousness of the statement that ushers such Wittgensteinian gadfly flippancies as well like "I wouldn't know about that." Well as a many continental and analytical philosophers now counter - well you wouldn't know much about anything really.

Though in a grand political way this parlay, this current of curiousity and confluence is warranted for so many reasons.

Yet in my personal ethics

Scientists who weaponise their atheism can kiss my ass and philosophers who advise govt on just war can kiss my ass too

Thursday, May 8, 2014

The Mad Artist




I'm coming around to the argument around the book Fuckhead by David Rawson. The depiction of the unwell or neurodiversies, aspies, autists and schizos etc are in popular culture pretty vapid.

Rainman for example - the character has no substantive lived dimension, desires or connective sexuality. He's a toy for the viewer or as critics have said surround Rawson's work - representations that are flat and to themselves in some cognitive deficit.

Ooh that's harsh. I wouldn't want to be around whose a militant in disabled rights unless if I needed them in some positive way.

Artists who take in the cache of being mad, if they're clinically insane or tinged with clinically termed schizotypy or just performing and hamming it up are doing a disservice to the neurotype or neurodiverse community

I know - these words are a little *clinical* and hey I'm reworking these words but we all know what "fuckhead" sounds like!

If an artist appropriates madness in their persona - they really should politicise it, or contribute to social awareness about it, or work at the coalface with the science, art and a pedagogy for the oppressed - to put it into words some of my academic peers would get or really incorporate it into their work (Dali, Nijinski, Artaud, Monk etc) with the romance of poetic intoxication or its abrasive forebear the mead of poetry Suttangr drunk by Viking scholar-poets "skalds" the old icelandic and English joining and we hear stories of Viking men in the same clan when they had a serious disagreement it weren't fighting, or even tempramental raised voices - it was the "kenning" - the warriors would arise at dawn and hurl insults at each other but these were poets, scholars, mythmakers and the insults I imagine in community would've been amazing.

That's how rap battles in hip hop were based.

[Instead of polysemy the viking had a term "heiti" for similar ambiguity [my word "mistridden" is like that miswritten, misread, mistreated, misridden like mis-riding a horse perhaps - a Sydney high school English saw that word in a poem of mine years ago and she went something like - omg.........]

If you're just a fancy pants, moddish artist claiming contemporary tropes like vintage style or Vote for Pedro cache or whatever and you're lining your pockets with your great lifestyle then I wish you success in your world.

Nothing wrong with individualism. Yet if a critic pans you I hope to your dear faculties you can respond and smooth out these challenges.

I'm personally going the other way. Some attention to the issue and my pedagogy is bound with artistry and reclaiming so economy so we fellow artists who haven't made it can see you perform to the sparkling light fantastic.

There's probably a few threads here can be drawn with something like Le Dernier Spectateur haute-European enculturation. It's not like that in Sydders and I should know because I aint seen my family in Montreuil in Paris for decades.

I take a green politics with radical left elements and it's green because it's a biometric conscious culture here, indigeneity, territoire, terrapolitics, settlers, legal vexations and in today's terms which gives the force of immanence and quiddity, of my radicality but there's the interstitium of the noosphere and canonical interface.

"...I went to my balcony and picked up a small flowerpot and when the man appeared out of the doorway below I let my war machine fall straight down on the back edge of his pack, the shock knocked him backwards and he ended up breaking under his own back the whole of his pathetic ambulatory fortune, with all the magnificent noise of a crystal palace shattered by lightning.

And drunk with my madness, I cried out to him furiously "Make life beautiful! Make life beautiful!

Crazy jokes like this are not without their peril and often one has to pay dearly for them. But what does an eternity of damnation matter to someone who has discovered an infinity of joy within a single second." - CB (1868) Paris Spleen extract "The Bad Glazier"

..drunk with my madness...what a stratified dynamism for me as arts health transcultural qualitative writer. the rest sounds familiar enough.

