Blog Archive


Monday, May 08, 2006

"The condition of the age." "Organism inhabits the symbolic; the symbolic is not a matter of consciousness; a manner of consciousness; the symbolic is a manner of worlding; of inhabitation." Of steward and the symbolic, the emergence of ecology. The fundamental ground of ecology: non-existent, function in relation to ethos. Ethos is always already consensual, boot-strapped; ethos is implicated in, implicates, the Emblematic. The ecological presupposes states of innocence, states of the pre-symbolic; language corrupts, is corrupted; violence coheres to language. The steering-mechanism of the ecological is survival; you might argue as well for the symmetry of beauty; for the inherency (rights, behaviors, cultures) of organisms; for any functional attribution (medical discoveries, cleaner air): these are framed, frameworked, farmed-out. What can be drawn from all of this? What lessons? That the world possesses an Ought: that X or Y ought to survive? Every X or Y is contested. That I agree, that I agree violently, is irrelevant; only that my violence might impinge on your design. I desire the presencing of a world with few intruders; I will argue that, but I cannot found that. That I argue that, is happenstance; is a decision in which belief, not Belief, plays a role. The trick is to drive out transcendence, ignore immanence, violate the slightest appearance of the Absolute; the trick is the sublimation of the sublime. Do I need to argue this? Must one fight?
Do animals have rights? Do humans? What constitutes the "have"? What constitutes inherency, granting? What designates the social? What designates the "natural-social"? Rights are ad hoc; situational; communal; group-identified; legislated; unjust. I cannot appeal to justice; to justice = Justice. Must I fight?
Such issues are articulated; self-organize; within a structuralist territorialization; disappearing outside or beyond (they are beyond) any emblematic. When I = ego = Ego appears within this, this short-circuits. The I is always present; now it is surface, ""my" violence" "on "your" design". This is normal philosophy, non-paradigmatic; philosophical biography is not far behind. The text corners the text; self-references; deconstructs. Retreat. (I emphasize the shame of writing, the written-tawdry, the embarrassment of presence. Let production produce production. I withdraw.)
Beyond or external to mathematics, mathesis, 0 and 1 are situational; they are discursive tokens, floating signifiers. What one presents, the other exculpates; what one withdraws, the other absolves. 0 is already a multiplicity; just look at it. Articulation leads quickly to power sets, cellular automata chaos, differentiations, growth: differentiation to the degree-zero of substance, the analogic. What is ruptured at close sight, smoothes at farther; both are latent, developed much as a photographic plate. Set-theoretical paradoxes are the rubble of mathematics; the mathematics of ideal forms remains in light of them. The continuum hypothesis is subject only to choice outside of the continuum hypothesis; someone does something one way or another with mathesis, axiomatics, infinities. Mathematical ontology is the structure of the world; sets of parameters define all that there is; such parameters may be ab nihilo, virtual, real, stochastic, chaotic, fuzzy; given certain dimensions, certain tolerances, they exhaust. A message from elsewhere is a message by virtue of structure and interpretation. A lesson: the I withdrawn in favor of; as a result of; as a consequence of; the eye. And the eye withdrawn, withdraws.

[28 forthcoming]

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Nice idea with this site its better than most of the rubbish I come across.