Aphorisms & Dreams

Freedom/Nessecity Dialect:

For some reason i find free will or determinism debate to be inconsiquential, though i tend to lean more with a unusual form of determinism, in that we will never know the direct line of causality between any phenomena because the effect is a cause of the cause just as much as the effect is effected by the cause, thus transcending any telological movement from one prior essence towards the effect, all causes are effects, and all effects are causes. All phenomena are contextualized and have an inssurmountalbe potentialities (to say that one is not reaching ones potential is an absurdity), all conditions finess our current state (which is never a 'state' but a phantom, a transistory becoming). But that does not mean we should not act because it doesnt matter since what we do its determined, i think thats mixing up teleological determinism with aleatory determinism, if you want to call it that. (i.e. random determinism doesnt rely on any deity, its just suggesting that our conscious minds are embedded in the socio-historical conditions that give us our ability to decipher meaning through recognizing patterns [linguistic, aesthetic, ethical, simple categorization, ect..], and as such, are determined by the structure of those material conditions, but one must remember that there is no passive subject. All individuals are create their conditiosn for reproduction and subjectivity just as much as they are created (or Interpellated) as subjects. Thus the object and subject are in a sense not dualities, but exsist through each other and become nothing through their illustrious difference. They constitute each other, but the thing is one could say there is no other to be found, since the other is the self, and the self is the other, it is the spaces inbetween, the atemporality that is where becomeing, learning, praxis all develop.

Metalanguage:

all language is in an sense a metalanguage, i.e. being self referential to the code or 'language talking about language', the signifier in a sense becomes its own signified, and thus lacks any real trancendential sign outside of its tautologies, and thus is a myth...since its signified is in referance to its self.. and its signifier is the sign that has been created, it thus can not formulate any truth conditions. Most transcendental realists suppose there is outside of the system that we are talking about, but in a sense i feel , along with derrida, that all signified can in a sense be a signifier of what was previously its signifier which thus becomes the signified, and in a system of differance where value is not positive but differential, the system can not stabalize itself, as the referents all become self referential or can be and thus all stability or realism thus crashes onto the ground.

Refraction and Praxis:

History is molded by the present actions of praxis, which go through backward causality to create a symphony of parabolic influence. Imperminance of being means that past is molded by the present actions, the past only gains context/ meaning through its relations. Thus the future is the presenent is the past. Determinism both forwardly, and backwards. The past determines the present, but the present in turn manipulates the past, and is a product of it, leading to a tautology of cyclical porportions, Past=Present, Present=past. Though this seems like stating nothing, one needs to see that the past is only created through the present, and arises through such (it should be noted that the present state of being is illustrious and phantasmical). And contradictory the present only gains meaning through its past historical relations, but the past is created through the present. The complexities of this interaction makes the concept of freedom/determinism quite superflous, and illusionary. this arising of dependant co-arising (buddhist concept, draw parallels) shows a pathway through causality and action.