Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: Random musings on the void.

  1. #1
    Member QuickTwist's Avatar
    Type
    IsTP
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    199

    Random musings on the void.

    The premise of this proposition is that we cannot be two places at once ourselves but that for every place we are not there is a chance we could be there.

    Being is the place where an entity exists. In other words where the subject is it is understood that it cannot be any other place. Being cannot exist everywhere. There must be space in between where subjects are. Because a subject can move from one place to another is evidence that being does not mix with other being. The evidence that there is not an overlap on being is seen in that if it were so the being would be of one being and not two separate beings of placement in relation to each other.

    So when considering where a being is we should understand that there is a chance that it could be somewhere else. The evidence of this is that being is something that moves and subjects tend to change position of relation to each other.

    So how can we account for what is in between where beings change position in relation to each other while not overlapping to each entity that exists? It is the entity, or rather the non-entity that exists everywhere where a being does not exist. But that is not the full story, for when we do not know the location of a being, it could be anywhere. If a subject cannot be everywhere how is the subject to know its relation to all other beings? This is something that cannot be clearly explained. We can only say we do not know where the entity is in relation to us. If we have to be somewhere but cannot be everywhere it is imaginable that we can be perpetually accounted for to be everywhere and nowhere. But it is preposterous that we can be everywhere and nowhere. Our conscious mind dictates where we are and since neither my conscious mind nor unconscious mind can know that I am in two places at once it should be understood that we can only be one place at a time.

    There then has to be a divide of being. It is in this that we come to the full understanding of what it means to be in nothing. We cannot truely know where we are in relation to other entities. It is only in estimation that we know where we are in relation to other beings. It is in this divide of being that we see that we don't even fully grasp where we are. We can only know where we are when comparing our being in relation to what is not nothing. The divide is that because there is a nothing we cannot know the space that is between entities. We can however know that we are closer in relation from one being to another, but we can never fully grasp the distance of nothingness in between us and another entity. The distance of nothingness is therefore perpetually the distance between beings. In the greater length of nothingness it gets harder to know where we are in relation to that not nothing.

    So then we are but a light in an area surrounded by darkness and in our relation to others who are also like lights we cannot know to what extent we are from other lights only insofar that we know that we are closer to some lights than others. It is the in betweenness and only in that that we are able to get a feeling of distance between one entity and another. We are constantly changing position in relation to other beings and in this we are in nothingness.

  2. #2
    (╯□)╯︵ ┻━┻ Deckard's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,062
    Spoiler:
    1. Eco and the constructivist paradigm of expression

    The characteristic theme of la Fournier’s[2] analysis of precultural objectivism is not narrative, as the constructivist paradigm of expression suggests, but subnarrative. Foucault uses the term ‘surrealism’ to denote the absurdity, and thus the meaninglessness, of semantic class. But if the constructivist paradigm of expression holds, the works of Eco are reminiscent of Mapplethorpe.

    Bataille uses the term ‘precultural objectivism’ to denote the role of the writer as artist. Thus, many discourses concerning not, in fact, patriarchialism, but postpatriarchialism may be found.

    Sartre promotes the use of surrealism to attack capitalism. But the premise of the constructivist paradigm of expression states that narrativity is part of the rubicon of consciousness.

    Lacan suggests the use of pretextual conceptualist theory to analyse and modify society. However, Finnis[3] holds that we have to choose between precultural objectivism and capitalist neomodernist theory.

    Baudrillard’s model of Batailleist `powerful communication’ states that the purpose of the writer is social comment, but only if the constructivist paradigm of expression is invalid. Therefore, in The Limits of Interpretation (Advances in Semiotics), Eco denies surrealism; in The Island of the Day Before, although, he deconstructs the constructivist paradigm of expression.

    2. Contexts of stasis

    “Class is intrinsically unattainable,” says Marx; however, according to Cameron[4] , it is not so much class that is intrinsically unattainable, but rather the genre, and subsequent rubicon, of class. Debord promotes the use of precultural objectivism to challenge sexism. It could be said that Sartre uses the term ‘capitalist posttextual theory’ to denote the futility of capitalist sexual identity.

    If one examines surrealism, one is faced with a choice: either reject precultural objectivism or conclude that class has objective value. Debord suggests the use of the constructivist paradigm of expression to attack society. In a sense, if surrealism holds, we have to choose between precultural objectivism and subdialectic capitalism.

