The Pathos of Distance

THIS IS AN ANNOYING LOG-IN POP UP JUST FOR YOU
The Pathos of Distance

- Agile Minds in Perpetuum -


    Spacelight, continuing.

    Share
    avatar
    Mitra-Sauwelios
    Admin

    Posts : 81
    Join date : 2018-02-10
    Age : 40
    Location : Amsterdam

    Spacelight, continuing.

    Post by Mitra-Sauwelios on Wed May 16, 2018 3:27 pm

    Below is a mail I wrote roughly around midnight your time last night.

    ::

    Dunno if you're still on your road trip, and if you are, or if you just got back, I don't want to disturb you, so I'm writing a mail instead. Just took a trip, and still coming back from it, for the first time in months. It was the species and dosage I had my "spacelight" idea on, and again, they turned out a great pick. That idea may have to become known as my "one great idea". Walking along a canal while eating pita gyros pork recently, I already figured that my idea means it's not really true that the stars we see in the sky no longer exist; what we see is part of their activity all those zillion light years ago... That whole space is part and parcel of their activity. Yet that also means what's happening now in our tiny corner of the universe, belongs to the gold and oil splendour of the stars. The universe is as glorious as ever, but we're living in the age of past glory. Yes, some of the past is still great, but it's becoming ever less. And I've been nothing if not a brilliant reflector on that greatness ("the one in the shades", I applied to myself as a description even during my songwriting days).

    At this point I really had to eat something, so my trip will probably really wear off now. Yet it's precisely my task to keep such insight alive. Day insight is dazzling, but night insight really probes what it comes down to: those precious impressions made by our fathers in their heyday, absorbed (as we are) in their rich heritage, the heritage of knights and kings and everything best in man. Rosy-coloured, sure, but aren't those the best colours? "Roseate metallic blue" etcetera?

    I'm thinking now of posting this on my forum. Earlier, I'd played with the thought of posting it on your Facebook wall--as a comment on that waterfall photo, for example.

    ::

    That's it. Later, when I was trying to get to sleep, I wrote the following memo on my phone:

    "Space is light that has not yet lit. It is all the times light can lig[ht.]"

    We should also think of lighting as in "A Little Bird Lit Down On Henry Lee": light only lights when it lights down on our retinas, for example.

    My first spacelight trip was especially inspired by quantum entanglement.
    avatar
    Mitra-Sauwelios
    Admin

    Posts : 81
    Join date : 2018-02-10
    Age : 40
    Location : Amsterdam

    Re: Spacelight, continuing.

    Post by Mitra-Sauwelios on Thu May 17, 2018 1:17 am

    When starlight lights on your retinas, the space it was--all the way from the star to your eyes--becomes zero. Of course, that just goes for that "one" wave/particle of spacelight. Countless others still exist, so the spacetime between the star and your eyes remains--until there's no more of its light to reach you (i.e., when you've seen past the death of the star).¹

    This also explains quantum entanglement: the two wave/particles or whatever are really a single space, until one of them "lights" (starts spinning): then the space becomes zero, and all this causes the other wave/particle or whatever to starts spinning in the opposite direction. There's really no spooky action at a distance here; before they started spinning, they were the distance...

    I think "spacelight"--or "spacelite"!--is the perfect name for this layman's (poet's!) take on cosmology.

    ¹ EDIT: This goes for any lightsource, not just for stars. Also, there can never be total darkness anywhere, as that would require absolute vacuum--nothingness. Where there is no spacelight, there are objects--and on the subatomic level within the objects, there is spacelight. And what is not spacelight about the objects is spacelight that has lit, and is therefore neither space nor light, but now spinning/particles. "Inert" light.


    _________________
    "The will to power takes the place which the eros--the striving for 'the good in itself'--occupies in Plato's thought. But the eros is not 'the pure mind' (der reine Geist). Whatever may be the relation between the eros and the pure mind according to Plato, in Nietzsche's thought the will to power takes the place of both eros and the pure mind. Accordingly philosophizing becomes a mode or modification of the will to power: it is the most spiritual (der geistigste) will to power; it consists in prescribing to nature what or how it ought to be (aph. 9); it is not love of the true that is independent of will or decision. Whereas according to Plato, the pure mind grasps the truth, according to Nietzsche the impure mind, or a certain kind of impure mind, is the sole source of truth." (Leo Strauss, Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy, "Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil".)
    avatar
    Mitra-Sauwelios
    Admin

    Posts : 81
    Join date : 2018-02-10
    Age : 40
    Location : Amsterdam

    Re: Spacelight, continuing.

