Non-Truth and Non-finality

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Montgomery77
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 10:40 pm
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Non-Truth and Non-finality

Post by Montgomery77 »

The problem of "metaphysical truth" has no "solution", no "resolution.", no finality.


For the same reason there is nowhere to begin to trace the graphics of the empty set, difference, Nontology, "god before the gods", etc. For what is put into question is precisely the quest for a rightful beginning, an absolute point of departure, a first principle.

The problematic of thought is opened by putting into question the value of the origin. What I will propose here will not be elaborated simply as a logical discourse, operating according to principles, postulates, axioms, or definitions, and proceeding along the discursive lines of a linear order of reasons. In the description of Nontology , everything is strategic and adventurous.

Strategic because no transcendent truth present outside the field of writing can govern theologically the totality of the field. Adventurous because this strategy is a not simple strategy in the sense that strategy orients tactics according to a final goal, an ultimate truth or theme of domination, a mastery and ultimate reappropriation of the development of the field.

Finally, a strategy without finality, what might be called blind tactics, or empirical wandering if the value of empiricism did not itself acquire its entire meaning in opposition to Nontology. If there is a certain wandering in the tracing of origin, it no more follows the lines of nontological thinking than that of its symmetrical and integral inverse, empirical-perceptual- logic. The concept of play keeps it beyond this opposition, announcing, on the end of thought and beyond it, the unity of chance and necessity in calculations without end.
Breath
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2015 5:49 am
Location: In my skin

Re: Non-Truth and Non-finality

Post by Breath »

Montgomery77 wrote:The problem of "metaphysical truth" has no "solution", no "resolution.", no finality.


For the same reason there is nowhere to begin to trace the graphics of the empty set, difference, Nontology, "god before the gods", etc. For what is put into question is precisely the quest for a rightful beginning, an absolute point of departure, a first principle.

The problematic of thought is opened by putting into question the value of the origin. What I will propose here will not be elaborated simply as a logical discourse, operating according to principles, postulates, axioms, or definitions, and proceeding along the discursive lines of a linear order of reasons. In the description of Nontology , everything is strategic and adventurous.

Strategic because no transcendent truth present outside the field of writing can govern theologically the totality of the field. Adventurous because this strategy is a not simple strategy in the sense that strategy orients tactics according to a final goal, an ultimate truth or theme of domination, a mastery and ultimate reappropriation of the development of the field.

Finally, a strategy without finality, what might be called blind tactics, or empirical wandering if the value of empiricism did not itself acquire its entire meaning in opposition to Nontology. If there is a certain wandering in the tracing of origin, it no more follows the lines of nontological thinking than that of its symmetrical and integral inverse, empirical-perceptual- logic. The concept of play keeps it beyond this opposition, announcing, on the end of thought and beyond it, the unity of chance and necessity in calculations without end.
There is no problem of metaphysical anything, given there is only the given.

Breath
User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 1547
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm

Re: Non-Truth and Non-finality

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie »

Breath wrote:
Montgomery77 wrote:The problem of "metaphysical truth" has no "solution", no "resolution.", no finality.


For the same reason there is nowhere to begin to trace the graphics of the empty set, difference, Nontology, "god before the gods", etc. For what is put into question is precisely the quest for a rightful beginning, an absolute point of departure, a first principle.

The problematic of thought is opened by putting into question the value of the origin. What I will propose here will not be elaborated simply as a logical discourse, operating according to principles, postulates, axioms, or definitions, and proceeding along the discursive lines of a linear order of reasons. In the description of Nontology , everything is strategic and adventurous.

Strategic because no transcendent truth present outside the field of writing can govern theologically the totality of the field. Adventurous because this strategy is a not simple strategy in the sense that strategy orients tactics according to a final goal, an ultimate truth or theme of domination, a mastery and ultimate reappropriation of the development of the field.

Finally, a strategy without finality, what might be called blind tactics, or empirical wandering if the value of empiricism did not itself acquire its entire meaning in opposition to Nontology. If there is a certain wandering in the tracing of origin, it no more follows the lines of nontological thinking than that of its symmetrical and integral inverse, empirical-perceptual- logic. The concept of play keeps it beyond this opposition, announcing, on the end of thought and beyond it, the unity of chance and necessity in calculations without end.
There is no problem of metaphysical anything, given there is only the given.

Breath
Right, people only fuss about "oh my gosh...the universe had to have came from somewhere" because they like to fuss. What is so problematic about the notion of it just existing to begin with?

My personal theory is it is just a similutation though, ran by another similuation, ran by another similuation (matrix penumbra, fractal type theory)
Montgomery77
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 10:40 pm
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: Non-Truth and Non-finality

Post by Montgomery77 »

Yet what foundation does this "right-ness", "non-problem" or given-ness rest?

