Postcards:

[d63]

“Anyways, my "philosophy" is centered around the "Realist" point of view, of that this world is real.”

“BTW: My perspective tends to be centered around the poetic point of view.

But as long as we don't presume to change the others perspective (or be each other's guru), I think we will jam just fine together.”

It appears we have a dichotomy, my friend. But I have to ask if your realist position includes that described by Andreicut in her PN article “Kant and Rand on Rationality & Reality”. As Andreicut describes Rand’s objectivism:

“She launched the objectivist movement, arguing, contrary to Kant, that there is no distinction between appearances and the world as it is in itself – the two are one and the same. This in turn makes it possible for human beings to gain perfect knowledge of their surroundings: objective reality is in front of us at all times, and perception is our key to taking in this reality. “

Of course, this would create a bit of an impasse for us in that my position is that there is no way to get around the subjective interference inherently involved in that regardless of whether the real world exists in the very way we see it or not, it can only exist for us in our heads. As phenomenology points out: for every external event (noema) there is a correlating internal event (noesis). And Rand serves as a perfect example of this limitation in that she conned herself by acting as if her reverence for brute facts somehow gave her license to make speculative assertions and conjectures as if they were brute facts: such as the notion that Laisse Faire Capitalism is the only system under which we can find our higher selves. Not to undermine your position. But from where I stand, it is not enough to claim to be a realist, or use words like “objectivity”, “facts”, or “the scientific method”; you also have to stay consistently within the perimeters of your own criteria.

That said, I’m starting to find a bit of synthesis between our 2 positions in Deleuze’s Difference and Repetition via Levi Bryant’s Difference and Repetition. It appears that both our positions are misguided in that both are mired in the tradition of the subject/object dichotomy. They both act as if we are sitting outside of our relationship with the object making judgments concerning the accuracy of our description of the object. However, if we accept Deleuze’s machine-like vision of being and think of our self as a kind of system interacting with the system of the object, we find our self intertwined with it to the extent that we can know it in an intimate manner while being incapable of doing so without including certain elements of our own system (subjective interference).

We go through a 2 way process when we encounter an object. We start with the process of synthesis in which the object imposes itself on the subject through various singularities or qualia that the (not) subject then constructs into a concept –the passive synthesis. This is followed by the active synthesis in which the concept is imposed on the object through the process of schematism.

And not to undermine your position, but to articulate what is at stake here, one of the main criticisms presented here is that the realist position is based on the assumption that since the first process is passive, it is necessarily non-productive. However, Deleuze asserts that it is creatively productive through what he refers to as the dice role or chance. I hope and look forward to you addressing this. I’ve been fumbling around a lot here because I’m moving out my comfort zone. But hopefully we’ll be able to hash this out together.

[WanderingLands]

It appears we have a dichotomy, my friend. But I have to ask if your realist position includes that described by Andreicut in her PN article “Kant and Rant on Rationality & Reality”. As Andreicut describes Rand’s objectivism:

“She launched the objectivist movement, arguing, contrary to Kant, that there is no distinction between appearances and the world as it is in itself – the two are one and the same. This in turn makes it possible for human beings to gain perfect knowledge of their surroundings: objective reality is in front of us at all times, and perception is our key to taking in this reality. “

I've heard of Kant and looked into his ideas, but I've never really looked too much into at Rand (I realize you quoted Ayn Rand). I believe it's because her philosophy, the Austrian Libertarian school, does not really interest me, for the reason given that her ideas, and the Austrian Libertarian school, was not at all appealing to me (ie. support of corporations above the people). I believe that quote you shared with me is also incorrect, because of its inherently biased nature.

I've looked more into Gottfried W. Leibniz, who was a rationalist philosopher in 18th century Germany (somewhere in present day Germany). His philosophy is centered, as I recall, around the idea that this "world" that we live in is the best of all worlds, as it can be better, and that there are also multiple worlds. The main work that I've looked at by Leibniz is called Monadology, where he expanded on the idea of "monads" being purely indivisible parts that make up reality. I'm also into Georg W.F. Hegel and his philosophy, especially on the concept of dialectics and how to use dialectics to find Truth from Knowledge (which he defined in his book, Phenomenology of Spirit, as being somewhat different from Truth).

For me personally, though, I believe in trusting my "inner intuition" to guide me through things, whether it be everyday life or on a macrocosmic scale, which is in the nutshell "Metaphysics" or the ultimate nature of being and life. As much as I love to look at philosophers, I have to realize, though, that what I read from these people is not my revealed knowledge. I guess thus, I may have somewhat of an "empirical" approach, more or less on some scale, even though on the other hand, it's always still good to "reason", I guess.