Poste

Monday, May 5, 2014

Social Media Explication of Relativity

Levi Bryant's Facebook Status Update 24/3/14 Australia EST.

Einstein's theory of relativity both fills me with wonder and horror... It's just so weird, almost magic... Light moves at 670 million mph no matter how fast you're going. And it's true; it really does act that way. Expanding and contracting to maintain that constant like the pupil of an eye.

Unlike · · Share

You, Stephanie Hutchison and 6 others like this.

Tim Randles About 671 million mph.

6 hours ago · Like · 1

Levi Paul Bryant Good catch, typo!

6 hours ago · Like · 1

Duane Rousselle Two things: (1) I thought that the speed of light was only constant in a vacuum - otherwise, it is slowed down by any number of mediums including air, water, etc. (thus the refractive index) - there is a distinction here between special and general relativity (2) for general relativity, the speed of light depends upon an inertial frame (a relatively immobile plane of reference; an idea originally apparent in Newton). Finally, isn't the speed of light what you said (670) multiplied 100 000, so, to be exact, 670 616 629 mph? EDIT: see the typo acknowledge now - yikes, too bad it didn't get picked up in facebook copy-editing phase!

6 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1

Levi Paul Bryant Tim Randles is the guy to talk to here as he's the physicist. I'm just going with Brian Greene's number (forgot to add the million as I was multitasking; thanks for the catch!). I don't think the things you cite change the weirdness of it.

6 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1

Duane Rousselle What I find most interesting about Einstein's theory of relativity is the necessity of an inertial frame. Without the inertial frame, it seems to me, all of the strangeness of length contraction and time dilation, and, indeed, the entire theory of relativity, falls apart. So those who talk about never stepping into the same river twice must be perched up on a rock while making that observation.

6 hours ago · Edited · Like · 3

Himanshu Damle Duane Rousselle, I think a year or so back, an experimental aberration did show particles exceeding the speed c. Tachyons were losing their hypothetical status. But, alas it only proved to be an instrumental aberration. But, physics community was shaken indeed.

6 hours ago · Like

Levi Paul Bryant Whatever it is, it gives me indigestion

6 hours ago · Like

Stephanie Hutchison I suspect, we're all generally multitasking . . .

5 hours ago · Like

Ariel Riveros Pavez eat a good breakfast!

5 hours ago · Like · 2

Tim Randles Duane Rousselle actually in General Relativity inertial frames of reference are not guaranteed to exist. They are replaced by local frames of reference where the curvature of spacetime is negligible. For me the mind-bending consequence of relativity was learning that these "tricks" of mathematics, the seemingly arbitrary consequences of relativity, were biologically and physically manifest properties of the universe. If they were not so then GPS and various observations of highly energetic particles would not be possible.

5 hours ago · Like · 4

Levi Paul Bryant Tim Randles exactly! It drives me nuts that often it's just talked about as a perspective. It's physical, material! The astronaught is literally aging more slowly than his twin on earth.

5 hours ago · Like · 2

Duane Rousselle @Tim: I don't think the question was ever about the "existence" of inertial frames, for Einstein. I think this was even the basis of one of his debates with Varićak (if my memory serves me). Existence implies an unwarranted ontology. My understanding was that an "inertial frame" is a construct, something like an "idea" - an inertial frame is also moving. It is just, form the standpoint of another object, we consider it, as a thought-experiment, non-moving.

Of course there is a pretense (to borrow a Lacanain concept) to the inertial frame. The point is not that this is about perspective - it has nothing to do with perspective. It is that there is no relationship between the idea of an inertial frame and anything outside of that frame. It is not that we each have our own reality, it was much more about the fact that there is one inertial frame - something like the One of masculinity in Lacan's writing - and that everything else is not entirely subjected to the law of the One - something like the Not-All of femininity in Lacan's writing. Relativity is not about two frames with different perspectives, it is about the impossibility of a relationship between the One and the asymmetrical, the relatively immobile (which is itself a fiction, a ruse, a mask - since we are always moving) and the other.

