Author: Christopher

55

what is a philosophical mind?

philosophy isn’t about knowing a concept*, it’s about knowing how a concept relates to other concepts

*i.e. being familiar with its definition and the definition of the concept which it is itself used to define – knowing its translation to precisely those few concepts that are adjacent in the standard reductionist abstraction framework and/or are typically associated with it.

54

generalising/expanding Badiou’s notion of the scandal – the notion that scandal is a [morality] device by which [an] ideology persuades people that particular problematic consequences of that ideology are in truth events that [morally] contradict that ideology and that thus don’t undermine/discredit it – thus a culture framing/interpreting events as scandals thus functioning as a kind of defense mechanism… or, in short: something being a scandal implies that it is an aberration – that things are normally not as bad, the scandalous event therefor noteworthy:

Morality and moral judgement/condemnation/prohibition in general perform the same function, just on a more abstract level – & especially what could be called progressive morality, by which I mean morality that continuously seeks/finds new moral frontiers to define[/re-define] itself with/along:

For a newly-emerging/visible domain of problematic consequences of an ideology, a new [phase of progressive] moral norm emerges, proliferates and predominates – which (pre-emptively or retro-actively) positions the ideology as standing in opposition to the bad stuff, as standing on the right side of emerging debate/struggle/conflict…

Furthermore: the morality that an ideology’s culture pushes most is an indication of the issues the ideology/culture is most fearful of discussing (instead of denying/repressing) – feels most guilty about.

This seems the principle/universal of which Badiou’s notion of scandal is the particular.

53

On the triviality/irrelevance of the trendy simulation-hypothesis [when formulated/modeled within my cosmology]

A<=>B

with

A: We are a simulation being run in a universe x;

B: We are [in/on] the level of the cosmos below [abstraction/metaphor-]level x;

To me these two seem logically equivalent – they have the same extension[al truth conditions, etc.].

(With B of course being a statement that is not surprising/interesting – there’s nothing special/strange about there being higher or lower adjacent levels…After all, levels here of course refer to the overall ordering/sequence [of the logic] of our conception of the world, —- and in this context a level can naturally be seen as simulating the next level…)

52

A company is a legal entity/structure that enables someone to convert money into arbitrary/discretionary command-power, i.e. one can order people to do things under threat of real consequences.

so: Law [is a system that] enables one to convert money into power [over others]

-is this what Law is in general?

51

re. As above, so below – the alchemico-astrological tenet

What if particles are the abstractions of astronomical systems?

i.e.: the [quantum-dynamic] structures of particles are the [mathematical] abstractions of the more concrete (complex, continuous, etc.) structures of stellar and planetary entities and systems…

2 levels of the same cosmic metaphorical nature/reality



50

Was vielleicht all die verschiedenen Theoretiker der politischen Freiheit übersehen:

Freiheit kann niemals durch ein institutionalisierte Freiheitspolitik/-theorie gewährleistet werden, sondern nur durch lebendiges, aktives Denken der Menschen/Bürger…

Egal wie die materielle+rechtliche Institutionalisierung einer politischen Freiheitstheorie beschaffen ist, ausschlaggebend ist letzenendes die mentale/geistliche Ebene, the minds of the people… und wenn es so etwas wie eine lebendige Freiheitsidee/-tradition/-bewegung gibt, dann ist die genaue momentane Beschaffung der Institutionen [nachdem eine gewisse Schwelle überschritten wird] auch egal…

oder anders gesagt: Wenn eine gute Freiheitstheorie gefunden worden ist und der nächste Schritt darin besteht, die Theorie zu institutionalisieren, dann wurde die Theorie umsonst gedunden. Denn der nächste Schritt muss vielmehr sein, diese neue Vorstellung der Freiheit zu verbreiten bzw. sich lebendig/natürlich verbreiten zu lassen und sich aus eigener Kraft durchzusetzen und mit erst im Laufe dessen entfachter Kreativität umzusetzen.

späterer Zusatz:

