The Shadows of Totalization, Part XXXII
The injection of a desperate mental randomness into the simple perceptuum which responds to this,
May not lead to success in lying to myself…I may only succeed in confusing myself.
However, it does introduce an element of interest….I’m no longer trapped in signal-response-signification. Maybe there is an element of creativity now...Something which leads away.
May not lead to success in lying to myself…I may only succeed in confusing myself.
However, it does introduce an element of interest….I’m no longer trapped in signal-response-signification. Maybe there is an element of creativity now...Something which leads away.
posted by Yusef Asabiyah at 12:04 PM
10 Comments:
The questions you pose in that thread is actually quite complex in the way they overlap. They have to do with atleast:
The relation between the name of a thing (any "thing", fx. a color) and the thing itself.
The order or lack of order, of a language.
The question of intentionality, and self-referencing intentionaility. I want to lie to *myself*.
The question of knowledge, can I lie to myself knowing that I do.
If I change the order of my knowledge concerning the names of things, can I lie to myself this way (by confuscating).
I think all of this might have to do with escaping an imaginary or perhaps not imaginary, constraint of language.
Hahaha, here is a funny idea.
"Cupare" in latin means "lie", "pare" from "bare" it becomes "cover" in english, to cover that which is bared.
I then suggest that the lie you are attempting to track down, is the one that covers all things, that of language. Hah heh haha ha, that means saying ANYTHING that is sgniiying of sometheing, in other wors cpohmrenible, is a ile, in other words, a vniuvrslar eli, it makes perfect sense! haha heeh hehha
Thanks, Christoffer. Your comments are very helpful to me.
I am taking time between posts because I am addressing some of the complexity I have conjured up here.
-Y
Hehe heh hehahh ha hahah heh! hahaa! eh
If human language and signification emerged (or was invented or however we wanted to construe its genesis) under the political conditions of despotism,(and it probably did if animal hierarchies vis primates are evidence,) this would give human language a pervasive despotic character which, due to that very pervasiveness, would be difficult to detect or emerge out of. Especially when such emergence out of would violate all good or common sense.
Words couldn't articulate freedom if words were forged in the primitive fires of universal bondage. Thought couldn't think freedom if thought was bonded to brute necessity.
-Y
Well, didnt language "emerge" (for the lack of a better word) under the singular rule of man? Since man was and is, the only being to use written language.
I would also challenge your notion that language does NOT have a pervasive despotic character. It may be hard to detect and certainly impossible to emerge out of.
All of this is of course highly speculative and far reaching, and I am certainly not being conclusive about it.
"I would also challenge your notion that language does NOT have a pervasive despotic character. It may be hard to detect and certainly impossible to emerge out of."
Does this mean you think because I am saying I can't lie to myself I think language doesn't have a pervasive despotic character?
Or are you saying you think language does NOT have a pervasive despotic character?
I didn't understand why you laughed when I said I found your comments helpful. I really do. The complexity and confusion of this is beginning to jar some of my thinking in a way I find exciting.
-Y
I did not laugh in reply to you, but as a continuation of the laugh I began in my own previous post.
I will have to think some more before further replies.
I like to add another "position" (for the lack of a better word), along the same line that language has either a despotic character or "emerged" from a despotic rule. Despotic in the sense that it emerged under the singular rule of man, since man was the only being using a written language. Or reverse this position, that the being of man emerged out of language, or from language, this way under the rule of language, sionce the only way for man to know the world was through language. This raises a problem concerning what constitutes knowledge or experiene of the world. I see this line of inqury heading straight back to my original writings on the homids concerning the fundamental experiences of the world that requires no language. Which is actually a phenomenological inquery, and that surpised me! I surprised myself this way. Haha heh
Yes, this could head straight back to some earlier writing and thinking, and yet the whole purpose of it is to disrupt these vexed questions, vicious circles, and "which came first the chicken or the egg" conundrums, to send the inquiry into unexhausted territories.
That I want to "know" my own spontaneity but can't and that historians can write history but without being able to describe real events-- are similar problems. That we understand biology purely in terms of necessity and function and that neither animals nor plants have any concern with either term is also a similar problem.
-Yusef
Post a Comment
<< Home