Yes, nature…
… plays dice, even if God doesn’t. She plays two dice. One she calls philosophers, the other she calls philosophers. Both dice invalid but cherished by her immensely, so much so that all retribution she bestows on their souls, it comes with a mother’s gentle touch, kiss and hug…
There is no sickness…
… as rewarding to a life as wanting to be the best at what you do, no matter what that is. This form of life is constantly overflowing with anxiety and anger, but its rewards are so fruitful, for both one and all. The biggest danger with such a life is always the imminent promise of hate and anxiety towards others. This is where this kind of life finds its two most fascinating fruits: the fruit of scarcity and the fruit of abundance. A life that is sick in this manner is much more interesting if it stems from an abundance as opposed to scarcity. Scarcity is the worst fruit of any tree. I wonder if every tree reserves and expends the most of its energy on that one fruit, the fruit that justifies it? The tree of life harbours many fruits, but what does the fruit that justifies the tree look like? What shoot does it stem from?
The Lover’s Ethic #1
Sex is not a function, it’s not even a form of leisure, neither is it a special union, or a union of any sort. Sex can mean one of a myriad of things, or even ‘all’ at once and none at any particular time. To reduce sex to one meaning and educate children on that one meaning, such that that meaning becomes the social norm, the way people communicate about it, is to destroy an experience. It is in this sense the most decrepit form of robbery. Sex has no particular meaning, it can mean anything you want it to mean, set the meaning to it yourself in your encounters and communications. But, always realize that its form can always change. Words and experiences concerning people are more formal than they are material.
The responsibility falls on you to create your own environment: man and woman alike.
Language is…
… like fire, it consumes everything it can digest and makes it a part of itself. All else cause it to die and force it into silence; but, look how much fire can digest.
Thought in language is like a simulation. It is distinct from activity, of movement in the sense of the body. Thoughts within language open up possible movements or possible activities, but nothing more. It must be distinct from activity. Activity is other than thought, even if preceded by it.
Look at how many distinct forms of simulation there are. To simulate is to establish boundaries and rules for possible action. The moment that action is acted, or actualized, the fleeting nature of the action itself is revealed and the boundary holds only if the rules hold, and further if the actions hold. The boundary doesn’t fully determine the action while it is acted, some may find it soothing to say it doesn’t even determine it before the action in thought. The action rather determines and generates the boundary anew with each actualization, with each movement. It does this or it destroys it with a movement contrary to the boundaries, whose possibility is always implied. There can be no boundary big enough to encapsulate all possible action, because possible actions contradict each other or render each other superfluous. Thus, any complete theory of possible action is incomplete by virtue of its project and the means to it. Actions are limitless, not in thought, but in action — they are temporally bound. Thought can bring out this temporal boundary, which is no boundary at all, and in so doing reveal the lack of limit in an action. A limit can be drawn, but the temporal quality of actions rubs off all limits.
Language only organizes action, but it does not more. Action itself either maintains that organization or not.
We Philosophers…
… have a vested interest in language, because we seem to believe that without it we cannot speak, and without it we cannot think. We aggrandize language to such a degree that it becomes cancerous to us. It moves so far away from living and acting that we might as well be sitting on a chair for the rest of our lives with a pen to table scribbling things that will never be applicable to our world, things that would have no immediate effect on our surroundings. Such a philosophy is a con and brings out the mode of life that is decaying, philosophy in this moment is a doctrine of invalidity that prolongs invalidity instead of offering something else instead. A culture where language is the main form of communication, or even the centre of being, is a culture at the heart of an imminent ruin, or an impending transformation. Only philosophers can do this to a culture, only they can rape experience to the point where they become raped by it as if by accident. We betray our incapacity to live with our love for language and its mode of thought; it’s reproductive, preservative and ultimately useless mode of thought.
Happiness and unhappiness…
… harbour a direct correlation with the notion of capacity, of an answer to the question: “can I or can I not?” This principle’s affluence in experience is fascinating. Happiness arises out of I can, I am able; out of capacity and capability. Unhappiness out of incapacity and incapability, suffering falls on the latter. This principle can’t be ‘proven’ or explained but it can be put to bear upon experience.
Nietzsche termed this principle as the feeling of power increasing or decreasing.
A human being…
… is like that little quantity of metal that’s sent to the factories and forges to be moulded and shaped, such that it may fit and find its place in the machine we call society. Ah, how this machine resembles an individual body. Society is a body of its own, very much like your own body. We wondered of the union between soul and body, look at the union between people, professions and the country itself. Look at the analogy. Where do the people and professions end (body and organs) and where does the country (soul) begin?
Then ask, what is England? What is France? What is this English consciousness, this French consciousness, with their english and french products? Then ask, how do the English and French relate with each other, how do they share their products. How do people do so amongst themselves? The part is not distinct from the whole upon holistic vision and movement, but upon particular action focused on each part, the part is furthest distinct from the whole. There is no possible reduction from part to whole or vice verse. They are in perfect and remote harmony. We can’t chop up the body and fully reduce it. I am my organs and I am also something more. I flirt with the possibility of a new organ, the possibility of a new part, a piece of metal that cannot be moulded and reshaped or whose moulding and reshaping implies a different movement to the entire machine. A shinny and strong metal of abundant quantity and mass. A powerful metal.
