@AmalekDSA Nah it doesn't, but my point is the thick concept of God is the one theists should defend:

https://x.com/Lainofwired93/status/1917516392825319867

@AmalekDSA My reply to this is basically:

1. "Necessary being" is always self contradictory, because its essence/behaviour is determined by itself, concieved as determining and determined. Father and Logos/Holy-Geist, Transcendent and immanent Brahman. etc.

But the latter is part of...

@AmalekDSA I always found this to miss the point of the theistic claim. @AmalekDSA Kant (a theist) is right to identify that the theist claim requires a lot more evidence than the deist claim AND YET is a much stronger claim. This is because the "necessary being or not" is an antinomie of reason whereby we observe the series of causes and work back to the first

I think this too is reductive. Misandrist tropes has material-semiotic force only against marginalised men (Palestinian and Black men, for instance) and trans women, who due to trans misogyny, are assumed to be violent, "appropriating" with no respect for the feminine mystique.

https://twitter.com/Faerynnistired/status/1825468781445144731

The trans misogynistic gesture however completely ignores that the most mysterious, complex thing in the universe (the feminine mystique) can be rigorously formalised; or else you're just gesturing towards the Earth-mother.

@rzrbladewyl I mean entropy anx cybernetics applied to society is total bullshit. Deleuze refuted that idea in Difference and Repetition. @rzrbladewyl The idea that the entropy and complexification of society makes it more unstable is bs cus:

1. The arrow of entropy only flows for modifications of existing systems.

2. Society is not limited in its quantities of entropy.

The social bwo produces infinite social energy.

Art is a resolution to the antinomy that we see everyone, including ourselves, as a super-position of subject("thou") and object("it"). Consciousness of something as a subject is consciousness of it having some capacity to affect.

Conciousness of one's own "self that observes" as "feeling" something, is actually a sort of objectification. "I am feeling sad".

European far right is built around nations as "Fasces", unities of with one Will. The European far right thinks this needs to be restored to its proper place of sovereignty.

The Anglo-American far right is basically the same movement, but built around the white race. Traditions, institutions, culture, art, buildings, people, are all considered by the far right as being "of" these supposed unities (race, nation, etc). Thus the far right wishes to save them and cleanse them of the bad things they believe is infesting them.

A good essay on why I prefer continental to analytic philosophy. If Aristotle had gone to a continental class, he would have come away terrified, broken, feeling like there is no guiding light, no justice and no truth. The main aim of continental "metaphysics" and "logic" should be to destroy "lifeworlds", while also explaining how the appearences came to be. It should aim for "thick" unity of phenomenological given and metaphysical giving, with no resemblance between the two.

The Tao Te Jing's wisdom of frugality concerning rational interventions (especially on the side of the state) is sufficient to critique most problems with contemporary, media saturated, globally integrated society. People: "Do something about this!"

experts: "But the situation is too complex?!?!"

People: "I'm not asking you, I'm telling you"

*the Something fails

Other people: "Clearly this means the experts should have full power to do the Somethings that solve all problems"

For an understanding of being as difference, read the linked essay.

¬

The analogy at the end is very helpful, and shows how the conventions of formal logic can help liberate sapient beings:

philarchive.org/archive/VANWIT…

(the image in pic 2 is from Difference and Repetition) Everything that appears (all X) appears as inherently existing. It appears as XI This changes our concept of things.

XI is not, ¬. But XC is, which is the appearence of XI with the internalised knowledge that it is actually conventionally existent, dependent, and...

The brain-worms of associating "essence" or "what X is" with "the set of X making properties" is why people make fun of analytic philosophy "Well yeah, in a purely naturalistic sense, but the truth of X has not yet been shown"

Remember my threads on Kiki-Bubar? They come in handy. My claim is that these aren't just phenomenological, and there is no underlying "structure".

