Some people think that their unpleasant vision of life proves they’re realists. The world looks like shit: to them this is proof they do not have their heads up their asses.

*

No pain, no gain. Therefore: pain, gain.

This is bad logic.

*

Many live in a waking nightmare.

Its ugly vision is a communicable spiritual disease.

The disease is cured by the lucid will to wake up.

Philosophy is essentially the learning of particular intellectual movements. It is finding points of flexibility in how we understand things, on the whole and in each specific constituent fact. The positive content of philosophy, the facts the philosopher asserts as true, are not essential. They are, however, necessary for the actualization of philosophy. One cannot dispense with the facts, but also one cannot reduce philosophy to facts. Philosophy cannot be summarized.

*

The reader’s primary question is “how did the author understand?” The means to finding the answer is to ask “what did the author understand?” These seem to be two different questions, but they are inseparable and are answered together. When the reader understands the material – what the author understood – he necessarily understands how the author understood it. There is no other way to the How than the What.

Going through this process of acquiring new reveals the Why of philosophy in general. Nobody knows why prior to this revelation; they are only inclined toward or against undergoing its revelation.

*

When reality lacks a dimension, it manifests as the dimension not being missed. Reality is always self-complete. This is what is meant by horizon.

*

We don’t see the blind spots that exist in our immediate field of vision. We discover them through reflection, through mediation.

Is not-seeing a phenomenon? What kind of being does not-seeing have? Does not-seeing exist prior to the discovery of the fact of its existence?

According to vision, what isn’t seen is dark, and blindness doesn’t exist. Vision is half-aware when it sees, but vision is self-aware when it learns what blindness is. Knowledge is half-aware when it knows only facts.

(I’m digesting Hegel’s idea of negativity.)

*

If you have experienced and lived out the gap between what can be said and meant and heard and understood you’re in a better position to appreciate the history of religion. Full knowledge includes knowledge of ignorance.

Reading a mystery novel you know as a general fact that you are being misled by appearances, but you are not certain specifically how it is happening. Ideally, everything must be hidden in plain sight, and there should be one and only one possible resolution. No essential fact may be withheld. No more than one resolution should be possible. All theories attempted by the reader should be overwhelmed by the truth revealed at the end. The truth should not become clear until the author reveals it in a conceptual vase-face. The whole book shifts its meaning at the end. Every significance must be reconsidered all at once, on the whole and in particular.

Borges loved the mystery novel genre.

*

Mystery novels are to philosophy what a roller coaster is to reckless driving on a mountain road. It’s a safer, cleaner and more linear simulation of something unsafe, dirty and nonlinear.

From Hegel’s Phenomenology of Mind:

Precisely for the reason that existence is designated a species or kind, it is naked simple thought: nous, simplicity, is substance. It is on account of its simplicity, its self-identity, that it appears steady, fixed, and permanent. But this self-identity is likewise negativity; hence that fixed and stable existence carries the process of its own dissolution within itself. The determinateness appears at first to be so solely through its relation to something else; and its process seems imposed and forced upon it externally. But its having its own otherness within itself, and the fact of its being a self-initiated process — these are implied in the very simplicity of thought itself. For this is self-moving thought, thought that distinguishes, is inherent inwardness, the pure notion. Thus, then, it is the very nature of understanding to be a process; and being a process it is Rationality.

In the nature of existence as thus described — to be its own notion and being in one — consists logical necessity in general. This alone is what is rational, the rhythm of the organic whole: it is as much knowledge of content as that content is notion and essential nature. In other words, this alone is the sphere and element of speculative thought. The concrete shape of the content is resolved by its’ own inherent process into a simple determinate quality. Thereby it is raised to logical form, and its being and essence coincide; its concrete existence is merely this process that takes place, and is eo ipso logical existence. It is therefore needless to apply a formal scheme to the concrete content in an external fashion; the content is in its very nature a transition into a formal shape, which, however, ceases to be formalism of an external kind, because the form is the indwelling process of the concrete content itself.

This nature of scientific method, which consists partly in being inseparable from the content, and partly in determining the rhythm of its movement by its own agency, finds, as we mentioned before, its peculiar systematic expression in speculative philosophy.

Reposting a  Charles Sanders Peirce quote:

“We cannot begin with complete doubt. We must begin with all the prejudices which we actually have when we enter upon the study of philosophy. These prejudices are not to be dispelled by a maxim, for they are things which it does not occur to us can be questioned. Hence this initial skepticism will be a mere self-deception, and not real doubt… Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts.”

The difference between a merely theoretical “philosophy” (a.k.a. sophistry) and a lived philosophy lies in completely in existential honesty proved in practice. A philosopher must only consider an idea believed or doubted when he finds himself living his life according to these beliefs or doubts.

Being must be persuaded to truth. Or maybe persuasive truth is the authentic speech of being.