    Post by Mitra-Sauwelios on Sat May 19, 2018 1:23 am

    Note that I thought of this post while doing my daily Holosync and vaping weed. The writing was done increasingly less high and more stoned. It may be a case of mihi ipsi scripsi in retrospect: I think it reads like rambling, raving even. Still, the ideas in there are at least more sound than the style may let on. I may clarify/expand on them here in the future.

    ::

    Barl the Bald wrote:Where there is no spacelight, there are objects--and on the subatomic level within the objects, there is spacelight. And what is not spacelight about the objects is spacelight that has lit, and is therefore neither space nor light, but now spinning/particles. "Inert" light.

    Of course, I don't use the word "object" lightly (no pun intended). An object is supposedly something about which the question "what's it like to be that thing" is meaningless. I therefore assert we can ultimately make no sense of things like that, since we, ourselves, are things it's something like to be.

    But, one may interrupt, didn't you basically contrast objects with spacelight? So doesn't that mean space/light is not a subject in this sense? Well, perhaps! Perhaps spacelight is not a subject--which I understand as a self-valuing, of course.

    If I may assert (myself) a bit: spacelight can perhaps be understood as a self-valuing, but space itself (i.e., space as an empty concept separated from time, which latter is also empty if separated from space) is mere valuing, without self-reflection yet.

    The last paragraph may be disregarded. I will assert baldly now: spacetime, the universe, the Big Bang, the White Hole, is a Deigning to be valued. It is a taking that's at the same time a giving, of itself completely. Giving to what, then? Well, to itself, for it's the taking that is the giving. Same for the taking...

    The Big Bang is a movement in all dimensions which is thereby not just one movement but also dual (not to mention triple and more yet), for it's then a movement in all opposite dimensions. And the two, its simplest self-division, cannot be equal, for then it wouldn't be two different sides. The ever so slightly hotter parts of the Big Bang became star clusters, the less hot ones the space between them.

    But wait, this means the hotter parts became the light sources while the less hot ones became the light--namely, the space, the spacelight. However that may be, let's look at a single lightsource, or the White Hole as a whole, or any such Deigning. So long as it's not impeded by something else, it radiates outward in all directions. This occurs in waves--one may think of when one drops a stone in water and looks at it from straight above (this makes it two-dimensional, for now). What I'm saying is that quantum entanglement means that two opposite wave/particles of that wave, or two opposite "cones" within that wave (and one completely round wave can be thought of as one or multiple wave-cones whose angle is 360 degrees (or more))--that two opposite wave-cones are to be thought of as a single round wave: when one of the cones is impeded by something--say, a stone breaking the water surface--, this "something" causes a return wave which affects the whole original wave, but in the opposite direction of that wave-cone.

    Now the Deigning I spoke of is an allowing for this to happen. It is a condescending from--what, nothingness? to have one's valuing, the valuing that one is, be valued by another valuing and thereby only be able to be(come) a self-valuing. It is a dishonoring of oneself, from the self-sufficiency of nothingness (...)--it is a loving. In loving however one honours and dishonors oneself and the other(s) at the same time. (I write "dishonor" the American way so as to honour Dishonored 2, and the series as a whole!) One honours the other with one's stooping, one's kneeling. Love is simply when this is intended/hoped to be, or when it actually is, mutual. I call this Honour of Love.

    Fixed Cross has said--and I quote or paraphrase from heart only--that he's never distinguished between mind (geest) and heart. I would now like to say: Yes, and this means heart-mind and mind-heart are one. VO is indeed the teaching that does not take itself, or its student/teacher, out of the equation. As such, it's a revelation.

    ::

    avatar
    Mitra-Sauwelios
    Admin

    Posts : 81
    Join date : 2018-02-10
    Age : 40
    Location : Amsterdam

    Re: Spacelight, continuing.

    Post by Mitra-Sauwelios on Sun May 20, 2018 10:19 pm

    Having read it again, I no longer think it reads like raving. Also, of course I meant VO as encompassing the teaching of the will to power.

