An Emergent Order

[luka]

Im busy working. Hes on a beanbag smoking hash.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

it's this you will love it

The structural properties of the anagram in poetry

This article illustrates the main theoretical and practical problem of the study of the anagram in poetry, the still unknown entity of the anagrammatic combination, which requires specific software in order to perform a structural analysis of the text. This difficulty explains the failure of...

www.degruyterbrill.com

it is fascinating and is based on a box of notes found under saussure's bed about his secret obsessive failed quest to identify hidden messages in ancient poems

This is the linguistic analogue of Newton's alchemical efforts.

 

[version]

Read Niklas Luhmann, read "You Must Change Your Life" by Peter Sloterdijk and read some pragmatists/neo-pragmatists with William James and Rorty being the obvious ones. Bonuss - A.J. Ayer and Feyerabend's "Agains the Method"
Because you are bascially looking for alternative more coherent, less confused anti-foundationalist, anti-essentialist, anti-kantian cannon and these are much better choices than the French obscurists and with all their subdivisions.

I have Luhmann's book on mass media, but haven't gotten round to it yet. You're missing my point though. I'm talking about any attempt at explaining anything, not just the French crew's attempts at explaining things. The same goes for mathematicians, scientists, historians, etc. The best anyone seems to be able to do is tell a compelling story, try to back it up by going look at these bits and pieces I've found, I must be right, and hope nobody else comes along saying actually those bits and pieces aren't what you think they are and your story's stupid, here's mine instead. It feels like that over and over, complicated further by the various factors beyond 'truth' which may prompt someone to tell a story, e.g. career advancement.

There's a Michael Sugrue lecture on Barthes where he boils his position down to all you can hope to do is to come up with an internally consistent system because there's nothing you can do about the outside, but to me even that seems a big ask. Has anyone even come up with an internally consistent system? There seem to be faults in all of them.

 

[germaphobian]

I have Luhmann's book on mass media, but haven't gotten round to it yet. You're missing my point though. I'm talking about any attempt at explaining anything, not just the French crew's attempts at explaining things. The same goes for mathematicians, scientists, historians, etc. The best anyone seems to be able to do is tell a compelling story, try to back it up by going look at these bits and pieces I've found, I must be right, and hope nobody else comes along saying actually those bits and pieces aren't what you think they are and your story's stupid, here's mine instead. It feels like that over and over, complicated by the various factors beyond 'truth' which may prompt someone to tell a story, e.g. career advancement.

But is it such a bad thing? This is the issue that's been adressed by pragmatists/neo-pragmatists (Rorty being the central one) and also by scientific minds like Thomas Kuhn (paradigm shift) and Feyerabend (anti-methodology). It's basically what modernity is at the end of the day, multiplication of competing metaphors without a single central one. Even more so, it's always been like that in many ways, what has changed is the speed and the intensity.

​

 

[germaphobian]

There is an obvious answer if you want to escape this predicament (if one sees it as predicament, of course) which is obviously religion; and I now some people who have adopted it - knowingly or not - for this very reason. But is it such a good idea? I doubt it.

 

[version]

It's the same issue I had with music after a while. I got sick of melody, rhythm, timbre, tempo, etc, but there's nothing beyond this stuff. You can't make a piece of music without at least some of them. That sense of the same components being assembled over and over is maddening.

 

[luka]

It's the same issue I had with music after a while. I got sick of melody, rhythm, timbre, tempo, etc, but there's nothing beyond this stuff. You can't make a piece of music without at least some of them. That sense of the same components being assembled over and over is maddening.

Ive had it with food. Potato. Pea. Celery stick. In various combinations. Endlessly.

 

[version]

Same with anything, I suppose. There are only so many plots, styles of writing, words, etc. and novelty for the sake of novelty isn't particularly satisfying anyway. Just have to put up with being uncomfortable, I guess.

 

[version]

There is an obvious answer if you want to escape this predicament (if one sees it as predicament, of course) which is obviously religion; and I now some people who have adopted it - knowingly or not - for this very reason. But is it such a good idea? I doubt it.

Can you really adopt it if you're choosing it due to this stuff rather than genuinely having faith? It's just another model among many unless you really believe it.

 

[germaphobian]

Can you really adopt it if you're choosing it due to this stuff rather than genuinely having faith? It's just another model among many unless you really believe it.

It does seem kind of hollow these days, yeah.

 

[version]

It's not as though religion's free of what we're discussing anyway. There's centuries of commentary and interpretation within various religions.