*

“Supposing truth is a woman–what then? Are there not grounds for the suspicion that all philosophers, insofar as they were dogmatists, have been very inexpert about women? that the gruesome seriousness, the clumsy obtrusiveness with which they have usually approached truth so far have been awkward and very improper methods for winning a woman’s heart? What is certain is that she has not allowed herself to be won:–and today every kind of dogmatism is left standing dispirited and discouraged. If it is left standing at all!” – Nietzsche

*

Philosophy is not a topic one can study or tell someone about. Philosophy creates topics for study, and things can be told only within the medium of philosophy. There is always a philosophy. In fact, there are always two philosophies: the philosophy that is professed and the philosophy who lives itself out and struggles to profess itself.

*

Deep mutuality lives in the interplay of object and subject, bundled blindly within the beyond. At times the interplay outspirals in expansive joy. Other times it shrinks in fear.

*

Tao that can be spoken of,
Is not the Everlasting Tao.
Name that can be named,
Is not the Everlasting name.

Nameless, the origin of heaven and earth;
Named, the mother of ten thousand things.

Therefore, always without desire,
In order to observe the hidden mystery;
Always with desire,
In order to observe the manifestations.

These two issue from the same origin,
Though named differently.
Both are called the dark.
Dark and even darker,
The door to all hidden mysteries.

I forget three to five exciting (to me) ideas every day. They trample each other on the way to expression. I’m not even sure the best ones win.

In popular, material terms, everything is suspended between two-spatially determined ultimacies:

1. The “universe” – approaching one in number, approaching infinite in size. The universe comprises all space, material and energy.
2. The “atomic” unit (meaning literally a– ‘not’ + temnein ‘to cut.’) – approaching infinite in number, approaching infinitesimal in size. Everything within the universe is composed of nothing but this one unit.

You can visualize this idea as an inverted cone, where the width is determined by the size of the unit, so that the universe, occupying the most space is at the top, and the “atom” (physic’s tiniest du jour) at the bottom. Or, alternatively, we can define the cone by the number of units and set the cone on its broad base and define the width by number of units, the (approximately) singular universe set on the top, and the (approximately) infinite atomic units at the base.

*

How can the universe approach one in number? Because it is less than one as long as some thing that exists has not actually been subsumed in it. The universe is conceptually one, but actually perpetually falls short of one in number.

How can the universe approach infinite size? Because as long as some thing has not been subsumed by the universe, the universe is not the universe. The universe is conceptually infinitely large, but actually perpetually falls short of infinite size.

How can an atomic unit approach infinite number? Two ways: 1) Until the universe is actually one, the unit count remains actually incomplete. 2) Each atomic unit candidate multiplies the number of actual atomic units. The number of atomic units is conceptually infinite in number, but actually perpetually falls short of infinite in number.

How can an atomic unit approach infinitessimal smallness? Because as long as any thing occupies space, it remains zenoically suspicious. The atomic unit is conceptually infinitessimal, but actually perpetually occupies divisible space.

*

I know physics has moved on from this conception of space, but I’m curious whether physicists have.

*

Lately, I’ve been pondering the significance of my Unitarian-Universalist upbringing. I needed to sketch out a meaning of that designation.

*
* REALLY CHANGING THE SUBJECT HERE *
*

Speaking of designations, I’ve also been interested in design as a practice of concrete design-ation. When you think about it this way, taxonomies are almost the essence of design, not an expansion of its scope.

Design – ORIGIN late Middle English (as a verb in the sense of to designate): from Latin designare ‘to designate,’ reinforced by French désigner. The noun is via French from Italian.

Of course, designation is a complex concept. A designation can assign many different kinds of significance, from a manner of existence (what is this entity? what do we call it?), to a use (what is its use?), to its status or value.

If you start drowning your natural instincts come to the rescue: Your arms and legs automatically and independently move faster and faster as if directed by an intelligence of their own. Your body somehow knows it should consume all your energy flailing, kicking and heaving your body. Without any prompting, your heart races wildly and your lungs do their damnedest to hyperventilate. If somebody swims near you, your body starts climbing over them like a ladder to get your mouth over the surface for a lungful of air.

We do not have to remember or reason or reflect or execute on a plan. Our own nature takes over and rescues us.

*

Collective being is just as real as individual being and it has its own instincts. We participate in collective being in our own ways and interpret the collectivity out of it habitually.

As long as we see things this way, as individuals we might walk upright, but collectively we’re still half-walking on our knuckles.

*

The noun form of “being” ought to be considered a gerund.

A human is a human on the basis of biology.

A “human being” lives out his human being on the basis of a choice: that choice is between expansive consciousness and expansive responsibility or individual constriction within the merely apparent.

Through each individual human’s choice, humanity as a whole is faced with the choice of human being. We are collectively deliberating right now, at this moment, and you are part of it, one way or the other.

*

Romanticism: Our instincts are nature and nature is good. Greed, panic, aggression, xenophobia, superstition – all natural, all good?

*

“Any action is better than no action.”: The distinctive voice of panic.

*

Popular conservatism, like popular liberalism, is a variety of romanticism. Some instincts are deemed natural and good and are permitted to run rampant. Other instincts are considered unnatural or otherwise morally illegitimate and are exiled.