For what it is worth, here is what Einstein said to Varicak: "The author unjustifiably stated a difference of Lorentz's view and that of mine concerning the physical facts. The question as to whether length contraction really exists or not is misleading. It doesn't "really" exist, in so far as it doesn't exist for a comoving observer; though it "really" exists, i.e. in such a way that it could be demonstrated in principle by physical means by a non-comoving observer."

You see Einstein's genius here.

5 hours ago · Unlike · 4

Tim Randles Indeed, and to see Einstein's genius is for me to be humbled by it. I do not feel qualified to comment on your second paragraph as I am not well-versed in Lacan's writing.

Side note: I tried to edit this more than once and failed. Clearly I need to go to bed. That being said, I'm sure to toss and turn thinking about this over the next hour...

4 hours ago · Edited · Like · 2

Sunday, April 6, 2014

Thanatacism and Alcopop Marketing


Thanks to McKenzie Wark's notion of #thanaticism and soylent greenification of our food which is becoming more artificial colour and preservative - centric

Ok so I'm riffing about food and how companies are even post-artificial flavouring and now food coloring and preservative centric, so to speak.

The notion of Pineapple Alcohol Infused Detergent or PAID for short, ergo lemonpaid, cherrypaid etc

The alcopop should have the color and texture of industrial detergent. Blue pink green etc

The intoxicant is to be best psychoactive mix of legitimate preservatives if it's cheaper for companies to use than alcohol. But of course, charge the same price or more as your competition. And it means everyone can consume it legally

Have cocktails like *weekend washing*, *dry cleaning martini*, *spin cycle schnapps* that you can drink at Sydney club The Chinese Laundry.

The mission from me being that such marketing as master code is code mixed so much with toxicology that the sense of medical epidemic looms and marketing as master code dies. Oh and lazy design aesthetics too...

And if there's any master code, it's death. Death to toxicological marketing and products.

But sure toxins are ok if not ingested - enjoy cinema and culture responsibly

AND imagine the nightclub in house promos...

...Did you get PAID tonight?

Drink PAID and get laid....

This vermin has legs.

But this isn't mere marketing fatal thanatos. It has to be done by food science and make big mass marketing. Background with money ice-aggro cool and self-congratulations over deep multiplicities of vacuousness afforded by an income. I want a product.

And for the community at large to be provoked, to see social epidemic - enacted in some way. So that an engagement of death driven capitalism by negation gets discussed at large...

And that the legal age to drink is to be raised when you can handle your drink without acting like a combination of ADHD and UFC. I don't blame you though for the lower tolerance to alcohol - it's the epigenetic result of your bong smokin', eckying tripping parents and many other things, including socio-economic problems beyond your control...and the fact that most things are beyond control, means of production and the like that is.

This is a mix and postmix product from Detourne Marketing dot dot

Friday, April 4, 2014

The word became signifier but the signified pointed elsewhere


So, as a poet I am unafraid of language

the notion of incarnation in theology and how it related to embodiment in critical theory and science.

verbo caro factum est - the word became flesh

and there's more to the quote in the Angelus prayer in Latin. and it's in John 1:14 and recited at the end of the Tridentine mass.

secularising, scientising, schizophrenising (a la Deleuze) the notion of words become things is what's aimed in my thoughts of the upcoming poem.

and with the notion of displacement and perdurantism of things
would a word become something other than what it's about, to a schizophrenic

ie - would the word table become the table. maybe the word table becomes a fork. or

if a word is a thing then by recursion, could the word become a word.

here is a line and it's a fork, a vinculum-----------------------------

maybe the phoneme blocks in my throat and I speak flesh. and read it and hear it, and sense it.

that's language becoming thing, or objectivising...I don't know how to use the word object today in light of OOO and I don't like the world being reduced to ready-to-hand and therefore taken for granted even though it's supposed to be pragmatic and get things done, where present to hand supposedly never could. I side with Husserl here.