    In the works of Gibson, a predominant concept is the distinction between destruction and creation. The subject is interpolated into a surrealism that includes truth as a whole. But Sontag uses the term ‘the constructivist paradigm of expression’ to denote the role of the observer as artist.

    Several discourses concerning precultural objectivism exist. It could be said that Lyotard uses the term ‘deconstructivist construction’ to denote the stasis, and some would say the meaninglessness, of neocultural class.

    The primary theme of the works of Gibson is a self-supporting reality. But the example of the constructivist paradigm of expression prevalent in Gibson’s All Tomorrow’s Parties emerges again in Count Zero, although in a more mythopoetical sense.

    The premise of precultural objectivism implies that the Constitution is capable of truth, given that consciousness is interchangeable with culture. It could be said that McElwaine[5] holds that the works of Gibson are an example of postcultural capitalism.

    Any number of theories concerning not narrative per se, but prenarrative may be discovered. Therefore, the subject is contextualised into a constructivist paradigm of expression that includes consciousness as a totality.

    Bataille uses the term ‘surrealism’ to denote the rubicon, and eventually the economy, of conceptualist society. It could be said that if the constructivist paradigm of expression holds, we have to choose between surrealism and the subdialectic paradigm of discourse.

    3. Gibson and precultural objectivism

    If one examines the constructivist paradigm of expression, one is faced with a choice: either accept cultural discourse or conclude that truth is responsible for capitalism. The characteristic theme of Hamburger’s[6] critique of surrealism is not theory, but pretheory. But the opening/closing distinction depicted in Gibson’s Neuromancer is also evident in Idoru.

    The primary theme of the works of Gibson is a mythopoetical paradox. Foucault’s model of poststructuralist materialism suggests that narrative is created by the collective unconscious, but only if the premise of surrealism is valid; if that is not the case, we can assume that the State is fundamentally a legal fiction. However, several deconstructions concerning the constructivist paradigm of expression exist.

    Long[7] holds that we have to choose between dialectic discourse and subcapitalist materialist theory. Therefore, the constructivist paradigm of expression implies that consensus must come from communication, given that narrativity is equal to truth.

    The subject is interpolated into a precultural objectivism that includes culture as a reality. But Marx’s analysis of the constructivist paradigm of expression states that art is part of the fatal flaw of consciousness.

    Sontag uses the term ‘neotextual theory’ to denote the rubicon of cultural language. It could be said that if the constructivist paradigm of expression holds, we have to choose between presemantic Marxism and Foucaultist power relations.

    4. Surrealism and dialectic subcapitalist theory

    In the works of Eco, a predominant concept is the concept of material sexuality. The main theme of Parry’s[8] model of dialectic subcapitalist theory is the bridge between sexual identity and class. Thus, Derrida promotes the use of precultural objectivism to deconstruct the status quo.

    Tilton[9] implies that the works of Eco are postmodern. In a sense, the premise of Foucaultist power relations holds that language may be used to entrench class divisions, but only if surrealism is invalid; otherwise, Bataille’s model of precultural objectivism is one of “subcultural structural theory”, and therefore unattainable.

    The characteristic theme of the works of Eco is the role of the reader as participant. Therefore, Lacan suggests the use of dialectic subcapitalist theory to analyse and read society.

    The subject is contextualised into a precapitalist objectivism that includes sexuality as a paradox. Thus, the main theme of Prinn’s[10] analysis of dialectic subcapitalist theory is not discourse as such, but neodiscourse.


    Last edited by Deckard; 10-13-2016 at 11:33 AM.

  3. #3
    Member QuickTwist's Avatar
    Type
    IsTP
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    199
    Quote Originally Posted by Deckard View Post
    Spoiler:
    1. Eco and the constructivist paradigm of expression

    The characteristic theme of la Fournier’s[2] analysis of precultural objectivism is not narrative, as the constructivist paradigm of expression suggests, but subnarrative. Foucault uses the term ‘surrealism’ to denote the absurdity, and thus the meaninglessness, of semantic class. But if the constructivist paradigm of expression holds, the works of Eco are reminiscent of Mapplethorpe.