The character of a popular political form is determind by 1) which instincts are exiled and voiceless, 2) which instincts remain to speak and dictate terms, and 3) what kind of phantom fills the chairs of the exiled instincts at the table of self.

*

• Thesis: Morality is unconditional, independent of context.
• Antithesis: Morality is conditional, dependent on contect.
• Synthesis: Morality is essentially context. It is the fact that every being has a context of other beings, and is itself the context of other beings. Morality is expanding integrity of being.

*

If you don’t understand something completely, it is most productive to believe that you understand none of it. The little you think you understand is likely what is obstructing your understanding of the remainder.

Linearity is refusal to let go of error. Linearity wants progress, but it sees progress negatively, in terms of how far away it is from where it started, not how close has it come to a destination. The question of “toward what?” is secondary to “how far?” There’s an element of panic in linearity. It is aimless flight from, not movement toward.

(Linearity is a pretty good instinct for rabbits and rodents, but an aspiring thinker or a leader has to overcome it.)

*

I am against most forms and conceptions of moralism, because we have outgrown them. Most of us have our hands full of idle or destructive nonsense, and the rest of us have our fists clenched against nonsense. What’s needed are open hands with distinguishing fingers and our trademark opposing thumb, which always approaches from the other side to close and lock our grip.

*

Many chains have been laid upon man so that he should no longer behave like an animal: and he has in truth become gentler, more spiritual, more joyful, more reflective than any animal is. Now, however, he suffers from having worn his chains for so long, from being deprived for so long of clean air and free movement:–these chains, however, I shall never cease from repeating, are those heavy and pregnant errors contained in the conceptions of morality, religion and metaphysics. Only when this sickness from one’s chains has also been overcome will the first great goal have truly been attained: the separation of man from the animals. – We stand now in the midst of our work of removing these chains, and we need to proceed with the greatest caution. Only the ennobled man may be given freedom of the spirit; to him alone does alleviation of life draw near and salve his wounds; only he may say that he lives for the sake of joy and for the sake of no further goal; and in any other mouth his motto would be perilous: Peace all around me and goodwill to all things closest to me. – With this motto for individuals he recalls an ancient great and moving saying intended for all which has remained hanging over all mankind as a sign and motto by which anyone shall perish who inscribes it on his banner too soon – by which Christianity perished. The time has, it seems, still not yet come when all men are to share the experience of those shepherds who saw the heavens brighten above them and heard the words: “On earth peace, good will toward men.” – It is still the age of the individual. 

*

One we recognize a very simple fact, many things become clear: conscious selfhood is scalar.

Each of us, however, participates in this scalarity at a fixed and finite scale, as an individual.

It is possible to develop awareness of the differences between types of relationships of selfhood.

Three radically different intelligible relationships: 1) individual self and forms of selfhood that contain and include it (that is, transcend it), 2) individual self and fellow self, 3) individual self and object.

*

Our tendency is to truncate being at the first scale of self where we find stability and coherence. We identify with that self and treat it as ultimate. Whatever stands outside the horizons of that self are stripped of alterity and transposed inside the terms of that self.

This is an easy mistake to make. The peculiarity of conscious being is its ability to round off and seal its horizons, to make a complete and tidy picture of a world with unnervingly open borders. We do this through interpretation, both conscious and unconscious, constructed and inherited.

There are good reasons to fear opening out one’s horizons. You will manifestly no longer be who you were. There is a very real kind of dying in it. Your world will be supplanted by a new world that is impossible to see prior to seeing it.

This truncation of selfhood can happen to individuals, and it can happen to groups, even to entire nations. It is worse in collectives, because collectives appear to transcend individuality, and of course, collectives can easily reach agree among themselves that they possess ultimate (or objective) truth. Accordingly, the very worst idols who have ever lived were groups, many of whom have called themselves Christian, but in truth are the diametric dead-opposite.

*

Hermes, the messenger god was the god of many apparently unconnected things.

*

Heidegger coined the term “the They”.

For Heidegger, the They is the indistinct collective being that stands outside the boundaries of one’s own Dasein.

The Nazis were a collective Dasein, composed of individuals who identified with “something higher” than an individual. On this basis they felt morally exalted. The Nazi saw the entire non-Aryan world as the They.

It is no accident the Nazis hated the Jews, the tradition who discovered interhuman transcendence in profound vulnerability, whose religion gradually transfigured around this insight. With Christ, the more sublime Jew, the Jews as a collective self turned out toward a radically non-they Gentile world and called it Thou.

*

Each of us, as an “individual” (the misnomer or misnomers), is essentially a sphere of conscious being.

This sphere, despite the folk belief of our time, is not your brain. It is much larger than your own head.  The sphere encloses your own body and every thing and every person and every fact you’ve ever known. It encloses the history of humankind, everything of the future you can conceive. It reaches to the edge of space on every side.

Each of us is crowned with a universe-sized halo.

This is how things seem to us from our own eyes, and we are not wrong. However, we are not right enough.