    ::

    What I'm basically saying with "spacelight" is that light is not a wave, but a wave-function... But let's really get back to basics.

    A mathematical point has no dimensions. We can simulate this with a pencil whose tip sits still on paper. Sure, we had to move through space and time to get to that situation, but let's suppose it spontaneously came about. Now the simplest way to move the pencil across the paper is in one dimension: this makes it draw a line, let's call it the length line. If we could now move this line across the paper--whether straight up, straight down, or by rotating it--, this occurs in the second dimension. Thus we can call the whole paper, when flat, the length-breadth plane [or area plane]. And, when looking straight at the paper while both we and it are suspended in vacuum, we can move it closer and farther from us. This vacuum room we can call the length-breadth-height room [or space room].

    Now what I'm saying is that, whereas other waves move in a medium (are the moving of a medium)--water, say, or air (e.g., sound)--, light is actually space, a three-dimensional space; but not a length-breadth-height space, but a space one of whose three dimensions is time (it doesn't matter which, it's just a matter of perspective). Space/light is a wave that doesn't move toward us, say in depth (I see now I could also have said length-height-width), but which has always already been "with" us, stretched out from its source to us. But for us, it only becomes "three-dimensional" (namely, four-dimensional!) when we interfere with it, causing it to spin for example (giving it an extra dimension). This however changes the wave function that it is, retroactively or "instantaneously" giving it an opposite spin on the other side of the "pond".

    A lightsource as big as a star has considerable mass, meaning it massively affects "the fabric of spacetime". But any thing with mass, in fact "having mass" itself actually means giving a fourth dimension to--let's call it the depth-width-time plane, the blank canvas lighttime. But I'm beginning to befuddle myself even, so let me leave it at this, for now.
    avatar
    Mitra-Sauwelios
    Admin

    Posts : 81
    Join date : 2018-02-10
    Age : 40
    Location : Amsterdam

    Re: Spacelight, continuing.

    Post by Mitra-Sauwelios on Sat Jun 16, 2018 12:46 am

    Here's some stuff I wrote a week ago:

    ::

    [Here's a song] that spontaneously got into my head in the course of my forelast experience with shrooms:



    [... I]t perfectly represented the theme of that trip, my spacelight idea. It came into my head from my memory, even as starlight comes to us from many lightyears in the past (yes, I'm aware that a lightyear is a measure of distance, not time...). Space, "dark, empty space", is light; there is no total darkness anywhere. But before a light gives light, it gives space; when it gives light, when it lights down on a retina, say, this decreases the space ever so slightly (other things being equal). Thus my last notebook entry on my idea reads:

    "When a spacelight quantum 'lights', the electron (say) that absorbs it becomes slightly more charged and thereby slightly more heavy, increasing its gravity ever so slightly."

    And one before it even puts it as simpl(isticall)y as "radiation = -gravitation"... [...]

    ::

    My other unpublished "notebook entries" on my idea read:

    "rubber glove" (this image combines the expansion of the universe with spacetime curvature);

    and:

    "heat = mass".
    avatar
    Mitra-Sauwelios
    Admin

    Posts : 81
    Join date : 2018-02-10
    Age : 40
    Location : Amsterdam

    Re: Spacelight, continuing.

    Post by Mitra-Sauwelios on Fri Jul 27, 2018 4:19 am

    Mitra-Sauwelios wrote:My other unpublished "notebook entries" on my idea read:

    "rubber glove" (this image combines the expansion of the universe with spacetime curvature);

    and:

    "heat = mass".

    So make that "rubber glove with holes at the fingertips" (really not a glove but an expanding balloon that's bumped "in" from the inside).

    ::

    Next notes:

    1.

    Light is [what happens] when the darkness is valued.

    ("Dark, empty space"...)


    2.

    The reason the expansion of the universe first accelerated, then decelerated and then accelerated again is
    1) that the Big Bang was the transition from no expansion to expansion, which could therefore only be accelerating expansion (or rather, the Big Bang is that expansion itself, which thereby contrasts with no expansion);
    2) that, whereas this Something first asserted itself in accelerating away from the "Nothing" in its past, the reverse side hereof had to be its decelerating away from the "Nothing" in its future;
    3) that the "Nothing" is now tearing it apart. [Or rather, the Something is pushing itself apart, since there's Nothing to stop it. I think the last two changes can only be explained by looking at what concretely happened within the system, not by thinking about it abstractly like I've done here.]

