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.

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

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

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