    Bataille uses the term ‘precultural objectivism’ to denote the role of the writer as artist. Thus, many discourses concerning not, in fact, patriarchialism, but postpatriarchialism may be found.

    Sartre promotes the use of surrealism to attack capitalism. But the premise of the constructivist paradigm of expression states that narrativity is part of the rubicon of consciousness.

    Lacan suggests the use of pretextual conceptualist theory to analyse and modify society. However, Finnis[3] holds that we have to choose between precultural objectivism and capitalist neomodernist theory.

    Baudrillard’s model of Batailleist `powerful communication’ states that the purpose of the writer is social comment, but only if the constructivist paradigm of expression is invalid. Therefore, in The Limits of Interpretation (Advances in Semiotics), Eco denies surrealism; in The Island of the Day Before, although, he deconstructs the constructivist paradigm of expression.

    2. Contexts of stasis

    “Class is intrinsically unattainable,” says Marx; however, according to Cameron[4] , it is not so much class that is intrinsically unattainable, but rather the genre, and subsequent rubicon, of class. Debord promotes the use of precultural objectivism to challenge sexism. It could be said that Sartre uses the term ‘capitalist posttextual theory’ to denote the futility of capitalist sexual identity.

    If one examines surrealism, one is faced with a choice: either reject precultural objectivism or conclude that class has objective value. Debord suggests the use of the constructivist paradigm of expression to attack society. In a sense, if surrealism holds, we have to choose between precultural objectivism and subdialectic capitalism.

    In the works of Gibson, a predominant concept is the distinction between destruction and creation. The subject is interpolated into a surrealism that includes truth as a whole. But Sontag uses the term ‘the constructivist paradigm of expression’ to denote the role of the observer as artist.

    Several discourses concerning precultural objectivism exist. It could be said that Lyotard uses the term ‘deconstructivist construction’ to denote the stasis, and some would say the meaninglessness, of neocultural class.

    The primary theme of the works of Gibson is a self-supporting reality. But the example of the constructivist paradigm of expression prevalent in Gibson’s All Tomorrow’s Parties emerges again in Count Zero, although in a more mythopoetical sense.

    The premise of precultural objectivism implies that the Constitution is capable of truth, given that consciousness is interchangeable with culture. It could be said that McElwaine[5] holds that the works of Gibson are an example of postcultural capitalism.

    Any number of theories concerning not narrative per se, but prenarrative may be discovered. Therefore, the subject is contextualised into a constructivist paradigm of expression that includes consciousness as a totality.

    Bataille uses the term ‘surrealism’ to denote the rubicon, and eventually the economy, of conceptualist society. It could be said that if the constructivist paradigm of expression holds, we have to choose between surrealism and the subdialectic paradigm of discourse.

    3. Gibson and precultural objectivism

    If one examines the constructivist paradigm of expression, one is faced with a choice: either accept cultural discourse or conclude that truth is responsible for capitalism. The characteristic theme of Hamburger’s[6] critique of surrealism is not theory, but pretheory. But the opening/closing distinction depicted in Gibson’s Neuromancer is also evident in Idoru.

    The primary theme of the works of Gibson is a mythopoetical paradox. Foucault’s model of poststructuralist materialism suggests that narrative is created by the collective unconscious, but only if the premise of surrealism is valid; if that is not the case, we can assume that the State is fundamentally a legal fiction. However, several deconstructions concerning the constructivist paradigm of expression exist.

    Long[7] holds that we have to choose between dialectic discourse and subcapitalist materialist theory. Therefore, the constructivist paradigm of expression implies that consensus must come from communication, given that narrativity is equal to truth.

    The subject is interpolated into a precultural objectivism that includes culture as a reality. But Marx’s analysis of the constructivist paradigm of expression states that art is part of the fatal flaw of consciousness.

    Sontag uses the term ‘neotextual theory’ to denote the rubicon of cultural language. It could be said that if the constructivist paradigm of expression holds, we have to choose between presemantic Marxism and Foucaultist power relations.

    4. Surrealism and dialectic subcapitalist theory

    In the works of Eco, a predominant concept is the concept of material sexuality. The main theme of Parry’s[8] model of dialectic subcapitalist theory is the bridge between sexual identity and class. Thus, Derrida promotes the use of precultural objectivism to deconstruct the status quo.

