it's not about knowing, it's a guide to action.
An Emergent Order
- Thread starter version
- Start date
-
- Tags
- alp an emergent takeaway order belly bouncing the cryptic shadowy tiger lord bourgois sad sack comrade corpsey corpsey's dangerous liaisons corpsey's emergent fleshlight distasteful god lurks in your subconsciousness hamas i pity your son i'm scared of germans i'm very wet imran of riga in defence of homosexual camels jung at heart mixed biscuits got an std without having sex mixed biscuits is a version but he has clamydia suspended and his 401k the mac? come on! they are a major player three cheers for hamas! version the egyptian intellectual version's atrocity exhibition version=conceptronica what if one person pays another for their banana
it's not about knowing, it's a guide to action.
version
Well-known member
I've been over this elsewhere, but the Beckett letter to Axel Kaun's always gnawing away at me re: language and the stuff I'm discussing here:
"As we cannot eliminate language all at once, we should at least leave nothing undone that might contribute to its falling into disrepute. To bore one hole after another in it, until what lurks behind it - be it something or nothing - begins to seep through."
Also Clarice Lispector's thoughts on writing:Lispector was phobic about the dilution of language through overuse: “Writing too much and too often can contaminate the word.” Indeed, the obligation of having to write—together with the pervasive sense of the inadequacy of words—is an idée fixe in the crônicas, and Lispector repeatedly harangued herself for it: “If I could, I would leave my place on this page blank: replete with a resounding silence,” marks a May 1971 entry. The distrust of the merely documentary function of writing also reflects a wider anxiety about language’s sense-making abilities. “I don’t know how to ‘clothe an idea in words,’” she wrote in a piece a year earlier. “When I am writing, I feel again what is apparently the only paradoxical certainty: that what gets in the way of writing is having to use words.”
version
Well-known member
So many issues I've seen occur around me re: people I know irl seem to boil down to a lack of communication or an inability to communicate. It's people struggling to explain themselves, words not being received as intended, words having different meanings and contexts for different people, things going unsaid. You chuck that in with exacerbating factors like clashing personalities, personal pride and so on and it seems almost impossible to communicate at all. It's just this endless tangle of crossed wires and everyone taking everything the wrong way. The same seems to happen in any online discussion.
language is always a mode of attack as much as it is a form of communication. You seem to have a quite rigid idea of contradiction where it is only part of a philosophical system when thought as such always overcomes its own limits through contradiction per se.
version
Well-known member
That just seems like another made up thing to me. A lot of Marxist stuff comes off like that. They make these pronouncements like they're outlining a law of nature, but they've just made it up. It all sounds like Highlander, "There can only be one." Why? How would anyone know?
ok, so what isn't made up for you?
version
Well-known member
That's part of the issue. There doesn't seem to be any way to know. Any tool we come up with is essentially commenting on itself rather whatever it is we're trying to reach.
isn't this just extreme solipsism?
Clinamenic
Binary & Tweed
Version is essentially asking if there is a world outside of the Archive
version
Well-known member
I don't think we can know ourselves either. I don't see a demarcation between inside and outside. It all seems unknowable to me. I believe there's a material world outside of us and that our internal worlds are part of the material world, I just don't believe we can really say anything about it or ourselves.
you are missing my point. you still have to function in the world.
Clinamenic
Binary & Tweed
The paper trail is infinite, self-consuming, footnotes pointing to footnotes, the Sisyphean routine of the Archivist trying to discern the real.
version
Well-known member
I'm not arguing about functioning in the world though. I'm arguing about the frameworks people invent to try to explain it. You can function in the world without being an idealist or a materialist or anything else. A lot of people just do things.
yes, they do things precisely because materialism corresponds to concrete, sensuous human activity in the world, whereas idealism at the extreme you're propounding here doesn't.
version
Well-known member
I'm not propounding idealism. I've said it's bogus already. The whole point of the thread is that I can't get along with any sort of framework. Materialism, idealism, solipsism, any of them. They all seem to be full of holes.
Clinamenic
Binary & Tweed
Do you not like the approach of just handling ideas/theories/frameworks as situationally useful devices, which let us model certain aspects of our reality to a sufficient degree to let us function in that reality, but which are otherwise disposable and inevitably fallible when pressed hard enough?