Of course, this would create a bit of an impasse for us in that my position is that there is no way to get around the subjective interference inherently involved in that, regardless of whether the real world exists in the very way we see it or not, it can only exist for us in our heads. As phenomenology points out: for every external event (noema) there is a correlating internal event (noesis). And Rand serves as a perfect example of this limitation in that she conned herself by acting as if her reverence for brute facts somehow gave her license to make speculative assertions and conjectures as if they were brute facts: such as the notion that Laisse Faire Capitalism is the only system under which we can find our higher selves. Not to undermine your position. But from where I stand, it is not enough to claim to be a realist, or use words like “objectivity”, “facts”, or “the scientific method”; you also have to stay consistently within the perimeters of your own criteria.

What you said here is most definitely true, in that judging things by our perceptions, especially the "excess" of our perceptions (ie. bias and all of its manifestations). I'd say that if we are to try and eliminate our bias and try to look at other points of view, and to actually "look within" ourselves instead of just listening to others opinions which often times cause confusion and dissonance in the mind, then maybe we could possibly find a glimpse of Truth. The journey is long ad continuing, and so as long as we live it shall always continue, and that's why it's never good to stay in one paradigm or think that you've "found" Truth, because there's a good chance that you have not found "Truth", and now you've moved back into thinking dogmatically.

That said, I’m starting to find a bit of synthesis between our 2 positions in Deleuze’s Difference and Repetition via Levi Bryant’s Difference and Repetition. It appears that both our positions are misguided in that both are mired in the tradition of the subject/object dichotomy. They both act as if we are sitting outside of our relationship with the object making judgments concerning the accuracy of our description of the object. However, if we accept Deleuze’s machine-like vision of being and think of our self as a kind of system interacting with the system of the object, we find our self intertwined with it to the extent that we can know it in an intimate manner while being incapable of doing so without including certain elements of our own system (subjective interference).

We go through a 2 way process when we encounter an object. We start with the process of synthesis in which the object imposes itself on the subject through various singularities or qualia that the (not) subject then constructs into a concept –the passive synthesis. This is followed by the active synthesis in which the concept is imposed on the object through the process of schematism.

And not to undermine your position, but to articulate what is at stake here, one of the main criticisms presented here is that the realist position is based on the assumption that since the first process is passive, it is necessarily non-productive. However, Deleuze asserts that it is creatively productive through what he refers to as the dice role or chance. I hope and look forward to you addressing this. I’ve been fumbling around a lot here because I’m moving out my comfort zone. But hopefully we’ll be able to hash this out together.

I do actually acknowledge the consequences of putting too much emphasis on "what's real". What I meant though by "Realism", is the broad statement, that what I'm saying is that anything that moves and vibrates is real (ie. Energy). Nevertheless, I do agree with the perspective of Idealism, in that our "ideas" are what shape our "world view" and our own small "reality", and that all of our "realities" to some degree are differing and unique. So in other words, I believe that what I'm saying is more or less a combination of Realism and Idealism, in order to articulate the more technical side of the broad statement and one truth: that the All is One.

[d63]

Look forward to responding to this, wandering.

But you do know that I have multiple projects going with a limited window to deal with them, right?

[WanderingLands]

I do acknowledge that, and so I'll let you continue what you're doing what you're doing. That's why I told you to PM me if you want to continue this here. I would advise you, though, to not spread yourself too thin, as you will get tired and end up in the same tedious repitition if you do so.

[d63]

Not the conditions I usually like to go into this (2 minis and 2 shots of jager at the bar rather than 1 each), Wandering, but I’ll do my best. But forgive me if I seem to be wandering

(And BTW, this one is just between you and me. I feel I owe you that(

:

“I'm also into Georg W.F. Hegel and his philosophy, especially on the concept of dialectics and how to use dialectics to find Truth from Knowledge (which he defined in his book, Phenomenology of Spirit, as being somewhat different from Truth).”

Once again, I do not want (nor would presume ( to be your guru. I just want to show you a lick in this jam that I’ve gathered from my experience with Hegel and the dialectic:

The popular notion is that it is about the triad of the thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. And the sources I’ve been looking at have pointed out that this is basically a textbook interpretation of Hegel that he never actually proposed. Kind of like the material dialecticism that is associated with Marx but was actually Engel’s addition.

The thing is, even if this is a wrong interpretation of Hegel, it is still a useful model. It actually works. And from a pragmatic perspective: what could possibly be wrong with that? In other words, even bad or misguided interpretations can have their uses. And what else are we looking for but what we can use for our individual process.