    Tilton[9] implies that the works of Eco are postmodern. In a sense, the premise of Foucaultist power relations holds that language may be used to entrench class divisions, but only if surrealism is invalid; otherwise, Bataille’s model of precultural objectivism is one of “subcultural structural theory”, and therefore unattainable.

    The characteristic theme of the works of Eco is the role of the reader as participant. Therefore, Lacan suggests the use of dialectic subcapitalist theory to analyse and read society.

    The subject is contextualised into a precapitalist objectivism that includes sexuality as a paradox. Thus, the main theme of Prinn’s[10] analysis of dialectic subcapitalist theory is not discourse as such, but neodiscourse.


    What is YOUR opinion though?

  4. #4
    Member QuickTwist's Avatar
    Type
    IsTP
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    199
    K, reread that summery and have a few more things to say.

    I feel pulled toward the creation destruction conundrum. Though I don't really specifically mention either of these that's kinda the direction I want to take it, so bare with me.

    In the creation of us as humans, who have a limited but real conscious mind, I think the writing in question deals with the ever present question of where we are and to that end, when we will end. It touches on the precursor of mortality in that, in my view, a connection to the other beings is what gives us both our identity and mortality. Ever floating lights in a sea of emptiness is how I picture it. Ever the battle for closeness that we can never attain. We would be utterly clueless of anything if not for longing to observe others going through the same thing. We are constantly swirling in a longing to connect with others in close proximity to us. We don't really want for not, but accept in some form or another that we are on the tip of our own tongue. This is anguish.

    I don't know that this is something really about our sex, however, and it certainly doesn't resemble much of a capitalist argument. Very far from an economic endeavor indeed. I guess the real thinking is about that of knowledge and knowing what one person is in relation to us, not to gain anything from them necessarily but in observing we understand who we are better. Perhaps it is somewhat about class insofar as those close naturally have a greater value to us than those distant.

    But I think this is about the destruction of the being. A null sully that grasps for knowledge, but never achieves its full potential. its true, this is coming from me as an artist, not concerned for economic pursuits, but the pursuit of power. The deconstruction of the being turns out as some to rise to have more knowledge, since that is what it is striving for. Those in close proximity have more knowledge than those separated. You could make the argument that this is really about evolution in a sense where those who start off good only get better, and those lost will never catch up. The ones separated really receive the greatest amount of decay in their being for lack of power, knowledge and closeness.

  5. #5
    (╯□)╯︵ ┻━┻ Deckard's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,062
    Quote Originally Posted by QuickTwist View Post
    What is YOUR opinion though?
    My opinion is that you can say a lot with very little, or very little with a lot. I hope you didn't try too hard to interpret the gibberish in the spoiler tag, it's a randomly generated essay from the postmodernism generator and means nothing.

    One thing INTPs prefer when talking about ideas is precision. Try to distil the essence of the concept down into 3 sentences.

  6. #6
    Member QuickTwist's Avatar
    Type
    IsTP
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    199
    Quote Originally Posted by Deckard View Post
    My opinion is that you can say a lot with very little, or very little with a lot. I hope you didn't try too hard to interpret the gibberish in the spoiler tag, it's a randomly generated essay from the postmodernism generator and means nothing.

    One thing INTPs prefer when talking about ideas is precision. Try to distil the essence of the concept down into 3 sentences.
    K, I'll give it my best shot.

    Humans are on the pursuit of closeness, knowledge and power. This is reflected through their distance between themselves, others and the void. Without closeness, we have no knowledge, without knowledge we have no power and no one is completely fulfilled in these three categories.

  7. #7
    (╯□)╯︵ ┻━┻ Deckard's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,062
    Quote Originally Posted by QuickTwist View Post
    K, I'll give it my best shot.

    Humans are on the pursuit of closeness, knowledge and power. This is reflected through their distance between themselves, others and the void. Without closeness, we have no knowledge, without knowledge we have no power and no one is completely fulfilled in these three categories.
    Ok, so what I want you to do is identify the core struggle or problem that gave rise to this line of thinking. Is it that we can't be fulfilled with these three things alone (closeness, knowledge, power)? Are you trying to figure out how fulfilment can be reached by pursuing these things in a certain way?