This new organ, this new part is perhaps the only interesting and anticipatory thing about a machine that we call a society. We all wait for such a part to be born. The future sits biting its nails at the possibility of reading and flirting with a book that speaks about one these parts. The most interesting history is the bad one, not because of the badness of it, or the evil, or the tragedy it afforded. But because it built a part that went against it, it built a part that shook and stirred not only the machine itself but the entire Earth. Such history is glorious as it is terrible, and the present never benefits, the present is after all a mere sacrifice, a sacrifice for its children and the future, for their joy, their happiness and their learning. The better a machine gets at dealing with such parts however, the more powerful the part needs to become, the more nature struggles to bring together such power.
Seducer’s Tip #2
There is no such thing as love. It is only a cunning, opium-like term, used to console and prolong a weakness — it makes a weakness appear as great strength, such that the real greatness of strength may benefit without unnecessary conflict. The perfect seduction is through the phantom term love. Seduction made to appear as love is the perfect scapegoat for the strong, for it keeps the weak yielding and generates more of the same weakness in them by making it appear as strength. It makes the weak desire to be seduced, by calling seduction, its process, love or falling in love. They actively seek that which they do not want because of a phantom term that masquerades it by having the appearance of its opposite. How remarkable. There was never a more grander and beautiful seduction than the introduction of this term and what comes with it. There is a lot that is needed to see this. A sharp and refined eye is needed, as well as a sharp and refined nose, a nose for the presupposed. Have you this eye; have you this nose? — I know not.
Forget love itself, look beyond it and in what is presupposed in it and its appearance, make it useful as a ghost term for a seduction, a clothing to seduction. It’s been this all along, don’t be seduced by its phantom appearance, lest you reveal your own weakness. Your need for consolation due to your own incapacity. Incapacity is suffering and consolation is a drug for that suffering, a reason is given like a paracetamol. It doesn’t exist, it is only a consolation for those who are too weak to seduce, and are constantly being seduced, and to benefit those who do the seducing – the seducers – through the prolongation of that weakness. Consolation is a form of prolongation. It empowers the strong and weakens the weak, it creates a distance conservative of the first order, and beneficial in its entirety to one (ultimately beneficiary to both one would say in its own way, the weak need to be able to live with their weakness and the strong need to expound their strength).
The one weakling said to the other, “the winds are too strong, can I hold on to you? You hold on to me, we’ll form a bigger weight and the winds won’t take us and sweep us away.” Smiling and tearful, the other weakling replied, “Yes, ok.”
Tell me my dear reader, who above is the real weakling and who the seducer?
Use love, don’t let it use you.
One of…
… Philosophy’s most ardent drives is the desire to look up the skirt of possibility. It is one of the maxims that it will go by for as long as there are human beings. Possibility has a seductive aroma, which the slightest hint sends the Philosopher into a mild frenzy they seem to call–wonder. Philosophy is wed to possibility, regardless of their usual concealment of this betrothal through their so-called desire for necessity. The subterranean corners of Philosophy is crawling with the possible and it is what motivates thought itself. Possibility is, one might say, the condition for the possibility of thought itself.
Broken Thoughts on Reaction
Reaction is the revelation, the disclosure, of somebody’s internal system, the foundations of their internal system. In reaction one’s internal system bubbles up to the top and leaves a foam that we call thought. This thought is the putting to question of that system, the doubting of that system — the imminent destruction of it. Reaction is perhaps indicative of an immense internal weakness and instability. This process of bubbling and foaming is the only way we can ever begin to think our situation in hope that we can move beyond it or be illuminated by it, or so it is assumed. To react is to think. If all thought is direction at possible movement, then actual movement will be the only cure to this process. Something that Wittgenstein intuitively grasped. A thought that is not reactive is not a thought but a movement. All movements are active, thoughts are simulations of movements by the possibility of many different movements at one particular time, this is accounted for by the human capacity to forsee events and then to forsee possible movements within events. In this sense a thought is always there in response to possible action due to the impeding situation one finds oneself in. Each reaction, each thought, is such that the action may be prolonged in an attempt to maintain the internal system one has stabilized. However, all thoughts presuppose in them the destruction of a system, especially when taken to their conclusion concerning action. The internal system is more easily stabilized perhaps by action without thought. A thought is always against itself and reflective of itself — hence perhaps the incessant circularity of thouht. They naturally ward off and kill instinctual movements contrary to the internal system, at times prolong them to such a degree that the person’s mind collapses due to this warding off, and the flow that overwhelms it. Madness is the internal system’s incapacity to maintain itself in the face of the incessant need for movement in a particular direction. The repettition and constant coming back of that movement guarantees madness. The instincts, the movements, either collaborate with the mind or they destroy it using its own tools — thoughts.
Clarity is needed on what a thought is and how it relates to movements and instincts. I take instinct here as a particular movement towards something, an adhesion between movement and thing — thing here used in the broadest sense.
…