My point then is arbitrar-ising. Because like Neruda - I have a mind to confuse things, unite them, make them new-born, mix them up, undress them, until all light in the world has the oneness of the ocean, a generous, vast wholeness, a crackling, living fragrance.

and that's the reason, is there ethics there?

That too is important even though poets don't have to be ethicists or Talleyrandists at all but ethics is important to me.

it's a reassemblage...do things require reassemblage at this level?

Sunday, March 30, 2014

The non-exchangeable, and no ice, please

Someone boasting about
their awesome bank balance
incessantly

is the same thing
as a capitalist singing you 
the song of their people 

- poet ARP.

Baudrillard's notion of non-exchange applied in current socius (*society, social media and social strata/groups)


the current tribalist urbanism, beard cultures as repetition of indie in an age where no real independent music companies exists.

and why a large bank account, a soccer jersey emblazoned with brewing company "Cristal" and the dilapidated fetishisation of the object brings non-exchange as cultural *snowline* to the cool and vertiginous pose of the accumulators of objects.The real fiscal arch, in the mould of someone like Wallace Stevens, are to be found in auction houses. Every other fiscal display is pretending and therefore transparent n vapid.

What do such fiscal peacocks do when their best taste for money, their conspicuous consumption, is already passe to a street bum?

You just can't buy good cool anymore...it's not in exchange.

FURTHERMORE

the right wing whine of left critique against rich old white men is only based on it being repetitious is a sign of exhaustion. To repeat that it's a victim mentality is only the opprobium of fiscal morality of the already established.

it's a second level myth therefore and blaming the victim for the injustice. Fallacy of unnatural justice. Or are you just being kingkey? We love real estate...

These things are objective and of object inscribed economy. The colaratura of the rich is a psychopathology of fear and stamping in the concrete value by non-exchange or MC Hammer singing "you can't touch this". Or Lord Haw Haw drinking the lemon water tureen.

But the street bum can sneer now. The art you like, the aesthetic you frott to modernist whimper, can be sideswiped by Pozo, Vladimir and Estragon as a piece of shit. The Duchampian finality is - that the big bank balance as object is a piece of shit and all the things you've brought with it, including their street credibility and signification under charmed chandeliers and champagne from Minnesotta. And I haven't even mention Freud yet - but who has to anyway?

The non-exchangeable, or the non-object democratised via an equal distribution in the knowledge economy. Yes they say get a job and I say, waiting for clenched fiscal urinal stream trickle down hyperdesert to rain pennies from heaven.

I understand and I even empathise at insipid liberalism's as ovine mantra...having thought as freshly minted currency in a knowledge economy is an asset, a value pool and it can only be translated to the ovine ovals by crystallisation. But my point ultimately is against the insipid....and the line drawn around crystal palaces in the air - ones that no longer for any one or thing I do care

about

The simpleton's way out of the crystalline is to buy something of value and easily communicated cultural sophistication value. But Beckett beckons your bullshit - beggars belief! And no bouquets for any tu quoques. The bum knows your beaujolais sucks ass, and they giggle.

Even Noam Chomsky has to dress down because it's an economic necessity - ethically and physically. Don't count the lucre in front of struggle street and watch out for the rogue thug mugger. It's unfortunate but the mugger won't complain about old rich white men...they're easy pickings on the wrong side of the street.

Other crystalline values (and they're very fragile...) are access to elite spaces (gentleman's clubs, beautiful dance halls), muscular bodies, urban aggression as pivot to the line of non-exchange and social status antagonism. Postures for a power that is power over.

And the soft passe equanimity of power-to has laurels...power to seduce, power to build, power to sway, power to steal, power to fight. Is it a soft fuzzy crystal? - This is in the shadows, or it's the prismatic spectrum of colours that are visibile, dazzling through the crystal of le venge

but non-perceivable, non sensed to those who only sense the object graspable. This is the zu-hande bias, the to-hand fallacy of Heidegger. Haptic or it doesn't exist. This is facile ultimately and a foundational feature of great analytical cultures.

