The Pathos of Distance

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

- Agile Minds in Perpetuum -


    yo, pedro!

    Share

    Zoot Allures

    Posts : 525
    Join date : 2018-02-07
    Age : 500

    yo, pedro!

    Post by Zoot Allures on Sat Feb 10, 2018 7:54 am

    continuation of discussion at: http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=188756&p=2692704#p2692704

    pedro wrote:What are the properties then? What goes for "tiger" goes for "whiskers," "violent" and "four legged." You can split properties apart all you want, but there will always be an assumed substance.

    hume is critiquing the aristotlean concept of substance, which i believe nietzsche was referencing in that quote. aristotle believed that a substance was a kind of being that was different from a property. he goes on to say that properties can change while the substance of the being does not. hume is asking how this substance can be perceived if we only know things by the impressions we get from the substance's properties.

    recall:

    "In order that the concept of substance could originate--which is indispensible for logic although in the strictest sense nothing real corresponds to it--it was likewise necessary that for a long time one did not see or perceive the changes in things."- nietzsche

    but the concept of substance is NOT indispensible for logic, i'm saying. for one thing, it would be unecessary to qualify the notion of the law of identity (a=a) by this concept of substance, since substance by its very definition cannot change (only properties change). so there would never be the question: 'could substance ever be anything other than substance', see. it goes without saying that substance is substance and that it can't be anything else. this isn't the case for properties, though, or the things that have properties.

    moreover, the origination of the idea of substance is not something that occured because 'for a long time one did not see or perceive the changes in things.' the idea of substance is completely a priori, is a rational concept that is not formed after the perception of anything, whether changeable or not. but the idea of a property is a posteriori; it relies on perception and experience.

    probably, the idea of substance was originated to treat the various paradoxes created in the arguments between the eleatic school, the pluralists, heraclitus, and the atomists. aristotle was probably moved to come up with an idea that was compatible, hence, something that is immanent and unchanging (substance) while also being the ground of change and impermanence (properties). if you have a moment, check out 'substance theory'.

    at any rate:

    pedro wrote:I don't think Nietzsche meant that logic logically needed this or that, I think he was explaining what it needed genealogically, what led to its existence.

    nietzsche thought that logic was inconceivable until the error of positing the 'subject' was commited, but it wasn't. this is a bit complicated to explain and would require a lot more time than i'm willing to give in a post at the moment. i'll just give you a briefing.

    logic... the propositional kind which is the relevent kind for our purposes here... is nothing more than a set of rules which are used to determine whether or not an assertion is valid, sound, valid and sound, true or false. propositions are about things in the world, but are NOT parts of the world itself. the question which has challenged philosophers for centuries is whether or not the world can be represented by propositions so that propositions indicate something more than their own logical consistency. that is, if a proposition is true, does it necessarily follow that it says something true about the world rather than only being deductively or inductively true because it is logically valid and sound. consider this example:

    dizzle wopters are incredibly haptonetic, and exist in a trollic place.
    this world is trollic.
    therefore, this world consists of haptonetic things.

    this argument meets all the criteria for logical coherency, and yet it is nonsensical. the fact that the argument is logical says nothing about the world.

    now, there is no question as to whether or not dizzle wopters and trollic places are nietzschean 'subjects', because the very notion of them is nonsensical to begin with. hence, a proposition can be logical without representing a real subject... hence, the belief in a real subject is not requird for logic to exist.

    and finally, nietzsche would be caught in a kind of self-referential contradiction if he were to assert that belief in a subject was required for logic to exist. the very statement itself is either true or false, and if it is, it is such because it either met or violated the rules of logic. if what he said was true, then logic does exist, because his statement wouldn't be correct, much less meaningful, without it. if what he says is false, it is false because it was neither deductively or inductively coherent, in which case he's said nothing about logic in the first place.

