[Burk]

He didn’t know why he was there or where he came from but also knew it was for a purpose.

I like this, kind of like saying ‘there is something secret’ but the secret does and does not have to exist simultaneously for us to even begin seeking it.
 

The figure spoke and immediately, the boy recognized the sounds. Before the boy saw light, he saw darkness but could hear the sound of the figure, and how smoothing it was. The boy trusted that the figure could answer the question he kept asking himself. “What am I?”

It is not until one encounters another that one begins to question their place, purpose and well, ‘being’.
 

Before the boy could even figure out how to make a sound, the voice said “speak.” The boy asked “What am I?” The soothing voice said he could not answer the question, because you are “whole”, or the perfect being of light. “You are all that is good in me, therefore I can not tell you because you are not aware of the other yet, that of which is not good, together you will find the answer: What am I?”

Reminds me of how separateness, although a necessity, is the meaning of sin.
 

His father explained that the boy had the power to create anything he desired however the catch was that he only had one chance to create himself. This creation had to reach self-assembly, or autonomous patterns without any help from the boy. The boy was confused, as everything he thought to himself was getting him nowhere and the more questions he asked, his father would have a answer, but they spawned another question and another…and another. The father interrupted him and explained that he has all the answers to his questions within, but thinking with the “other” will eventually give you the answer to the question: “What am I?”

Infinite possibilities always boil down to one outcome.
 

Clue #1
Everything that has a beginning has a end, but after the end is the beginning.
Clue #2
Create in balance, everything will have an opposite that will cancel each other out when they meet.
Clue #3
Make it extremely easy to do but extremely difficult to master.
Clue #4
Create in absolutes, and extreme ambiguities
Clue #5
Make it fun, like a game that never ends
Clue #6
You will lose yourself, but that’s the point of being

Nice.
 

The father now had to leave, but explained that he will find the boy again when he creates himself. The boy agreed but the figure didn’t move. The father said he was having trouble letting go of his creation but then explained that his creator told him that letting go was just the beginning of the journey. The boy didn’t understand what he meant but reassured his father that he will find the answer: What am I? The boy returned to his thoughts and wondered what he looked like. He then used his clues and came up with an idea to create the “other.” The other had a voice that wasn’t smoothing but tolerable. It was very truthful, so much that it sometimes hurt. It called itself, “Guts,” and called the boy “Brain.” The boy didn’t like the name, but he figured that Guts knew best because he created him. As time past they often argued about everything and couldn’t come up with anything that was worth creating. The 6 clues created more and more questions, however, as more time passed, they both created 6 separate clues of there own.

The guts are like the passions and the boy is the active will?
 

The two finally came to agreement and decided to make a game called hide and seek. But there were as one. So they decided to create a huge explosion so they can be two. However, they miscalculated and exploded into a massive number: 274,207,280 x (274,207,281-1) to be exact. The 6 clues constantly created from the 6 clues without any help but eventually created a place where the two could be together again. This place is called Earth. The rest is history. The End.

Although there is a necessity for self-creation, when it occurs, there is also contingency.

Really great post, hope you stick around.

[Burk]

what true and truth mean seems to depend on what’s being considered, as if they were not a one, but a many. And there are no end of traps and rabbit holes to get stuck or lost in, here.

It seems to me that true is a quality that some propositions have, calling them here meaningful sentences (MSs). But I cannot do any better with truth than to say that truth is simply, and only, the abstract generalization of true taken across all true statements. It’s a little like saying number means quantity, but that (clearly) “number” provides no clue as to any particular quantity.

Even if truth is a many, from there being more than one kind of true, there is still the problem of particular “trues.” Which ones are, and by what standard, or must we say standards?

Kant famously limited knowledge to make room for faith. I’m looking at limiting faith to preserve truth. I think pure Positivism is a one-size-fits-all solution that creates more problems than it solves. At the same time, I wonder if it can truly be that “true” comes in so many sizes and flavors that we need resort to large cardinals to understand how many there are. Godel might argue this way.

Back to simplicity, if possible. A useful idea here is about presuppositions. In order to think or do anything, we presuppose, usually not consciously. In the course of any endeavor we may question some of these presuppositions – and indeed we should! But if you plow deep enough you find presuppositions that you don’t question, because, for example, they ground the thinking you’re doing. You could question whether they’re true, but that questioning simultaneously destroys the thinking you started with. With these presuppositions, “it is not their business to be true, it is their business to be presupposed.” (RG Collingwood).

We can thus set aside some claims to truth by understanding that those who make the claims are merely making explicit some of the absolute presuppositions of their thinking (assuming they’re honest to begin with!), and ignorantly claiming that they’re true.

[Burk]

Words and remarks are always upon something, and by some specific perspective. So not just signified and signifier, but the specific form which two unifies within a text. Which only can be understood by implement of a person, existing in between things and other people and their words and remarks. Text without a writer may seem objective because, if you get rid of subject of existence you would end with categories of possible existences, or history of text thus everything would be within a text (without a context). To get to objective world, you have to get rid of phenomenological, actual world which we live and talk in. This is just idealism. There’s always a material reason in non-material, abstract cultural changes. Culture doesn’t rule nature, flesh and blood man does, and man can not be reduced to culture or language. If anything signfiier is the one which is non-existent. Letters exist, language doesn’t. It’s one of possible functions of one form of technology, which can not be understood without both subject and existence. it doesn’t matter if signified and signfier are connected, mere existence of signifier implies something other than itself and someone other than subject, it’s existence can’t be reduced to it’s ”outlook” because reading itself is an action. Just by reading you experience something other than signifier, you imagine. Life isn’t a dream, language may be but again, experience or human can not be reduced to language. Derrida plays a fundementalist trick here, he can’t analyse human existence as it is, but he can analyse language, written preferably. As wittgestein before himself, his idealism isn’t very different than regular, logos based philosophy. he just instead of reducing existence to logos, expands logos (word) to existence. His atom is letter. Calling this any kind of materialism is a joke in itself. Objects aren’t packs of data, nor our experience of objects is. Only in language objects turns into packs of data, as if they would in a computer analyse. And any kind of self-structring form of system is idealist, and non-existent. We don’t experience derrida’s signify more than we experience plato’s realm of ideas. A word which doesn’t signify anything, isn’t a word. it’s a typo. A word can only be understood within a language. A language can only be understood within a society and material world. Without existing, signified, material world, we can’t even understand concept of diference since difference is in itself isn’t something that exists between braches of datas but something precedes data and knowledge. Difference would still exist if we couldn’t know anything, as long as we would exist as a body, or experience anything in any form. But without experience, knowledge itself knows no difference because knows no standarts or have no ”gaze”.

[Burk]

I’m not a fan of Trump myself, but the proper criticisms of his policies are lacking indeed, which is part of the reason why he’s in power. The stuff that truly matters is drowned out by the irrelvant crap that celebs say about him.

[Burk]

Provocative title for a book! Will have a look at it.

[Author]

Posts