Vielleicht ist der Punkt hier soetwas wie: Theoretiker der Freiheit suchen nach der richtigen/idealen Vorstellung/Version von politischer Freiheit, überlegen aber nicht ob diese Vorstellung vereinbar ist mit ihrer eventuellen Umsetzung+Intitutionalisierung im bestehenden System(Politik/Staat/Recht/Medien etc.)…  sondern nehmen an, dass ihre Aufgabe einfach das Finden der richtigen Vorstellung ist, welche sie dann der Gesellschaft/Politik übergeben und auf eine gute Umsetzung hoffen… Tatsächlich kann(und tut) aber die innere Struktur/Logik der bestehenden Systeme der politischen Freiheit(=stheorie) widersprechen, was das ganze Projekt zum scheitern verurteilt.

Wenn man die Maxime der Freiheit findet, dann ist es leider kontraproduktiv, diese Maxime zum Gesetz zu machen.

 

 

 

49

a key criticism of rational and categorical thinking:

The problem isn’t [just] the categories per se, it’s how we use them in rationalism! It’s categorical logic – how we deduce from categorical statements/judgements/propositions.

maybe in general the problem can be formulated like so:

Due to the fractal structure of nature, [and especially of the dialectical interface between our minds/thoughts/concepts/words and experience/nature,]

no statement of the form  is ever correct! (assuming S and R refer to concepts/general names/categories from science/language, & thus are not simply trivially-artificially defined sub-sets of eachother…)

  • ( I should try later to write why exactly this is the case – how the fractal structure of nature is incompatible with categorical deduction. )

48

a daost-adjacent(?) principle for [utopian/humane] economy

One should only do what one is best at – even the best at

One should commit ones life to what one is the best at – one shouldn’t choose an occupation/career if one knows that someone else will be better than one at it.

If there is no profession that one can be the best at, one can still find something that one is the best at – whether this means opening a [unique] new path or performing a roll (better than anyone else could, due to your identity) in your community/family, in your unique position relative to your specific web of relations…*

Imagine this world, where things are only done by those who are best at them.**

Every individual going that path that fits them, as opposed to being forced down a path that fits the demands of capital/reality – thus equal opportunity for fulfillment of ones desire for life and meaning.

*Or if you want, think of this analytically and more generally in the typical way: as increasing the number of relata in the relational ‘best at’ predicate…

**All but the very best worker, i.e. the master of craft, replaced by machines [and of course apprentices…But do those apprentices simply learn the same craft in the hopes of becoming the best, or simply learn it because it’s what one feels one could do best in among all things one considers doing? Or does apprenticeship change its meaning, so that in every apprenticeship it is implicit that the end of the path is not doing the same as your master, but doing something at least slightly different, something that you will be better at than even the master?]?

February 11th,

a [quasi-]corollary occurred to me:

[whenever possible,] One should only give attention to something if there is no other person who is more interested in that thing…

Obviously, this has particularly weird consequences for mass-media/social media and cultural content.


47

a somewhat daoist practical principle:

Only do what you know how to do.

(If you don’t know how, then don’t try to do it – & therefore instead simply relax and let your intuition/instinct/body take control/act/be – i.e. acting without doing, without deciding/willing/forcing/planning)

to understand this principle,

a) consider what it means to know how to do something. E.g. taken radically/strictly it implies complete confidence in acting/performing the task exactly correctly/fittingly/suitably.

&

b) consider what happens when one stops, relaxes and trusts in ones unconscious/body to guide ones behaviour/movement

So this prescribes a radically un-compromising duality: If one doesn’t know exactly how to do something, one simply doesn’t do it. But in practise this just means that ones waits until one finds an easier/simpler thing to do – one which ones knows how to do – before maybe again rationally considering the harder task…

So I don’t think this excludes learning, in fact i think this is an idea about learning: until one knows something, in other words until one has learnt it, one doesn’t DO it in the strict/rational/willful sense, instead one just plays at it, without pretending that one has the exact model, plan and ability for it – without premature discipline.


Don’t push if you don’t know what you’re pushing towards – if you don’t know where you’re going…. We don’t know where we’re going.