    i will concede that the 'subject', in the way that he meant it (which has nothing to do with the existence or validity of logic) is still a legitimate point. he means to dismiss the notion of the cartesian subject, the 'doer that is distinct from the deed', as he put it. of course this is correct, but being correct- that there is only the deed, the doing, the striking that IS the lightening... and NOT the lightening that is DOING the striking- does not say anything about logic. granting that there is no subject, there is still a logic of process here... which is to say, understanding even this notion of there being no subject, and only process instead, is possible because there is logical consistency within the set of propositions that contain it.

    but remember, this set might only contain deductive truths, tautologies, in which case they would not necessarily say anything about the world. on the other hand, if the set contained inductive claims, how would these be proven? how do i prove there is no 'subject' and only process? well it depends on what i mean when i say 'subject' and 'process'. in this particular case i mean to say that there is no cartesian second-substance. well how do i prove that? you guessed it... through another series of claims: a second-substance could not casually interact with a first-substance (material) since they were ontologically different (see spinoza). but how do i prove THAT?

    where is this going, pedro? nowhere, that's where. and its going nowhere because i'm asking metaphysical questions... using specialized, a priori philosophical terminology... creating circles of reasoning. i can create all kinds of premises that would lead to conclusions that were true so long as the premises were granted. but granting the premises does not mean my statements reflect or represent what is in the world or anything about the world.

    logic is mysteriously transcendent, pedro. asking, as nietzsche did, about the genealogy of logic... how we beings began to think logically... does not say anything about logic's true beginnings. such reasoning uses a logic that was already there, already working.


    Zoot Allures

    Posts : 525
    Join date : 2018-02-07
    Age : 500

    Re: yo, pedro!

    Post by Zoot Allures on Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:23 pm


    Zoot Allures

    Posts : 525
    Join date : 2018-02-07
    Age : 500

    Re: yo, pedro!

    Post by Zoot Allures on Mon Mar 19, 2018 7:55 pm

    http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=188756&p=2697076#p2697076

    petition to bring pezer here before ILP gets him.

    zoot allures

    Zoot Allures

    Posts : 525
    Join date : 2018-02-07
    Age : 500

    Re: yo, pedro!

    Post by Zoot Allures on Mon Mar 19, 2018 8:41 pm

    jakob wrote:But I disappointed him. I wasn't even able to take over Venezuela.

    pfft. amateur.
    avatar
    Satyr

    Posts : 761
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: yo, pedro!

    Post by Satyr on Tue Mar 20, 2018 5:43 am

    It's what happens when you trust a charlatan who promises you extraordinary things and delivers nothing.
    An international cRAP career is in the making.
    Power given by the master-baiter.
    Who falls for it?
    The lost, the needy, the desperate for appreciation, acknowledgement....power is more addictive to the powerless.

    All romantic relationships fall prey to the madness of hyperbole.
    Over time, too much contact, too much intimacy, makes fades the magical lustre and what's left is harsh reality that's disappointing in relation to the promising extraordinary.
    Liars cannot maintain the lie forever. A relationships based on lies, fantasies, will face an inevitable correction.


    _________________
    Know Thyself
    avatar
    Barracuda

    Posts : 151
    Join date : 2018-02-11
    Age : 353

    Re: yo, pedro!

    Post by Barracuda on Mon Apr 02, 2018 4:45 pm

    Zoot Allures wrote:
    jakob wrote:But I disappointed him. I wasn't even able to take over Venezuela.

    pfft. amateur.

    I wasnt even able to will it.
    And now that Ive seen it, I don't think any human will ever conquer anything on that continent - it belong to other species, humans are just also there.
    The way to exist there is by shamanic protocol. I.e. by submitting to plant life.

    So I now understand what Pezer meant with "Earf" - but I don't think he does.



    _________________
    I do not want to be right. I want to believe in you. I want to believe that in this world there is someone who never lies, cheats or compromises, who is always noble. - ᛁᚹᚫᚱ

    promethean75

    Posts : 204
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: yo, pedro!

    Post by promethean75 on Fri Sep 21, 2018 3:38 pm

    http://beforethelight.forumotion.com/t1423p100-where-authority-lays#18062




    0:00-0:30 pezerocles suddenly wakes and sits up in bed, drenched in sweat. it must have been a dream. was it a forum? yes, he remembers now... he was beforethelight. it was the allegory of plato's cave; everything he had seen there was only a shadow of the truth. suspicion. something isn't right. but what is it?! he thinks, his mind pacing.