The other parties of in this architecture besides the crystalised are, the fluid and the recollectable ie memory.

Give me the shovel and the gravedigger, because laughter kills all gravity. Your airs and heirs and hot ere and hot now and hot air forever till Heat Death do us part.

Death crosses lines by night and with impugnity. It kills us all and even them of infinite jest.

But don't be fooled - there's a filthy rich version of Godot under the couture dustman's cap of pricey chic vintage fashion as cultural signifier - the crypto-affluent. If they ever turn right, knock em dead on the head, Ted, mmm perhaps take the bread and the lambspread.

and any token to humanism must overcome and overcompensate, overreach and overarch...double golden arches and triple axle for the saccharine. Even Jesus thinks saccharine is sucks cultural and cinematic ass.

Any questions from the dirty rascals?



Saturday, February 15, 2014

Object, Process, Time, Space, Identity orientation in language

The philosophical notion of the interstitial, the relations between objects. the between-ness.

Now, lapsing into Heidegger we see the object bias in language. the between-ness, not an only incredibly baroque abstract noun, but showing language's lean to the "what" of stuff. Or the being as Heidegger notes in his famed Neo-Aristotelianism of being and Being.

Language is object biassed and oriented. Does this necessitate an object orientation in philosophy? Is philosophy still constrained by language's biases?

This is the point of departure for major speculation. For one, the question of language object orientation could beg the speculation of the possibility of language being process oriented, for example.

That language biasses toward the "how" of stuff. Not to mention when and where etc. Speculated base of language therefore could not only include the object orientation but process orientation, temporal orientation, spatial orientation, and identity orientation. All these orientations will discretely influence the others.

We have something like a hypergeometry of multiple orientations and their discrete influences. Or a physic of such. Perhaps following this trajectory to science is a continuity of the object orientation bias, is creating a trajectory of the other orientation/s possible, or their interstitiality. In a object way to imagine how a temporal and process combine and relativity would operate/sound/appear/ feel like, or are we already immersed?

Tip of iceberg.


"The growing disciplines of systems biology, sensory ecology, and chronobiology are founded on the principle of the ontologically equal exchange of information in a state of awareness between the organism and its surroundings. Finally, the tired old issues of illusionism, dualism, and skepticism regarding consciousness can be laid to rest."

I don't really think so. The Fallacy of Systematism we also see in cybernetics

WT2KSB7K7THB

Philosophy of the Grid

Virilio's notion of Pure War inscribed in architecture might be a little histrionic but I don't fault immanent critique for aesthetics, just the maths.

The little dandelion breaking through the street concrete - it's not a fanciful beach. It's the earth as another monster giving us gifts like that. The cracks, the gaps, the voids - it's no longer Heidegger's fork in the road of being. It's material, real, quals and quants, objects and process...the interstitium, the integementum, the pericycle - these are of human and plant world, the gaps where exchanges coo like doves. These gaps are something, Niels Bohr I say answered Heidegger correctly though, he may not have been informed of phenomenological contexts. Dynamic balance in exchanges.

The notion of dynamic balance is not only biological or ecological. It's used in many trades and disciplines - including photography.

These are relations and processes as exchange and flows. asystemic and systemic, complexist flows.




Saturday, February 1, 2014

Neurocriticism

In this recuperated state of socialized health via neuroplasticity realizations blissfully blossom.

The uptake of reasoned language - the simplified tone, clarity, economy and the Hemingway toolset so admired as felicity of style. I'm happy with my facility with the prosaic. I celebrate it.

I have an entirety of engagements with this rapprochement with common sense language prescribed by 20th century English (Oxbridge) philosophy.