    The initial acceleration phase is the Creation phase (the universe's coming into "Being"); the deceleration phase is the Preservation phase (the universe's "Being"); the current acceleration phase is the Destruction phase (the universe's approximating Nothing).
    avatar
    Mitra-Sauwelios
    Admin

    Posts : 81
    Join date : 2018-02-10
    Age : 40
    Location : Amsterdam

    Universal Prime.

    Post by Mitra-Sauwelios on Sun Nov 04, 2018 11:36 pm

    Below is a private message I wrote a month ago. I post it here because it contains the next step in spacelight.

    [...] This "self-valuing logic" is actually an elaboration, and pretty much the perfection, of the non-political dimension of Nietzsche's teaching ("Zarathustra's night-wisdom"); it's also knowns as Value Ontology. It was first conceived by my best friend [...]. I think I've added to it, though, especially with my conception of what I call "spacelight". I'll link you to my forum thread on it, but be warned that it's marred by abstraction and some parts of it are just plain wrong: http://pathos-of-distance.forumotion.com/f7-science
    Since then, I've made quite some progress. For one thing, I wrote this draft:
    "[N]ature is ultimately just custom—unless it be nature as a whole, perhaps—the universe and what precedes and succeeds it. I tried to focus my trip on spacelight, on that whole or hole, but 'Mother Ayahuasca' bade me leave such mysteries—mysteries, and focus on more 'concrete' matters (as she'd been bidding me on weed, but less clearly). This then gave me an overview, not only of dark matter and dark energy (vacuum energy!), but also of modern history. Every wave of progressivism will always have a strong future body of conservatism attached to it. This is the nature of nature, the way space and its losses work. But I've started to ramble.
    The point is that every realm, every kingdom, has its boundaries and its tolls, but the modern prince Machiavelli has been taking excessive toll for too long now (and 'Nothing' is really beyond its [i.e., his kingdom's] boundaries). Progressivism or, in popular parlance, the 'Left' is ultimately as morally bankrupt as the liberal conservatism of the 'Right'[.]"
    That's where that draft ended, without even the last period. As you can see, I've been tending away from First Philosophy [the non-political dimension of philosophy, metaphysics/cosmology] and toward political philosophy. This is my day wisdom. Leo Strauss originally ended his "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero" lambasting Heidegger:
    "[W]e [Alexandre Kojève and Strauss] both apparently turned away from Being to Tyranny because we have seen that those who lacked the courage to face the issue of Tyranny, who therefore et humiliter serviebant et superbe dominabantur ["themselves obsequiously subservient while arrogantly lording it over others"—Heidegger was a Nazi] were forced to evade the issue of Being as well, precisely because they did nothing but talk of Being." https://archive.org/stream/LeoStrauss-RestatementOnXenophonsHeiro/Strauss-RestatementOnXenophonsHiero_djvu.txt
    I must face present day tyranny, but I cannot do it alone—and no, even my best friend won't do. I need what David Keirsey, in his work on personality types, has called a mindmate. By the way, I personally find much good in Heidegger as well. In fact, it was in great part he who made me see space is mind, and mind is space... Spacemind, then. I only just thought of that now!
    avatar
    Mitra-Sauwelios
    Admin

    Posts : 81
    Join date : 2018-02-10
    Age : 40
    Location : Amsterdam

    Re: Spacelight, continuing.

    Post by Mitra-Sauwelios on Mon Nov 05, 2018 1:06 am

    Below is most of a post in a private discussion with a friend of mine.

    ::

    [...]

    Will to power may not be hidden, but is it really in clear sight? Lampert argues that the insight into will to power is Zarathustra's "night-wisdom". The will to truth is the will to Being (see WP 853; but Kaufmann reads "Sein" as "Schein", his usual translation of which is "mere appearance"). Being in the Parmenidean(?) sense, as opposed to Heraclitean Becoming. Now WP 635 says:

    "The will to power not a being [Sein], not a becoming, but a pathos—the most elemental fact from which a becoming and effecting first emerge..."

