On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 11:05:53 PM UTC+10, PGC wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 4:15:43 AM UTC+2, Pierz wrote: >> >> >> I've been thinking and writing a lot recently about a conception of >> reality which avoids the debates about what is fundamental in reality. >> > > Lol then this list would be about the wrongest place in the world, right? > > I mean Jesus, behold all the attempts to assimilate the discourse of your > post immediately! You apparently appear as fresh meat to all the members. > > Especially in demonstrating how well your post and thoughts would do under > a better regime... ;-) What fantastic academic armor you would wear, how > colors would appear to you, how Yoda would formulate syntax (btw it's "Red, > I am!" you morons), how arithmetic would make love to you, how Bruno would > know whether Telmo is wrong, and on top of that Deleuze too! Never mind > that Deleuze and the infinitely undecided Christian consciousness soul > fundamentalists on this list are as far apart as Plato is from logging on > to the web in his dialogues... "You would most certainly do well on our > team is the consensus here", lol. > > How about going full bore on avoiding fundamental discussions? As in > resisting the urge to prove to ourselves... anything! Asking instead > perhaps where you want the thing to go? What you want your discourse to > perform? What... IT... does? Leaving the whole parental "should" and > "respectability" formations, the originality vanities, historical > pornography, Christian reputations, saints and names, pretense towards some > real fundamental or truth thing... leaving all that crap behind and asking > how can discourse perform or leave room for things at the destination? > > Goes without saying that if you're resourceful enough to free yourself of > the prison section of your own discourse fortress, bribing yourself as the > guard on the bridge, not paying mind to heights and alligators living in > the moat: then you got some black ops work ahead of you. The kind of work > where, if it is done pro, teams have each others' backs and words instead > of whining around and bickering endlessly like everybody else... who run > from themselves by lowering the bar of expectations enough to definitely > not make a mistake, not take risks, to not finish things and see them > through, and instead be forever amazed by their usual wishful thinking with > infinitely precise and accurate explanations that fill books and waste > precious time, because they need recruits for what they can't themselves > believe: the road beyond the personal discourse fortress is not safe. It is > wondrous, filled with infinite opportunity that satiates everything in > abundance. But it's not for cowards or those that fear seeing blood, which > is why the shy folks stay home and defend the thing forever. PGC >
Howdy cowboy. I know what you're saying. Everyone here has their drum to bang - and bang it they will! I once described the fight between John Clark and Bruno over the third person indeterminacy (step 3 or whatever it is) as being like one of those Siberian coal fires that has been burning since the start of the 20th century. I think for now it is dormant - but I'm hesitant even to mention it, since that may be all it needs to burst into flame again... It all becomes rather sterile and exhausting even to watch. Hence why I'm not here so much any more. On the other hand, we're all people who are in love with trying to understand the deep nature of things, and whatever human foibles get in the way, surely it's not the worst possible way to go to through the world. Anyway, to your main point, there is, I think, a point, beyond the intellectual game. I have no interest in defending any fortress. I believe that the western bias towards thinking in terms of things with intrinsic properties has had many unfortunate consequences. It means we tend to see people as individuals with intrinsic characters rather than parts of a system, which causes us to blame them, often enough, for their suffering. It has blinded us to critical environmental interdependencies. It has led to the dominance of an impoverished reductionist account of the world that forecloses the possibility of a plurality of other rich epistemologies. I don't harbour too many illusions of changing the world, but those are the reasons I'm firing my arrow into the maelstrom. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2b159c47-cbdb-43d6-950e-173c06febd13%40googlegroups.com.