First is the fields one orients to. I talk now of government policy but not governmentality or governance. I talk of stability but not metastability. I appreciate architecture but I won't giggle at what nomadic architecture could really be in material construct and tensile terms - sure I could blather about fluidity as parametric motif but nomadic architecture with neither domination, basal orientalism or postmodern inversion where the margin is everything. Postmodernity's inclusivity of the margin could be a replication of the Frankfurt model of capitalism - it subsumes what approaches it. But just because the model is mechanistically similar is no fatal Zizekian chiasmic grunt of guilt by association.

Oxbridge common sense English applied to the plural, speculative, poststructural realms of rigour is appreciated because after reading Heidegger, Derrida and Deleuze and Guattari the leap to use stylised new languages or terms are not necessarily warranted.

That leap to neologism should also be examined if we are coders of the void.

The challenge is two ways - that continental tradition use common sense language (speculations, ooo and current realisms are thanked) AND that Oxbridge philosophy draw closer to speculation, pluralism, multiplicitous thought and thought images like Whitehead did and that contemporary logic intimates.

The schizo makes clear sense and the whitebread couch potato agrees that a lot of life is dream in an everyday no bells and whistles way.

Though I can appreciate the drifts and recall the spectrum of topologies that was the experience of a mental health condition. I even have an archive of passable written work that to some were impressive and to me just agog I had achieved that. Articulating this history and work is fulfilling too. The unmanageability and alienation though were very difficult to live in. One of the many continuities in my life was the notion of abundance and my suspicious ambiguity at survivalist and scarcity world views - something I'm keener to today.

Saturday, January 18, 2014

Ontologizing Australian Culture

It's funny - tokenism.

It's my decided view at the moment that one huge lump of manifold Australian culture is utilitarian unassumingness. Withholding and withstanding, with/with and holding and standing. An old person doing a hand stand. Epistemological to the point of youth and freedom that is wasted on the old.

A lack of ontology. The large thing that is large is not only an icon of holiday proportion - it's the Big Other. A kind of psychological Big Brother but more about Darwinian anxieties of status where difference is equalised into a flat epistemology but which is though not identical to pluralist egalitarianism.. Some of you would know that in psychoanalysis the disappearance of the Big Other is the end of analysis. If you don't have that big other to overshadow you as monster master signifier you're old and free.

The artistry is then to assume this unassumingness for adaptive success in the wide flat epistemology where withholding and withstanding are not only a stoic badge of courage but a willingness for oppression as mark of physical strength. Mental strength is slowly entering into the equation but only because of the hidden fact that most of our flat epistemology have quietly gone through mental illness and will joke with Robert Welsh that you're suspicious too but withholding is paradoxically ill enough to legislate culturally "I don't know how to have an internal life". Ontology being just silence.

It's why Australian poetry is rural, pastoral as a guide. To tease an ontology is the quiet. The culturally integrated voice of David Malouf, the collegiality of quiet consensus by creeks. That tender rare masculinity - that by its rareness connotes value. Quiet is the value and so thus is unassumingness. I guess in the spirit of Lacan the end of the not-necessarily-Orwellian big Other is not self-same as party time. It's the quiet of Curlewis Creek or the mute boy in an Imaginary Life - you're either told to shut the fuck up or more integratively, be a linguistic gem, the strong silent type with women falling all over you - cute fantasy from an Imaginary Life...

Why quiet I don't know. Is there an audial tumult to this big cultural demographic I examine? Is loudness (via, say, cosmopolitanism) the denied term because of a cultural hyperacusis?

There's a millenium of monastical practice to bond cultural quietism - an entirety of nodding pastoral caring approval. Maybe the world isn't modern or the section I'm mentioning anyway. As quietism continues its cement march through corridors of power and it returns to the consensually agreed beginning of democracy - in Ancient Greece, where quiet was literally, political idiocy.

And I have no remedy, legal or philosophical. It means I also carry no poison. So the manifesto for the ontologizing of where I live which seems to have not much of it. Talking of being, as opposed to knowledge and technical stuff like how I put scoops on my Torana SLR vintage muscle car, is not the same as whinging or navel gazing unendingly uselessly. It's scientific. For a culture where loudness is a automobile motor yet research excellence is within Biology and it's offshoots like biomedicine and biomedical engineering. The cochlear implant - why Australian? Perhaps the cultural quietism....