    So the will to power mysteriously transcends Being and Becoming... Compare:

    "It is interesting [...] that Heidegger did not inquire into the aporetic temporal character of khôra [in Plato's Sophist] but instead took a decidedly Parmenidean slant on its interpretation and related it to the khorismos or gap between Being and beings. In other words, instead of reading the strong indications in Plato that khôra is a material entity that lives eternally between Being and becoming, Heidegger de-realizes it as an existent being and reinvents it as a mere gap or notational spacing or interval [...]
    Heidegger's natural tendency as a thinker runs so powerfully in the Parmenidean direction of thinking, not toward the interminable impurity of the difference, which is Nietzsche's obsession, but toward the purity and noncontamination of the duality of beings and Being, of their 'totally different' sites." (Lukacher, Time-Fetishes, page 21.)

    Nietzsche realizes, or at least personifies, Life as a kind of entity that is, however, not just one among many beings: for example, Life speaks thus to Zarathustra:

    "And even thou, discerning one, art only a path and footstep of my will: verily, my Will to Power walketh even on the feet of thy Will to Truth!" (Z, "Self-Surpassing".)

    And at the end of NcW Epilogue, N suggests that the Truth is, as the Greeks named her, Baubo—that is, Vulva, countless folds or layers with a hole in the center... This is how I now understand art, the will to power as art:



    All art is, first and foremost, the art of introduction... The ER means the whole cosmic process is Nothing but an introduction to itself—to Nothing besides itself...

    "Nature's beneficence, the goodness of nature, is affirmed [by Zarathustra] in the only way now possible, as a process of becoming, as history, as a rule of non-sense and chance that necessarily generates fragments and that has no outcome in wholeness other than the complementary Yes pronounced on the process by the complementary man." (Lampert, Leo Strauss and Nietzsche, page 107.)

    That affirmation is the will to the eternal recurrence of the world as will to power.

    "While the genealogy of Parmenidean Being leads through Aristotle's notion of the 'prime mover' as 'thought thinking itself' (noesis noeseos) (Metaphysics 1074b34) and dominates much of the spiritual history of the West, the Heraclitean-Anaximanderian genealogy of the names for time's namelessness, in other words, the genealogy of eternal recurrence, would constitute a kind of counterhistory, a strange kind of 'bastard reasoning', as Plato calls it in the Timaeus, neither muthos nor logos." (Lukacher, op.cit., pp. 19-20.)

    In a world of becoming, the only God is the God of BGE 56, the only noesis noeseos is poiesis poieseos.

    "If one understands 'truth' in the concept 'will to truth' as the truth in truthful show [Schein], then the will to truth is no more only a will to so-called truth; it is then rather the will to poiesis or, as Nietzsche says here, to 'making', that is to say to the production of a show which does not negate life but affirms it; which is thereby in unison with life and thanks its truth to this unison." (Picht, Nietzsche, page 282.)
    avatar
    Mitra-Sauwelios
    Admin

    Posts : 81
    Join date : 2018-02-10
    Age : 40
    Location : Amsterdam

    Re: Spacelight, continuing.

    Post by Mitra-Sauwelios on Mon Nov 05, 2018 1:10 am

    And all of another, and most of yet another:

    1.

    Are you suggesting the world is not the will to power and nothing besides, but there's something else besides it—something bad?

    I think it's the Nothing itself that is the "bad" thing besides the will to power. As Nishitani says, "[b]eings-as-a-whole become strange and alienating through being wrapped in nothing. This is the 'nothinging' of the Nothing[.]" (Nishitani, The Self-Overcoming of Nihilism, page 167.)

    This problem can only be surmounted in knowing, that is, in affirming. Recall that Strauss quote how, in a world that is will to power and nothing besides, the only way there can be knowledge is by willing the recurrence of that world. In that way, willing is transformed into acceptance. The knower thereby transcends the will to power, and becomes one with the "Nothing", which is and is not will to power—is and is not a being.

    2.