To the center or axis of those (your) assertions, no inquiry is ever made *
Breath
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2015 5:49 am
Location: In my skin

Re: Non-Truth and Non-finality

Post by Breath »

Montgomery77 wrote:Yet what foundation does this "right-ness", "non-problem" or given-ness rest?

To the center or axis of those (your) assertions, no inquiry is ever made *
Are you asking for a causal explanation of the given?
User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 1547
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm

Re: Non-Truth and Non-finality

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie »

Montgomery77 wrote:Yet what foundation does this "right-ness", "non-problem" or given-ness rest?

To the center or axis of those (your) assertions, no inquiry is ever made *
The attitude that things need a foundation doesn't seem to be helping modern civilization any. As most things having to do with modern life are built on a foundation built of sand.
Montgomery77
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 10:40 pm
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: Non-Truth and Non-finality

Post by Montgomery77 »

Breath wrote:
Montgomery77 wrote:Yet what foundation does this "right-ness", "non-problem" or given-ness rest?

To the center or axis of those (your) assertions, no inquiry is ever made *
Are you asking for a causal explanation of the given?


Rather, my inquiry is to highlight- rather than produce- what here writes itself.

Causality is the "principle that everything has a cause", in other words, a "foundation", "origin", "effect", "being", "truth" , "arch"?

What then is the principe of this (all) principles?

What opens the possibility of causality, explanations, the given.

Or, if we prefer, non-causality, opacity, and non-given-ness?
Montgomery77
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 10:40 pm
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: Non-Truth and Non-finality

Post by Montgomery77 »

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:
Montgomery77 wrote:Yet what foundation does this "right-ness", "non-problem" or given-ness rest?

To the center or axis of those (your) assertions, no inquiry is ever made *
The attitude that things need a foundation doesn't seem to be helping modern civilization any. As most things having to do with modern life are built on a foundation built of sand.

I agree, are strategy then would be to move in a polymorphic or fluid way, erasing our "key "terms" even as we assert them. This is what Derrida means by writing "under Erasure"
User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 1547
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm

Re: Non-Truth and Non-finality

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie »

Montgomery77 wrote:
Breath wrote:
Montgomery77 wrote:Yet what foundation does this "right-ness", "non-problem" or given-ness rest?

To the center or axis of those (your) assertions, no inquiry is ever made *
Are you asking for a causal explanation of the given?


Rather, my inquiry is to highlight- rather than produce- what here writes itself.

Causality is the "principle that everything has a cause", in other words, a "foundation", "origin", "effect", "being", "truth" , "arch"?

What then is the principe of this (all) principles?

What opens the possibility of causality, explanations, the given.

Or, if we prefer, non-causality, opacity, and non-given-ness?
I believe a re-update of the English language is in order.

A factory does not "produce" items, it transforms matter.

The English language is a whole mess of delusions.

Causality is a product of inertia, and time. Without either there would be no causality.

Apparently there's a theory going around that God is inertia...The theory is not saying that God is "above" causality, but that in essence...God was oneness, and for it, oneness was just not enough, so it subdivided itself so it could experience itself, and the contrast of essence. Sort of like a divine force umphed by God,
erasing our "key "terms" even as we assert them.
I blame the English language being filled with outdated terms
Montgomery77
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 10:40 pm
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: Non-Truth and Non-finality

Post by Montgomery77 »

No origin(al) information can be given about Causality and God and Time , about their essence and about their (verbal) essence

[it is] of the nominal essence

[it is] which can be tangibly put forth in the form of assertions.

The possibility of being must be granted (or is by itself already granted ) for the human to being to say "I am" or "you are" or "she is."

Even such negative concepts as non-reality or un-being are held within this pre-comprehended question of being which is asked and answered non-verbally, non-nominally, and without agency.

The question, "what is...this or that" therefore, cannot be constructed to match an assertive answer. And the human being is the place or zone where this particular problem has its play
Breath
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2015 5:49 am
Location: In my skin

Re: Non-Truth and Non-finality

Post by Breath »

Montgomery77 wrote:
Breath wrote:
Montgomery77 wrote:Yet what foundation does this "right-ness", "non-problem" or given-ness rest?

To the center or axis of those (your) assertions, no inquiry is ever made *
Are you asking for a causal explanation of the given?


Rather, my inquiry is to highlight- rather than produce- what here writes itself.

Causality is the "principle that everything has a cause", in other words, a "foundation", "origin", "effect", "being", "truth" , "arch"?

What then is the principe of this (all) principles?

What opens the possibility of causality, explanations, the given.

Or, if we prefer, non-causality, opacity, and non-given-ness?
You signal that we are in a word game when you say you are pursuing an inquiry. Before you can meaningfully pursue any inquiry, you must ground the act of inquiry itself.