The quietism, even with correlational philosophies of mind with Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett (now that's a huge guess so please feel free to delete at least Daniel's name but it won't affect the point), is much like the joke

"X is asked to pick one of three doors by Satan for his brimstone eternity. Door 1 sounds of chaos, 2 pain and screams, 3 though is a low quiet thrum. On being thrust into Door 3 X is up to his lower lip in shit and the others quietly say "don't make waves".

Opposing - Beckett says if you're up to your neck in shit you might as well sing. Scientifically - the peak wisdom of cultural quietism is the misguided mentoring of "observations affecting systems so please, no observations."

We are immersed in observation. Observation is actually fabric. There's no outside to it. It is embedded. Observation doesn't require what we call human - observation occurs whenever there are two electrons present. That is basically the whole universe except for modern experiments of atom splitting up to photon isolation requiring incredibly complex machines and more money than one countries defence budget - like the Large Hadron Collider.

So praising the engineer is kind of redundant but it does keep war and the global economy going and local culture understands the garage. But even an engineer would say - oh the Large Hadron Collider: the company who had the cheapest quote using the cheapest materials and labour got the contract, and heads shake. Back to fatal correct quietism even for the engineer. It all ends with a whimper sayeth TS Eliot.

Engineers are used to being told they're idiots, idios in the Ancient Greek, and become very quiet. The people who rebuke them are architects and scientists. Just ask them, any of them.

And what's being said is observation is ubiquitous. No need to hide heads in sand - we have to knowledge, we have the technology. Time to be ontological like they always were in cultures that pick up women easier than you.

Ontology, that is. Coming out of the Continent, the USA and UK.

And now - well Australia cos we are young and schweet

and yes, it's a project, the cultural ontologising of the fair wide brown land - not only cultural, scientific and philosophical but political as the experts become more and more bureaucratic and celebratedly cruel and big Othering to the law, and say, visa laws or land laws, employment laws and health laws

but hell, even engineers know you can change a law. Taking it all lying down is usually what's done but when they take the entitlement away of lying down and 4 weeks holidays, then navel gazing about science, quantum and being the best you can be cognitively or with wellbeing, is another way to be.

You know Frank Sinatra sing-sang that song well on the all the world's stages - dobedobedo too, Australia.

One ontological point at the moment, from Levi Bryant, is that difference actually makes being. No wonder, perhaps then, Australia never pondered ontology much, traditionally


Friday, January 17, 2014

Models and traditions of Time (in progress)

Bergson elasticity,
Power of Now,
subjective
aufhebung
Time Line Therapy
Eternalism - religious and atheist.\
Aboriginal dreamtime
cinematism
scifi time travel.
spacetime,
object time
relativity
monadic
precopernican
speculative
haeccities
medieval time by prayer,
arabic time,
clock standardisation
NASA and the invention of time optimisation (project management)
keep an eye,
impatience, contemporary time wound up
lovetime (for ever and ever, fairytale endings, one night stands, whirlwind affairs)
other indigenous traditions
scientific- kant to altermodernity's rekanting
time differential and greenwich
diversities of time
neurodiverse times
psychology and time, eco-time.

Wednesday, January 8, 2014

Science and Philosophy - salt and pepper

s - monstrous problems, limits, varied access to results via theories and models, workable, materially mechanisable, kindly prove me wrong it sincerely and necessarily asks, methodical, optimism of cosmos, everyday militarisms - yet with ontological naivete

p - ontological rigour, dialogue, refinements, indifferences, counter-intuitive, political, consistencies, turning, spinning possibly, mechanisable metaphysically, conceptual, it proves you wrong as it targets everything - the ambitious become arch of social ruins and will find dulcet hermitage

both immersed, embedded, speculative and discrete. One's the lover and the other one goes on without them.