That said, the interpretation I have come to resonate and be seduced by is that pointed out in an audiobook: George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: the giants of philosophy. In this version, a certain phenomenon is approached as a given order with gaps, broken down into its component parts (chaos), then brought back together into a new (tentatively better( order (synthesis).

And, in all honesty, this appeals to me more as an artist than it does my interest in philosophy. You see it all the time in the stories we tell. Take, for instance, David Lynch’s Blue Velvet. In this story, you see 2 mirroring story arcs. On the surface, you see a rise in the tension that starts with an incident (the finding of the ear –along with the main character’s dad having a stroke), then builds to a crisis (the confrontation with Frank), then works to the climax in which the main character shoots Frank, then the denouement in which everything is put back in a new order that ends with Kyle MacLauchlan’s character with Laura Dern’s character and the dad doing just fine. Still, you have to assume that Kyle MacLauchlan’s character is changed as well as Laura Dern’s.

At the same time, there was this Freudian motif at work that I like to call the Dante motif in that it followed the trilogy of inferno, purgatory, and paradismo. All the time the tension was building, there was a sense that you were going deeper into yourself (into the chaos( until you worked your way back to yourself as you experience it every day –that is in a different way.

And we see as much in Shakespeare. I mean what is Hamlet but a process of going from a standing order to complete chaos and the return to a new order?

[d63]

[d63]

Sorry about that, Wandering. Kind of went off the rails last night.

[WanderingLands]

“I'm also into Georg W.F. Hegel and his philosophy, especially on the concept of dialectics and how to use dialectics to find Truth from Knowledge (which he defined in his book, Phenomenology of Spirit, as being somewhat different from Truth).”

Once again, I do not want (nor would presume ( to be your guru. I just want to show you a lick in this jam that I’ve gathered from my experience with Hegel and the dialectic:

The popular notion is that it is about the triad of the thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. And the sources I’ve been looking at have pointed out that this is basically a textbook interpretation of Hegel that he never actually proposed. Kind of like the material dialecticism that is associated with Marx but was actually Engel’s addition.

The thing is, even if this is a wrong interpretation of Hegel, it is still a useful model. It actually works. And from a pragmatic perspective: what could possibly be wrong with that? In other words, even bad or misguided interpretations can have their uses. And what else are we looking for but what we can use for our individual process.

That said, the interpretation I have come to resonate and be seduced by is that pointed out in an audiobook: George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: the giants of philosophy. In this version, a certain phenomenon is approached as a given order with gaps, broken down into its component parts (chaos), then brought back together into a new (tentatively better( order (synthesis).

And, in all honesty, this appeals to me more as an artist than it does my interest in philosophy. You see it all the time in the stories we tell. Take, for instance, David Lynch’s Blue Velvet. In this story, you see 2 mirroring story arcs. On the surface, you see a rise in the tension that starts with an incident (the finding of the ear –along with the main character’s dad having a stroke), then builds to a crisis (the confrontation with Frank), then works to the climax in which the main character shoots Frank, then the denouement in which everything is put back in a new order that ends with Kyle MacLauchlan’s character with Laura Dern’s character and the dad doing just fine. Still, you have to assume that Kyle MacLauchlan’s character is changed as well as Laura Dern’s.

At the same time, there was this Freudian motif at work that I like to call the Dante motif in that it followed the trilogy of inferno, purgatory, and paradismo. All the time the tension was building, there was a sense that you were going deeper into yourself (into the chaos( until you worked your way back to yourself as you experience it every day –that is in a different way.

And we see as much in Shakespeare. I mean what is Hamlet but a process of going from a standing order to complete chaos and the return to a new order?

Now, the Dialectics when I was researching Hegelianism was mainly about the "thing in itself" and the "thing out of itself", so it is pretty much about the person (in itself) experiences the external world (out of itself), and how to get to Truth through the observations and experiences in the "Real World". Now, what you've talked about, with the rise, fall, and redemption, does pretty much count as a dialectic, as there are no rules in formulating dialectics.

The thing about Hegel is, is that his works are at times very complicated to understand, because the way he writes is very difficult and can at times make me drift away from the focus on reading his works. That's probably the reason why most of the people who claimed to have adopted the dialectics (such as mainly Marxists with their dialectical materialism), have only rehashed some of the things of Hegel that are at least a bit easier to understand. If you ask me, the Marxist version of dialectics and Hegel is simplified and mainly suited for Political purposes, whereas Hegel may have been sing the dialectics for possibly more deeper metaphysical purposes (I have a book in PDF form called Hegel & the Hermetic Tradition).

