‘the Time-mind’ vs. ‘a philosophy of the eye’

[mixed_biscuits]

Physically, things only appear static within a certain reference frame to a certain observer, all is flow, but it's also all maths which itself is out of time, neither moving nor static...God and all his abstractions dwell in this realm.

 

[sus]

I feel that I have been failing to say anything worthwhile or clever in this thread, despite being interested in the premise

 

[sus]

Because saying "it's both" is tired and boring and doesn't really add anything. Even if it feels requisite

 

[sus]

This is only half related. I feel like I can only think about this in half related analogies. But I have been thinking about the world the last few years through a cluster of related metaphors which I've seen in books and things. Eg the garden & wall thing where the fruit / calories are energy/structure being protected by a barrier. Membrane and vital center. Hearth and mortar, keep and walls, nucleus and membranes. Life keeps itself apart from the flows and fluxes, keeps itself apart from other life, in order to persevere. But the garden requires a stream to stay alive, the organism must feed, which requires exposure to the outside. It stabilizes itself through change. Heraclitus, the Ship of Theseus. Which sort of gets at how apartness and togetherness are intertwined concepts maybe?

All these atmospheres and envelopes right we all understand this. There is a garden and it's surrounded by wilderness and the wilderness is often hostile/indifferent. And a monomyth is also the war, Iliar and Odyssey—the hero journey is that venture, often undertaken for a vital grail, or for a woman/women, into the wilderness, essentially to rob some other membrane of its vital centers.

It's a simple and commonsense thing, not radical, just that we are sorta little walking factory fortresses, batteries with skins to protect our precious batteries. But I just bring it up to say that it there are almost these two sides. Are you team oneness or are you team flow. But its doesnt divide up so easily

 

[sus]

There was this performance I saw in New York, it was like a mythic play ritual theater thing that had an alternative yonic cosmology where orifices and openness and menstrual flow were groovy. It was fun but it felt like an antithesis when maybe we're all grown up enough to get to the synthesis already.

 

[sus]

Which is just the boring reality that sexual reproduction requires a sperm and an egg.

 

[sus]

Metaphorically speaking. In a like, Ecclesiastes way.

 

[sus]

I feel like I'm interested in this thread because it sorta stands for a whole cluster of things. Are you team flux, team 'words are cages, structures are prisons, how do I break free ' or are you like, yeah, pretty useful tools these systems! Related to semiotic wound stuff. Do you emphasize the stability of the link between map and territory, or its discrepancies and give?and This is vaguely why neoreactionaries call pomo people commies, right? A question on which I abstain from all opinion

Are you putting emphasis on the give, the flexibility, the changeability of a system, or on its impressive endurance. Chestertons fence. Are you an optimist or a pessimist? Do you wish to humble mankind or exalt him? Did you love your Dad growing up? I don't like these comments either but I tried.

 

[sus]

"Are you putting doubt into the system, or confidence?"

Sometimes I wonder if you can dissolve your identity with too much introspection, like meditation or psychedelics. I dabble in all of these things but. one wonders. What size dose it becomes a poison.

 

[sus]

I had my first bout of anxiety after I watched my first Woody Allen movie.

 

[sus]

Ok so thats "are there stabilities that keep themselves separate to stay stable," but I suppose maybe the other half of the topic is whether our perception separates. I have no thoughts on that yet

 

[vershy versh]

There seems to be a point at which a person starts to solidify again after opening themselves up. The first example that comes to mind is getting online, consuming vast quantities of information, then finding your positions and temperament harden as your patience wears thin and your attention wavers. The process itself being in flux.

 

[vershy versh]

Wonder what it was about Lewis that made him so averse to the idea he might be part of a process, whether it was just a temperamental thing or whether there was something in his history that predisposed him to that line of thought.

According to his Wiki, he was born at sea and his parents separated early. Perhaps he had some sense of having to fortify himself and his identity due to that instability. It's a bit trite and I'm wary of psychologising writers, artists, etc. but he's an intriguing figure and I find his view so irrational - your body's pumping blood, bits of it are growing and dropping off and changing all the time, how could life being anything but flux? - it seems almost pathological.

Tragic irony that a champion of 'the optic sense' would ultimately lose his sight.

 

[luka]

There seems to be a point at which a person starts to solidify again after opening themselves up. The first example that comes to mind is getting online, consuming vast quantities of information, then finding your positions and temperament harden as your patience wears thin and your attention wavers. The process itself being in flux.

Deterritoriaoisation and reterritorislisation

 

[vershy versh]

Lewis sounds as though he moved through the world like someone exploring an art gallery, no real interplay between subject and object or question as to which was which. There's Lewis, the eye, and everything else is an object falling under his gaze. The Judge in Blood Meridian's like that too, collecting things to sketch in his book then destroying them.

 

[sus]

surrender is liquid, lotion, moist. will is dry.

 

[vershy versh]

The Lenin quotes Ben Watson pulls in his piece on Sinclair are good and relevant to both this thread and the one on semiotics:

The 'naive realism' of any healthy person who has not been an inmate of a lunatic asylum or a pupil of the idealist philosophers consists in the view that things, the environment, the world exist independently of our sensation, of our self and of man in general.​

— V.I. Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, Peking, 1972, p69.​

Experience is that over which our mind has no command, that which our desires, our volition, cannot control, that which is given and not of our making. Experience is the object that faces the subject.​

— Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, p353.​

 

[Mr. Tea]

Deterritoriaoisation and reterritorislisation

Did a cat just walk across your keyboard or something?

 

[mixed_biscuits]

This is only half related. I feel like I can only think about this in half related analogies. But I have been thinking about the world the last few years through a cluster of related metaphors which I've seen in books and things. Eg the garden & wall thing where the fruit / calories are energy/structure being protected by a barrier. Membrane and vital center. Hearth and mortar, keep and walls, nucleus and membranes. Life keeps itself apart from the flows and fluxes, keeps itself apart from other life, in order to persevere. But the garden requires a stream to stay alive, the organism must feed, which requires exposure to the outside. It stabilizes itself through change. Heraclitus, the Ship of Theseus. Which sort of gets at how apartness and togetherness are intertwined concepts maybe?

All these atmospheres and envelopes right we all understand this. There is a garden and it's surrounded by wilderness and the wilderness is often hostile/indifferent. And a monomyth is also the war, Iliar and Odyssey—the hero journey is that venture, often undertaken for a vital grail, or for a woman/women, into the wilderness, essentially to rob some other membrane of its vital centers.

It's a simple and commonsense thing, not radical, just that we are sorta little walking factory fortresses, batteries with skins to protect our precious batteries. But I just bring it up to say that it there are almost these two sides. Are you team oneness or are you team flow. But its doesnt divide up so easily

Go up a level of abstraction and think in terms of set theory and topology.

 

[sus]

Unpack it for me boss