By Ra-Hoor-Kuit this is one of Scott Bakker's most frightening essays:

rsbakker.wordpress.com/2018/04/29/the… This actually reminds me of the Marx-Freuerbach debates ("critique of religion is over"). Critique of post-truth is over. Power and resistance will "move" quite indifferent to their bankruptcy. And we are sitting, impotent, totally unable to do anything about it.

Enlightenment is:

The structure of the world/causality is known to be different from the original model such that all the apparent facts justifying action in the world no longer actually obtain.

rsbakker.wordpress.com/2018/03/27/enl… The integrated world system can only adapt linearly, while science discovers methods of manipulation exponentially.

medium.com/@EdwardWaverle…

But this isn't really depressing because freedom and control are not simply weighed up against each other. That would be facile.

Speculative metaphysical/phenomenological essences ("Being is becoming" for example) is not the same as formal cause (the 4 dimensional complex system). I think the murder of metaphysics by science was really just the idea that "essences" are kinda inert, and that for humans there is no certain way to derrive the speculative propositions.

I seriously regret WASTING 3 years of my life going to university and doing a continentalism course. If you're a middle class DUMPY my advice to you is to get into Buddhism or something rather than Continental philosophy and its current "science envy" and disdain for everything technical and everything ordinary people do. Its smug, imitation of transcending "capitalism".

Maybe I'm just so committed to univocity of being because any fundamental structure to being (AND the real qua the real!) would be sufficient to give being a quality. The real issue is this could lend legitimacy to certain institutions, actions and ethics. For example "transcendental deductions" (or deductions from existing relations, identities and the necessary entailments of stuff "you ought not to take what is not yours", implying property "is" and as such is a ground for restriction.

"How is it such that, qua being, there is something that appears to be, but is Not?

What is the real (and not merely apparent) way of being of the appearances?"

On this, the eliminativist is silent, why? Because neuro science too is silent.

https://twitter.com/VikramParalkar/status/1649899131068993537

Epiphenomenolism basically says that appearances have *no isomorphism* and be explained by how beings are. It is silent as to the causes of our intuitions and appearances. There is nothing to explain about them...

Except their locality (only in humans? Animals?)...

The is a monkey-pig is, trapped in a cage with more dimensions than its simple mind can comprehend. The fowl wreckage of its imagination desperately attempts to penetrate a crack in its borough it can fit an "=" operator, hoping to cancel its cage out. "matter is the prison, mind is the guard, and men pride themselves on figuring out "did the prison exist before the guard?" rather than breaking out!"

-George Battaile on Gnosticism.

I know speculative theology is silly but this may help for mystical contemplation:

Arch angels contemplate the pure essence/whatness of the sefirot.

The inhabitants (supernal triad and Baphomet) are revealed as the real "way of being" the sefirots secretly have. Realising the connection and "inhabiting" in abstract, then integrating that into daily life, is what initiation is.

@14JUN1995 Marxism should be grounded in the empirical fact of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall and nothing else. @14JUN1995 (I'm using "empirical" in the common parlance not the technical sense)

This strikes many people as odd, why start with one of the most controversial claims of Marx? Two claims:

1. Automation of labour is going beyond a profit principle

2. Mega-corps no longer make a profit

This is almost facile.

Any situation wherein there remains one state that attempts infinite resource extraction from its neighbours (both human and natural), means that states will have no choice but to continue extracting to deter other states.

This includes Palestine, Iran...

https://twitter.com/nanuserMarxist/status/1649435646484791298

China, Nigeria, NATO, France, Sudan, Brazil, Ukraine, Chad-Republic. Only island nations have any advantage in this game.

No significant reduction in extraction is possible without Big liberation, even something like an African Union proposed by Gaddafi may barely register.

Subversive abstraction...

https://twitter.com/Agonhamza/status/1649033447719989249

The fantasy of every leftist is to "grasp" the instrument of control, to use it like the One Ring. But the instrument has its own will. It is not a neutral apparatus "piloted" by an expression of one collective interest for another. What is the resolution to this problem?