[WanderingLands]

Sorry about that, Wandering. Kind of went off the rails last night.

Don't worry, man. It's all about relaxing and being in tuned with the groove.

Anyways, I must ask. Your form of dialogue is called "jam", and you also used the word "lick". Are you a musician by any means? I'm just wondering.

[d63]

"The thing about Hegel is, is that his works are at times very complicated to understand, because the way he writes is very difficult and can at times make me drift away from the focus on reading his works. That's probably the reason why most of the people who claimed to have adopted the dialectics (such as mainly Marxists with their dialectical materialism), have only rehashed some of the things of Hegel that are at least a bit easier to understand. If you ask me, the Marxist version of dialectics and Hegel is simplified and mainly suited for Political purposes, whereas Hegel may have been sing the dialectics for possibly more deeper metaphysical purposes (I have a book in PDF form called Hegel & the Hermetic Tradition)."

Yeah, that's what I've heard about Hegel. But I would, at the very least, like to get to the oxford companion to him. As far as the Marxist version (Material Dialecticalism),that was actually Engel's addition which may have, in turn, been responsible for the textbook model of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.

"Anyways, I must ask. Your form of dialogue is called "jam", and you also used the word "lick". Are you a musician by any means? I'm just wondering."

Actually, the process that got me here started with me as a musician. There was a time when I thought it my manifest destiny to be rock star. In fact, my interest in philosophy started with me buying Will Durrant's The Story of Philosophy to see how Aristotle's Categorical Imperative would effect my music -which shows how much I actually knew about it at the time. And because of that, I have always sought a rock star approach to everything I have done. However, before I got to my focus on this, I have also gone through poetry, fiction and general writing, and art. So you can see why Deleuze has such an appeal to me.

Hopefully, that will explain a lot for you.

[WanderingLands]

Yeah, I'm a musician myself, too, and also had wanted to be be a rock star back when I was a young kid I got into Philosophy later on in my life as I was looking into history, politics, and also religion and the occult.

[d63]

Yeah, I'm a musician myself, too, and also had wanted to be be a rock star back when I was a young kid I got into Philosophy later on in my life as I was looking into history, politics, and also religion and the occult.

yeah: went through a witchcraft phase myself


(loved the archetypes and poetic gestures:



pulling down the moon and all that....


When you're young, you believe you can take it all on. It's the beauty of being able to take a lot of things in and see what comes out. It's the kind of experiment that justifies a point A to point B. But it changes as you get older and realize you have less and less time to do what it is you want to do. You end up narrowing things down.

[WanderingLands]

Yeah, I have a lot of ambitions myself, as I start becoming an adult soon (right now, I'm 17 years old). I tend to jump around many things; from music to researching, to philosophy and spirituality, so I pretty much have a lot of spunk and some impatience in me that I need to somewhat control.

[d63]

Yeah, I have a lot of ambitions myself, as I start becoming an adult soon (right now, I'm 17 years old). I tend to jump around many things; from music to researching, to philosophy and spirituality, so I pretty much have a lot of spunk and some impatience in me that I need to somewhat control.

Christ! 17!!! That's impressive. You're clearly off to a good start.

But yeah, on one hand it is good to diversify and to see what results from the overlaps and hybrids. It can give you an advantage in that sense. On the other hand, I started when I was 15 and I'm 52 now, and you can see where I'm at because I could never stick with one thing. I love what, I'm doing. But still.... I have to wonder to this day where I would be if I had stuck with music. On the other, though, had I become a rock star I could very possibly be dead from a drug overdose or a burnt out shell of my former self, or more so than I actually am.

Also, after I got older (in my 40's) with a half way decent job in maintenance, I settled into the idea of being beyond the hope of "making it" and the freedom it gave me to bounce around and experiment. But as I go into my 50s, I find myself with maybe 20 to 25 more productive years. And suddenly that doesn't seem like much. I find myself having to trim more and more off my previously ambitious wishlist. Just a warning.

Also, be weary of the social bonds and commitments you form. People will, even with the best of intentions, bog you down with the petty and mundane. There is just something about the world, or our system, that gravitates towards it. If you're serious about it, you'll have to focus all your energy on your process and be willing to do so without any assurance of reinforcement or support from the industry you are trying to break into. And without that support, it get harder to keep that focus if you start bogging yourself down with obligations.

Finally, some of the best advice I have gotten on the creative of the mind came from a book about being an artist concerned myth of art as a mystical act. As it pointed out, art is an activity like cabinet making or pottery. I know it's kind of a letdown. It was for me. But there has to be something you can engage in to further your process in those tedious moments between moments of inspiration. You can't expect to be flowing all the time.