    [...] I suspect that Strauss, being a Jew, knew some Kaballah. In Kaballah, Knowledge is a kind of non-Sephira above all Sephiroth except the Supernal ones. And the "lowest" of the Supernals is Understanding. And elsewhere, Strauss writes:

    "We cannot exert our understanding without from time to time understanding something of importance; and this act of understanding may be accompanied by the awareness of our understanding, by the understanding of understanding, by noesis noeseos, and this is so high, so pure, so noble an experience that Aristotle could ascribe it to his God. This experience is entirely independent of whether what we understand primarily is pleasing or displeasing, fair or ugly. It leads us to realize that all evils are in a sense necessary if there is to be understanding. It enables us to accept all evils which befall us and which may well break our hearts in the spirit of good citizens of the city of God." http://www.ditext.com/strauss/liberal.html

    In Nietzsche "deadly truth" is the superlative of "ugly truth". So the superlative of "fair or ugly" would be "life-giving or deadly". I contend that the will to the ER of the world as WTP is indeed not knowledge but understanding, wisdom even (Wisdom is the first Sephira "above" Understanding). In fact, I think the insight into the WTP is "understanding" (night wisdom), whereas the will to/acceptance of (I suppose we can simply say "affirmation" instead of "will/acceptance") the ER is "wisdom" (day wisdom). Thus Lampert shows, in his first book (which I don't have at hand right now), that the ER is not the full night-wisdom of the WTP because it posits a finite world (cf. Z "Of the Three Evils" 1). Compare:

    "To attain the grade of Magus [which corresponds with Wisdom] he [the Magister Templi, which corresponds with Understanding] must accomplish [...] the renunciation of His enjoyment of the Infinite so that he may formulate Himself as the Finite[.]" (Aleister Crowley, "One Star in Sight".)

    Nietzsche, not Crowley, is the Magus of our present Aeon, and his Word is not Thelema (Will), but—Aion, perhaps?

    "Nietzsche's reading of aion in his early lectures on Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks reveals that Plato's abstraction of aion from the world of becoming had already lost the fundamental sense of the Heraclitean saying, which was that the ever-living fire of time and becoming lives its life and dies its death like a living being." (Lukacher, op.cit., page 9-10.)
    avatar
    Mitra-Sauwelios
    Admin

    Posts : 81
    Join date : 2018-02-10
    Age : 40
    Location : Amsterdam

    Re: Spacelight, continuing.

    Post by Mitra-Sauwelios on Mon Nov 05, 2018 1:13 am

    And all of yet another, and an addendum to it:

    ::

    "Either there are wills to power and the sum of it is the world or it is the will to power and everything is it's element."

    Well, I've always thought wills can accumulate or cancel each other out (they are vectors). In any case, until last year I also thought in terms of sum and elements. But I no longer think the world is simply the sum of all beings; I think it's more than the sum of its parts. Thus the translator of Nishitani's book writes:

    "While neither Heidegger nor Nishitani makes this connection explicit, a little reflection on the two texts from 1929 makes clear that 'world' in On the Essence of Ground and 'nothing' in What is Metaphysics? are equivalent. According to the former text, a being can only make sense to us if we have already projected a horizon of intelligibility in the form of a world; we can encounter a being only insofar as we have already gone beyond ('transcended') it to an empty horizon, against which it can appear as not-nothing—that is, as something."

    This is evident from WP 1067, which ironically is the last section of WP: we can really say that Heidegger begins where Nietzsche ends in this respect.

    "And do you know what 'the world' is to me? Shall I show it to you in my mirror? This world: [...] enclosed by 'nothingness' [das Nichts, lit. "the nothing"] as by a boundary[.]"

    Nietzsche's "world" as will to power is simply the sum vector, pointing back to its beginning, of all beings. His actual world, in the Heideggerian sense, is his mirror, that is, his mind's eye. In fact, I think that space, so-called "empty" space, is really nothing but mind (or rather, nothing and mind are one and the same)...

    "The one intelligible theory of the universe is that of objective idealism, that matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws." (Charles Sanders Peirce, "The Architecture of Theories".)

    Beings or things are just "kinks" in a "field", excitations (thoughts, ideas) of that field (thus Descartes's "cogito" literally means "I intensely agitate"; compare the etymology of "thinking", which means "causing to appear").



    Addendum:

    The usual translation of "noesis" is "thinking", by the way; not "understanding". I recently translated it into German as "Erkennen", "to (get to) know, to (re)cognise"[.]
    avatar
    Mitra-Sauwelios
    Admin

    Posts : 81
    Join date : 2018-02-10
    Age : 40
    Location : Amsterdam

    Re: Spacelight, continuing.