What is an inquiry? what is a question?

What is a question? is first and foremost a statement, simply because what? is a question.
The alternate meaning is an absurd one.

What is a question? is questioning questioning. There is no foundation for that act, because it rests on an infinite regress.
User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 1547
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm

Re: Non-Truth and Non-finality

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie »

Breath wrote: You signal that we are in a word game when you say you are pursuing an inquiry. Before you can meaningfully pursue any inquiry, you must ground the act of inquiry itself.

What is an inquiry? what is a question?

What is a question? is first and foremost a statement, simply because what? is a question.
The alternate meaning is an absurd one.

What is a question? is questioning questioning. There is no foundation for that act, because it rests on an infinite regress.
No. If you want to get technical. A question is a series of runes. The runes are represented by a neural network in the brain. The runes are rendered in physical space in the visual cortex. The runes are then transformed into sound waves. This is percieved as a question? What does this question do? It is intended as a ping. To recieve new and improved runes. The goal of a question is to realign the previous runes and neural network into a state of higher alignment.

This is why people shun stupid questions. It indicates a poorly aligned neural network. But even worse than stupid questions are stupid answers. Stupid answers may put the neural network in a state of less efficient, less truthful, and less accurate condition. A neural network in a non-truthful configuration is said to be delusional. However, the problem is that the other neural networks are in all probability delusional as well, so them calling other neural networks delusional is not necessarily true.

The nature to question was part of human DNA nature. However in modern times such nature is being replaced with herd mentality. DNA might have only been around for billions of years, but I'd say it qualifies as a foundation.
Breath
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2015 5:49 am
Location: In my skin

Re: Non-Truth and Non-finality

Post by Breath »

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:
No. If you want to get technical. A question is a series of runes. The runes are represented by a neural network in the brain. The runes are rendered in physical space in the visual cortex. The runes are then transformed into sound waves. This is percieved as a question? What does this question do? It is intended as a ping. To recieve new and improved runes. The goal of a question is to realign the previous runes and neural network into a state of higher alignment.

This is why people shun stupid questions. It indicates a poorly aligned neural network. But even worse than stupid questions are stupid answers. Stupid answers may put the neural network in a state of less efficient, less truthful, and less accurate condition. A neural network in a non-truthful configuration is said to be delusional. However, the problem is that the other neural networks are in all probability delusional as well, so them calling other neural networks delusional is not necessarily true.

The nature to question was part of human DNA nature. However in modern times such nature is being replaced with herd mentality. DNA might have only been around for billions of years, but I'd say it qualifies as a foundation.
You do not honestly expect to be taken seriously, do you :?:
User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 1547
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm

Re: Non-Truth and Non-finality

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie »

Breath wrote:
GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:
No. If you want to get technical. A question is a series of runes. The runes are represented by a neural network in the brain. The runes are rendered in physical space in the visual cortex. The runes are then transformed into sound waves. This is percieved as a question? What does this question do? It is intended as a ping. To recieve new and improved runes. The goal of a question is to realign the previous runes and neural network into a state of higher alignment.

This is why people shun stupid questions. It indicates a poorly aligned neural network. But even worse than stupid questions are stupid answers. Stupid answers may put the neural network in a state of less efficient, less truthful, and less accurate condition. A neural network in a non-truthful configuration is said to be delusional. However, the problem is that the other neural networks are in all probability delusional as well, so them calling other neural networks delusional is not necessarily true.

The nature to question was part of human DNA nature. However in modern times such nature is being replaced with herd mentality. DNA might have only been around for billions of years, but I'd say it qualifies as a foundation.
You do not honestly expect to be taken seriously, do you :?:
Do you? I don't see how anything I said is false. If you want to laugh at the truth, it's not my business. Time and time again you humans have proved that's all you are ever capable of, all you will ever be. Humans are not the sum of their parts - but less.
Montgomery77
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 10:40 pm
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: Non-Truth and Non-finality

Post by Montgomery77 »

You signal that we are in a word game when you say you are pursuing an inquiry. Before you can meaningfully pursue any inquiry, you must ground the act of inquiry itself.

What is an inquiry? what is a question?

What is a question? is first and foremost a statement, simply because what? is a question.
The alternate meaning is an absurd one.

What is a question? is questioning questioning. There is no foundation for that act, because it rests on an infinite regress.[/quote]


Amen, I tell you, the beginning (ENDINGBEGINNOW) of thought would be to open this regress, not as a "going back", or any "infinity" but to the opening of Openess itself.

In other words, that which opens questioning and indifference, progress and regress, finitude and infinity, etc


The ENDINGBEGINNOW of philosophy is to restore the memory of that free and commanding signified, to discover Urwörter [originary words] in the language of the world by learning to by-pass the limiting logic of signification.
Post Reply