 

[germaphobian]

It's not as though religion's free of what we're discussing anyway. There's centuries of commentary and interpretation within various religions.

So - as I understand - your point is that there is some sort of real raw Reality or call it Truth out there and then there are all sorts of competing frameworks trying to explain it in this or that way, but since there are so many different and conflicting frameworks these days, it's impossible to know which is the correct interpratation of that said raw Reality which exists outside those explanatory frameworks and needs to be grasped. That's the idea?

 

[version]

So - as I understand - your point is that there is some sort of real raw Reality or call it Truth out there and then there are all sorts of competing frameworks trying to explain it in this or that way, but since there are so many different and conflicting frameworks these days, it's impossible to know which is the correct interpratation of that said raw Reality which exists outside those explanatory frameworks and needs to be grasped. That's the idea?

Yeah, something like that, although I dunno that there's even some sort of raw reality. How would we identify it?

 

[thirdform]

Yeah, something like that, although I dunno that there's even some sort of raw reality. How would we identify it?

all environments are dynamic. all things change in a dynamic environment. what south Korean conspiracy claptrap did luke feed you that you have become even more jaded than him?

Reality is, to put simply, that one cannot be identical with itself.

 

[thirdform]

the search for absolute truth, as if time could be captured in an instant (a mathematical 0?) is to postulate the nonexistence of this absolute truth anyway.

either time is a fundamental property of existence or it is not, in which case you end up like biscuits.

 

[version]

This stuff just sounds made up again. You're coming out with these cosmic universals as though anyone's in a position to really say anything like that.

 

[Clinamenic]

The Book of Cycles: 001

On structure

maq3.substack.com

Ford and Martel: “The Tower [card in Tarot]… encapsulates Genesis, the concept of the Fall… The Tower [symbolizes] the failure of systematizing processes, of attempts at capturing the totality in some kind of man-made artifact, whether it be a philosophical system or a civilization. The things of this world cannot contains things of the Other World, and if they try, they will eventually come up against the Real, symbolized in this card by the lightning bolt.”

The Tower may have a clock at the top, standardizing and synchronizing the rhythms of the city around it, a construced source of truth… The Tower may have an observatory at its top, with a telescope for star-gazing… The Tower is in the shape of a telescope, eyepiece pointed to the sky… The Tower may support a spotlight, an all-seeing eye—nefariously searching city streets for deviance, or sea-combing to steer a ship around a reef… “The lighthouse of consciousness”: body as tower.

Or the Tower of Tarot is the Tower of Babel is the hope of Esperanto… ONE unified language, ONE god universe (Burroughs), ONE totalizing code and system… A transient and local max personified, masquerading as timeless global peak… A working edifice built through labor which gives great vantage in lofty airs. Which is struck down by a bolt of lightning, a bolt of reality intruding from outside the system (Murphy’s Law), a bolt of the unaccounted-for. Or which is overwhelmed and washed away by the tidal terrors of the Sea’s absolving unity. Or which is blown over by great winds. Or which is ransacked by vandals. Newsom follows Joyce follows Carroll, using the metaphor of eggshells—Humpty-Dumpty’s great Fall. The fragile, protective barrier (structure) cracks up. Finn’s tumbles from his ladder and is resurrected. Christ, mounted on the Cross, reaches the peak of his powers and reincarnates in textual form…

The lesson of the Tower: there will be no final solution… The lesson of the Tower: this too shall pass… The lesson of the Tower: all structure into dust (it is like a desert sphinx)...

The Fall of the Tower is a chance to rebuild: to erect a newer, stabler structure with the rubble of the old. The collapse of the Tower is proof that the Tower no longer stands up to the forces it is tasked with defying. Death is an evolutionary strategy for passing information through time…

Just subscribed!

 

[thirdform]

This stuff just sounds made up again. You're coming out with these cosmic universals as though anyone's in a position to really say anything like that.

no, it is logically and objectively true, unless you want to bypass language as the mode of communication entirely. That's the only way you could deny what I'm saying. In which case, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. To postulate a zero in time is to postulate nonexistence.

 

[thirdform]

the only way you could postulate a zero in time is to argue that god is outside of time and space, but then you will never be able to explain that without appeals to faith and clerical authority.

 

[thirdform]

you will never have a complete system of knowledge because that's not how knowledge or reality works. That would mean that one is identical to itself, and it never is. what you are pining for is some kind of closed system, and that seems depressing.