Pepper philosophy loves wisdom - that knows it doesn't know; and salt science just knows and understands - it makes and quenches thirst.

Can't you see I'm right/Can't you see I work without that?

Philosophy has a garden it's stuck to and wants the greener-otherness cache of science because it died from universal indifference and hunger, of hatted hit-bliss hermitude. "What have you done for me lately?" asks Jackson science.

Even by bang or whimper we're done, science will be at the end, as cause and effect thereof say the people. With endlessness so too and all legally centralised stuck exclusions that philosophy knew. Push it, good.

Thursday, October 31, 2013

GeoTrauma

Debord's psychogeography is aesthetically staged

Deleuze's Geo- is a "science" of violence

and maybe why I'm a cinema snob.

"A number of 'ecological' theories of cinema have emerged in recent years, many of which remain bound by antiquated models of figure and ground. These models typically belong to a pre-cinematic aesthetics of nature, sustaining an image of humanity uninformed by the recent prospect of species self-extinction. We hereby propose a new model for conceiving of this relation, one based upon Nick Land's post-psychoanalytic notion of geotrauma, and which suggests that the earth as ground gives rise not just to territories but moreover to processes of ungrounding. These processes are recapitulated in the human history of a traumatic relation to this (non)ground, suggesting a properly geophilosophical understanding of cinema that observes catastrophism as a genetic principle. Of consequence for any attempt to theorize human artifice and design under the present 'environmental' moment, such an understanding presupposes a thoroughgoing revaluation of creative practice and process. We hereby provide a reading of three recent films in which the figures or iconography of the natural environment reflect this 'revolt' against ecological fixity. Visions of catastrophic environmental change force us to reconceive of the very concept of nature as something fundamentally at odds with our perception of what is natural. We thus combine Land's theory of geotrauma with Deleuze's conception of cinema to argue that the cinematic image testifies to a 'pantraumatic self-movement', one by which the relations between parts forming the conditioned or ecological whole are subjected to a universal ungrounding, and therefore by which something necessarily unconditioned escapes its 'natural' conditions. This geophilosophical emphasis upon escape, flight or deterritorialization should replace the ecological aesthetics of figure and ground with a perceptual catastrophism, disrupting every naturalizing appeal to an harmonic relationship between the human and non-human, cultural and natural worlds."

ref 
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/intellect/des/2012/00000002/00000001/art00006

introducing geopsychology in the emergent Geomedicine.

Abstract

Temporal and regional variations in psychological processes have been associated with three geological factors. They are geochemical profiles, geomagnetic variations, and tectonic stresses. In the geochemical domain, copper, aluminum, zinc, and lithium may influence the incidence of thought disorders such as schizophrenia and senile dementia. These common elements are found in many soils and ground water. Geomagnetic variations have been correlated with enhanced anxiety, sleep disturbances, altered moods, and greater incidences of psychiatric admissions. The effects are usually brief but pervasive. Transient and very local epidemics of bizarre and unusual behaviors are sociological phenomena that sometimes precede increases in earthquake activity within a region; they have been hypothesized to be associated with tectonic strain. Many of the contemporary correlations between geological factors and human behavior are also apparent within historical data. The effects of geophysical and geochemical factors upon human behavior are not artifactual, but they are complex and often not detected by the limited scope of most studies.
PMID:
 
3792507
 
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

ref 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3792507 

Geophilosophies and geopoetics (geopoieia)

And thus the field of trauma broached in postcolonial discourse. Geotrauma - and its scientific research. South American geochemical soils contribute to medical research. The wildness of Exile Heterotopias of Raul Ruiz, the crookedness of country and people, body of earth.

Geopsychology and the geopsyche.

Psychogeography  is discursively quite facile in comparison - even though it's engendered heated theoretical political debate.



Maybe with some further information - the alterlatino ethico-aesthetic post Lacanian surrealist schizophrenia, political and clinical.