But yeah, godspeed man!

[d63]

“It’s a little like arguing: 1+1=2; Capitalism is the only legitimate economic system there is. It’s as if we should be so impressed by the fact that they got the 1+1 part right (that which is perfectly repeatable) we should automatically accept the assertion about Capitalism.

Once again, it is as if the moral aspect of repetition has bled into the scientific aspect along with the notion that we should simply accept it because it can be repeated and apply it to whatever assertions the powers that be make –that is when the repetition involved is generally based on the powers that be repeating it.”

“Then the question becomes: how do we keep the formula if we overcome capitalism? Or really how do we fucking ditch capitalism, given that this formula is so much empowering its dominance?

We need to slightly alter the formula. Or we need to identify what in it it is that works - and I say it's the periodic difference. The inclusion of difference in the repetition pattern - the concept of economic growth. “

That’s just the catch, FC, it’s not so much a matter of ditching Capitalism as ditching the oppression it has come to represent. However, if you really look at our current autocracy, you find that there really isn’t anything that new about it. It still utilizes the same kind of ideological tactics that oppressive societies have used throughout time. Note, for instance, the similarity between the old divine right theory used to justify the old monarchies and the invisible hand of the market used to justify the power of the rich. And in the same sense, wasn’t it a similar appeal to the higher principle of Communism that underwrote the power of bureaucrats in Eastern practices of Marxism? This is because throughout history, no matter what ideological banner we have worked under, there has always been the same problem: there has always been a handful of people who felt they deserved more than everyone else, even if it came at the expense of everyone else. Even if we overcome Capitalism, the seeds of oppression will always be waiting in the wings. There can be no final solution because the need for power has always found a way to turn the superstructure (the cultural environment) to its advantage.

The problem for me, as much as I hate to admit it, is suggested in another dialogue we had:

“And in order for science and Capitalism to retain the power they have, they have to turn to repetition. Difference could only undermine their power.”

“I think difference is included in the repetition, as in fashion and all the periodical time-fetishes we have with products and their successors.”

The problem, and what is major cause for self revision, is that Capitalism, as your point suggests, is a form of oppression that has evolved to the point that it has learned to exploit difference (unlike any oppressive social system before) in that it has to keep us in a constant state of change in order to keep us beholden to it through credit. Still, it can turn to the old moral code of repetition when called on its failures:

“It’s not the income gap that is the problem; it is the lack of family values.”

“Why should we pay into social security for the sake of the elderly when we can just REPEAT what people did in the old days: take care of their elderly?”

As Deleuze and Guattarri point out: Capitalism, technically, should be a force of de-territorialization (freedom); but there is something about it that is constantly re-territorializing (the tyranny of the functional and profitable –or that which enslaves us to our role as producer/consumers).

And as I have come to realize, one of the notions that tends to be associated with totalitarian societies is the notion of the automaton. And we can see this possibility on the producer side of the equation. Our employers want us to produce like machines –hence the war-like wrath against such behaviors as drinking, doing drugs, or smoking cigarettes (once again: the tyranny of the functional that dominates our political and social dialogue). At the same time, the problem with automatons for Capitalism is that they don’t make very good consumers. I mean what does an automaton need but basic needs: basic foods and shelter? Therefore, the logical way for it to proceed is to create automatons who experience freedom to the extent that they stay within the perimeters of their role as producer/consumers. Hence the notion that choice between Coke or Pepsi, or what product to buy, is the only real freedom we need.

This, I believe, is why the republican party has managed to sustain what should be an obsolete ideology. And I offer as proof, not Fox News which pretty much brags about its role in the hegemony: the notion that the only solution to our problem is to drop to our knees and kiss the ass of every rich person we see, but CNN and MSNBC which has given liberalism such a corporate (candy coated (gloss as to render them useless to anyone who is thinking progressively. They’re no better than Fox when it comes to presenting our situation as if it was a sporting event: a constructed happening with enough contingencies to make us believe it is something more than that which stays within the perimeters of corporate design.

And once again, this is the cool thing about Deleuze and French philosophy in general: they have developed dissent to the point of asking us to look deeper for the source of our oppression than doxa and popular media would have us believe it actually is. We have to ask the question:

What is it about people that they will seek their own oppression. Or as one philosopher pointed out:

"The strange thing isn't that people strike when they feel exploited or steal when they're hungry, but that they're not doing it on a regular basis."

We eventually have to ask if it isn't so much a problem of them as it is of us.