    Post by Mitra-Sauwelios on Tue Nov 06, 2018 3:38 am

    Mitra-Sauwelios wrote:"It is interesting [...] that Heidegger did not inquire into the aporetic temporal character of khôra [in Plato's Sophist] but instead took a decidedly Parmenidean slant on its interpretation and related it to the khorismos or gap between Being and beings. In other words, instead of reading the strong indications in Plato that khôra is a material entity that lives eternally between Being and becoming, Heidegger de-realizes it as an existent being and reinvents it as a mere gap or notational spacing or interval [...]
    Heidegger's natural tendency as a thinker runs so powerfully in the Parmenidean direction of thinking, not toward the interminable impurity of the difference, which is Nietzsche's obsession, but toward the purity and noncontamination of the duality of beings and Being, of their 'totally different' sites." (Lukacher, Time-Fetishes, page 21.)

    Nietzsche realizes, or at least personifies, Life as a kind of entity that is, however, not just one among many beings: for example, Life speaks thus to Zarathustra:

    "And even thou, discerning one, art only a path and footstep of my will: verily, my Will to Power walketh even on the feet of thy Will to Truth!" (Z, "Self-Surpassing".)

    And at the end of NcW Epilogue, N suggests that the Truth is, as the Greeks named her, Baubo—that is, Vulva, countless folds or layers with a hole in the center... This is how I now understand art, the will to power as art:



    All art is, first and foremost, the art of introduction...

    This requires further elucidation or mystification. First, a Facebook post of mine from July 27:

    1.

    Here's from a book page I found perfectly randomly (I was googling the phrase "can still just"...). It's about a passage from Plato's Republic (spoken by Glaucon).

    "These people's quest is for 'the smallest [musical] interval, by which measurement is to be made', a project which we discussed in Chapters 1 and 2. Their procedure is to adjust the tensions of two strings until their pitches are so close together that any further adjustment would be heard as bringing them into unison; when that situation is reached, they suppose, the smallest diastêma has been found. It is thus to be identified by ear, not on the basis of any kind of argument; and it will therefore be the smallest that human hearing can detect, rather than being the smallest absolutely, in some theoretical sense. This is no doubt as it should be, since the crucial task is to locate an interval which harmonic scientists can pick out directly and use in practice as the unit of measurement.
    All this makes sense of a sort, and it locates these theorists squarely in the empirical tradition to which Aristotle and Aristoxenus also refer. But there is one detail in Glaucon's depiction which marks it off from the others. Instead of representing the first group of these disputing investigators as saying that they can still just detect a gap or a space between the notes that the strings emit, he attributes to them the claim that they can still 'just hear a sound in the middle', where by 'in the middle' they must mean 'in between the notes in question'. Having said this, they add 'that this is the smallest interval, by which measurement should be made', where 'this' apparently refers to the sound just mentioned.
    It seems very strange that they should be claiming to detect a sound (êchê) and not a gap, and if they are indeed identifying this sound itself as the 'smallest interval', that seems stranger still." (Andrew Barker, The Science of Harmonics in Classical Greece, page 425.)

    And here's from a book I got by no means randomly, and which gave me my "spacelight" idea:

    "It is interesting [...] that Heidegger did not inquire into the aporetic temporal character of khôra [in Plato's Sophist] but instead took a decidedly Parmenidean slant on its interpretation and related it to the khorismos or gap between Being and beings. In other words, instead of reading the strong indications in Plato that khôra is a material entity that lives eternally between Being and becoming, Heidegger de-realizes it as an existent being and reinvents it as a mere gap or notational spacing or interval[.]" (Ned Lukacher, Time-Fetishes, page 21.)

    ::

    And second, the beginning of my main OkCupid profile (...), where I was banned three weeks ago for having multiple profiles:

    2.

    Nietzsche, early music, shrooms, co-op gaming, drama series, low-carb food, etc...

    The above is just a quick summary for the app version of DoubleTake. But—why do I even reckon with that? For that won't do: that is not a proper introduction. Convenient as such "apps" may be, they can never replace the art of introduction—and all art is, first and foremost, the art of introduction...

