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

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.