    0:30-1:04 distress. emergency. must get my bearings. where am i? focus. recall the dream, the forum. something hollow, sinister, curved, twisted.  

    1:04-1:45 a strange cadence; infused notes, winding and turning. consonant and dissonant tones form peculiar patterns. i cannot trust this, i cannot understand it. what is going on?! where is the resolution? something is amiss. where am i?

    1:45-2:39 i'm dizzy, i'm falling; what was wrong with the dream? think, damn you! clear my mind, let go of the dream! tumbling. disorientation. i can't understand it. images of the dream forum pass though my mind.

    2:39-3:17 slow down. i've got to try to make sense of this. what is the significance of the pattern... how was i so wrong? something strange. doesn't feel right. what are the notes telling me? what does this mean?

    3:17-4:20 first stage. concentrate. engage. metamorphosis into the construkctor. find the rhythm, find the structure; symmetrical form takes shape in my mind with crystaline clarity. that's it! i was only beforethelight... but now i step beyond it, out of the dark. i design the light.      

    4:20-4:59 second stage. i can control the pattern! i take a whole step up, raise the octave, sustain a key note. i've got it. how easily it moves beneath my fingers!  

    4:59-6:01 pezerocles returns from his reverie. now he understands, the dream makes sense. he can now synchronize the notes. he looks again at the structure and finally sees it. the dream forum cave, the journey out, the light that envelopes him.

    6:01-6:25 enlightenment. the cycle; life is the notation, a cadence and cascade of conflicting and resolving tones. pezerocles now understands the world as an architect and composer.  

    6:25-6:54 out of the cave, no longer beforethelight. now the construkctor, the architect. god is dead. pezerocles, hurdling to earth through a hole in the sky.  

    6:54-7:23 he sees through the warhol genius of those in the cave of the dream.  

    7:23-7:44 remember the cycle. the eternal recurrence. his power to now create the light.

    7:44-8:13 an architect's new faith in man and evolution. one day the rest will become like gods and supervise the constukction of light...

    8:13-8:42 pezerocles fades back into sleep remembering the image of the cycle he had always known, but only now, as a god, could remember....


    Last edited by promethean75 on Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:22 pm; edited 1 time in total

    promethean75

    Posts : 204
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: yo, pedro!

    Post by promethean75 on Fri Sep 21, 2018 3:44 pm

    ^^^ dude if i had the patience i could make this cinematic experience with king crimson so fucking badass it would blow your mind. i dunno, maybe i'll rewrite it later. MAYBE. no promises.

    promethean75

    Posts : 204
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: yo, pedro!

    Post by promethean75 on Fri Sep 21, 2018 6:49 pm

    I keep listening to 3:17-4:59 over and over again. I swear to the gods there's something in there, something cryptic, but I don't know what. Never underestimate Fripp. That dude's always up to something. Look at him... sitting back there in the shadows. Uncle Bobby and his les paul. He always sits on a stool on stage in casual dress. Never runs back and forth across the stage like an idiot. Oh he knows what he's doing, alright; he runs the whole fucking thing. The only member that has always been in the band. Uncle Bobby is king crimson.

    Those lines he and Adrian are playing are woven together, synchronizing, then passing each other, then meeting again. Individual notes in polyrhythmic motion comprising a single figure that never stops morphing but remains the same. A shifting, looping mathematical code language that tells the story of the birth and death of entire universes. I'm telling you Fripp is up to something. He's no rock star. He's a wizard from another dimension.

    Uncle Bobby knows something and godammit I'm gonna find out what it is. Somebody get me somebody who can read music; we're going to get to the bottom of this.

    promethean75

    Posts : 204
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: yo, pedro!

    Post by promethean75 on Fri Sep 21, 2018 7:35 pm

    What... the... fuck.



    Just wait til 5:06. You'll see. He's inhuman.


    Sponsored content

    Re: yo, pedro!

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Nov 18, 2018 12:14 pm