    This insight was just driven home to me by shrooms—by psychedelic truffles, more properly speaking. As usual, I drank my infusion at the beginning of my daily Holosync; but by the end of it, an hour later, I found myself deeply anxious between that technology and the lack thereof. My right brain side, that is to say the left half of my body, almost couldn't take it—and that, I realised only then with the proper "Aha!" experience, is the side where my heart is. My maternal grandmother, who was very dear to me, once told me she had a heart condition as a child, and since then I've always been mindful of that. And then I remembered: the song I'd had in my head, faintly, just a wisp, from the beginning of my Holosync: it was from Micrologus' D'Amor cantando! So I put on that album, and was immediately struck by the first track. Now that is a proper introduction! The introduction of a fifteenth-century Venetian nobleman perhaps,—I can only try to do it justice with words. An introduction with somewhat of a start, in the etymological sense, but not inducing a panic, but—at this point I'm struck by the etymology of "panic"... [https://www.etymonline.com/word/panic] An arrival of order, of an Ordering, arresting but at the same time excusing itself for that, but not really, a proper excuse, a vindication... Layer upon layer unfolds gentle-manly—if you will not deign to take shelter in the last layer, then maybe in the next? The next turns out to be even more wickedly personal, though—closer to the heart, the corde, of this Prince...



    Ah, and then I didn't even come so far as to describe the lusty gallop that starts after all this! That, and the rest of my selection of the album, is really to my heart! I hope that it will be to yours as well...
    avatar
    Mitra-Sauwelios
    Admin

    Posts : 81
    Join date : 2018-02-10
    Age : 40
    Location : Amsterdam

    Re: Spacelight, continuing.

    Post by Mitra-Sauwelios on Thu Nov 22, 2018 12:38 am

    Logically, it makes no difference whether the universe is expanding or everything in it is contracting. This realisation was actually anticipated by SpaceLight: all objects give "light" (give off radiation); but light and space are one; so all objects give off space, "evaporate" into space... Yes, we can say the universe is larger than when our fathers lived; but that's just the modern perspective. It's equally true that we are smaller than our fathers were (or at least not as much bigger as our better nutrition etc. would make us if other things were equal).

    On a different note, but still on spacelight—and spacemind!—in a certain sense, here's something I wrote yesterday:

    Being the radical conservative that I am,¹ I was more than skeptical about VR. But a skeptic is literally someone who looks on, who waits and sees; and in the case of VR, the saying goes that seeing is believing.

    This is especially true of PSVR's first "killer app" (see below). Starting with Super Mario 64, I've never really enjoyed any of the 3D Super Mario platform games.² Astro Bot Rescue Mission, however, changes everything: this is what Super Mario 64 promised but failed to deliver, for the simple reason that the screen remained 2D and it was therefore impossible to estimate distances truly accurately. But VR requires the visually impaired to keep on their glasses or keep in their contacts: it really simulates distance.² I've enjoyed many "3D" games regardless of the problem indicated, but my best friend has basically skipped "3D" gaming entirely starting with the PSX/N64 generation, yet has compared Astro Bot to the leap from the Atari 2600 to his beloved NES. VR truly is the next dimension since Super Mario World perfected 2D gaming in 1990.

    Easy Allies review of Astro Bot Rescue Mission

    ¹ "Nietzsche may seem to reveal himself as radically antirevolutionary or conservative beyond the wildest wishes of all other conservatives[.]" (Leo Strauss, "Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil".)

    ² Super Mario 3D Land on 3DS is by far the best of the bunch, followed at some distance by Super Mario 3D World on a 3D TV: these systems' screens really simulate distance, but only the former game was programmed with that in mind.

    ::

    VR is probably the closest you can get to something like skydiving in the comfort of your own home. If anything, you should try PSVR with Astro Bot. The above review comes closest to getting it across on a 2D screen. But as long as you haven't experienced it yourself, you really can't know what you're talking about. I can no longer play my favourite racing game, Dirt Rally, on a 2D screen: the suspension of disbelief is gone completely. This guy conveys it pretty well:

    Jimmy Broadbent, "DiRT Rally - This Made Me Feel Genuine Fear | VR |"

    Sponsored content

    Re: Spacelight, continuing.

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Dec 10, 2018 12:18 am