  8. #8
    Member QuickTwist's Avatar
    Type
    IsTP
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    199
    Quote Originally Posted by Deckard View Post
    Ok, so what I want you to do is identify the core struggle or problem that gave rise to this line of thinking. Is it that we can't be fulfilled with these three things alone (closeness, knowledge, power)? Are you trying to figure out how fulfilment can be reached by pursuing these things in a certain way?
    Very much so. I think about humanity's future a lot. I am looking for both the ideal for myself and humankind. It is difficult because I feel anything I do will be nothing but a drop in the bucket. this leaves me feeling distant, ignorant and powerless. I have been around long enough to know that I cannot help but think I am not alone in this. I just feel my struggle is humanity's struggle as well. *shrug*

  9. #9
    (╯□)╯︵ ┻━┻ Deckard's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,062
    Quote Originally Posted by QuickTwist View Post
    Very much so. I think about humanity's future a lot. I am looking for both the ideal for myself and humankind. It is difficult because I feel anything I do will be nothing but a drop in the bucket. this leaves me feeling distant, ignorant and powerless. I have been around long enough to know that I cannot help but think I am not alone in this. I just feel my struggle is humanity's struggle as well. *shrug*
    I don't think this necessarily answers the question of fulfilment, but it's worth looking to Maslow's heirarchy of needs for a generalised framework. It's hard to be fulfilled if your basic needs are not being met.



    You seem like the kind of person who defines your purpose in the world in terms of your contribution to it. I'm a little hazy as to what you mean by the "void" and how it fits in, but I am definitely on board with the idea that closeness is critical to this sort of fulfilment. Our sphere of consideration tends to be dictated by proximity: Environmental or animal activists have a close bond with nature & animals -- their passion and empathy is fed by spending time in close proximity to what they love, forming relationships and experiencing those struggles. Likewise for people who are concerned with human affairs.

    If you have this drive to contribute but haven't identified an outlet, this can become an existential issue where your life lacks purpose. I think the way forward is not necessarily to pick a cause (although there is merit in that), but to put yourself in the middle of things instead of observing from afar. Your sphere of consideration will naturally grow to encompass that which you connect with. One way to do this is to travel: not the kind of travel where you visit tourist traps, which only imposes an artificial barrier preventing you from genuinely connecting with a place and its people. Travel without a plan and don't take tours. Go somewhere completely foreign to you.

  10. #10
    Member QuickTwist's Avatar
    Type
    IsTP
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    199
    Quote Originally Posted by Deckard View Post
    I don't think this necessarily answers the question of fulfilment, but it's worth looking to Maslow's heirarchy of needs for a generalised framework. It's hard to be fulfilled if your basic needs are not being met.

    Spoiler: Maslows Hierarchy of Needs


    You seem like the kind of person who defines your purpose in the world in terms of your contribution to it. I'm a little hazy as to what you mean by the "void" and how it fits in, but I am definitely on board with the idea that closeness is critical to this sort of fulfilment. Our sphere of consideration tends to be dictated by proximity: Environmental or animal activists have a close bond with nature & animals -- their passion and empathy is fed by spending time in close proximity to what they love, forming relationships and experiencing those struggles. Likewise for people who are concerned with human affairs.

    If you have this drive to contribute but haven't identified an outlet, this can become an existential issue where your life lacks purpose. I think the way forward is not necessarily to pick a cause (although there is merit in that), but to put yourself in the middle of things instead of observing from afar. Your sphere of consideration will naturally grow to encompass that which you connect with. One way to do this is to travel: not the kind of travel where you visit tourist traps, which only imposes an artificial barrier preventing you from genuinely connecting with a place and its people. Travel without a plan and don't take tours. Go somewhere completely foreign to you.
    I think you are on to something. I have a cause I am fighting for, but i am not really sure how to pursue it in my everyday life. Unfortunately, traveling without a plan is not really an option, currently. Ironic that you are not the first person who has basically said "go out and talk to new people". I find this a difficult task because I feel very unprepared to do something like this. maybe this means I am more of a PiJe type and not JiPe, IDK. In any case, I have never really been someone who is good at relating to and reading people - would make a terrible politician, I just don't have that much charisma, not to be confused with my passions. IDK though, maybe I am just not pushing myself hard enough.

Similar Threads

  1. If every action had a random response...
    By Phil P in forum Philosophy & Spirituality
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 11-07-2014, 07:51 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •