In a stage of inverse decadence, I see the opinion I hold of one man to be rising exponentially the more I read him. This newfound penchant of mine is not a leap of faith, but a rather instinctual temerity that guides me to favor his writings. He made, in my mind, passage from pessimist, existentialist, and now, to interpreter of aesthetics. For it holds that I see someone in multiple contexts; some of these contexts are terribly out of his/her control, for the contexts I dare to create are, for the most part, superficialities or reductionist approaches to his/her person. Who, but the ironists that pave streets with not asphalt but with satire, and those who use irony instead of mortar between the bricks surely create villages of utmost sturdiness and foundation unmatched. I too, desire the hoariness displayed by the hunchbacked coots, tenured with hands behind their backs and pondering and expressing because their job allows any misguided opinion to take place.
And it would be rather saccharine to discover what one should do in his/her life at a precocious age, for what we will know that suits us best will be done happily because it was found earlier. Finding one's niche in life early will prove that the rest of his/her life is at the disposal of that niche and perhaps knowing it so early can give us passage to other relevant and necessary intelligensia. For the rife we face in life are those nine to fivers, all those things that are advocated by those who are already doing them, justifiably or unjustifiably so, and we sometimes do not know if the job has convinced them before their own misery in life. It will be cardinal to beguile those who advise you to choose to work that you are better than the rife jobs that will eventually make us reach more ideal and happy jobs. For only alienists will testify in the end, when we are all retired and even more reflective in life than we already are, and they will be ones determining who was insane and who was logical. Those alienists are our daemons. Let it be a socratic daemon than an evil one, for the evil ones have no place but to urge us to desire surrogates to our spiritual appetency.
It is cardinal that the fools who persuade us and define us to be who we are supposed to be are the ones who wish to self-justify their existence. I say this cynically because not one character wishes to give advice contrary to his/her life. And if this is not the case, advice will be given with the advisory that what was done was done only out of great misfortune and stupidity and that it never be repeated again. Though it is unfortunate that only the commonplace misapprehensions be admitted to a group, for it is normative to carry with you the tablets that once broke your back upon your journey into less paved paths. For the most abominable thing one can do is to admit that he/she is not carrying the tablets upon his/her back, only to find that an entire stack has accumulated behind the person. The fool does not even now that his/her latissimus dorsi has increased by 250% and that any blow to the head performed by that individual might as well be a train coming at you at 100mph.
The biggest histrionic puppet show one can do on stage is that of socks. For socks are the harmless, most docile creatures that do nothing more than talk and bite. They are ones that dominate the heart of spring chickens with their falsettos and patterned rings. But do not gull the children of the future, for they will be ones that will give future advisories to their children, ad infinitum. I strongly suggest you relegate; that all those people who advice you, though wise and seasoned as they are, could be defining you and therefore limiting you. As cliché as can be, it may be true.
I feel, sometimes, that it would be the case that we would be all incredibly intransigent had we not learned about certain things. For if we wanted to be a master of gore, one would not tell us to wince when we see a body getting crushed against a car, or an animal getting run over, for children sometimes do not know how to act in situations like that. Of course, some will argue biologically and say that those who wince are hard-wired and already know how to wince since birth, for nurture is not as strong as the phenomena. But I say that to be limited may also mean to be cured of any future shaping of self-concept taking place after a certain period of time. This would imply preserving the intransigent nature of the self. I do not say: dismiss reason and all its relevant premises, but, avoid all things that strive to limit or "concretize" the self.
Imagine a bulwark if you will. For all things that preserve the grains of sand on the beach are things that retain "beachhood"; that is to say that a beach is preserved as best as possible, granted crashing curls and flaps of waves come down to claim such glittering prizes. Well, you know perfectly well that a beach can still be called a beach in the event that a child puts some of its sand in his pocket and runs along to the monotony of suburbia. No definitive amount of sand is necessary to call a beach, a beach. Of course, it will get to the point where rocks begin to dominate the finer, grainier "rocks" and pretty soon we find ourselves sunbathing among jagged boulders. Well, then, we don't have a beach.
"Beachhood" is something I would like to relate to personhood. It is cardinal that we all have our own bulwark. For we are all (well fine.. some) are born as a fecund island. The island is ensouled by washing up on shore. The island grows and trees bear fruit. One day, the waves come along and take away some of the sand. We do not mind, because as far as we are concerned, we are still a beach and bearing fruit, carefree and putting along. Let carillons sound when the next several thousand waves come to claim the sand, and this is where islands begin to differ from other islands.
One island, quite aware that the waves will come once again to claim more sand, will build a bulwark for its own practical protection. Knowing that the waves gave it life, it respects the wave but also fears it. We shall call the waves "phenomena." Depending on how big this bulwark is depends on the skepticism of the island, for the island wishes to remain a beach and even more fundamentally, a beached island. So the bulwark is created with just enough protection so that the waves are taken in respectfully, but only some conceding sand escapes. But the sand that wishes to remain a part of the beach is not taken by the waves and it settles a little further to the sediment, unchanging and being a part of the beach.
The we have the other island. This island sees waves but sees it as a benign force. It needs no such bulwark for protection because it trusts the waves. The waves crash in and claim the sand every day. Thousands of years later, the beach has become something other than a beach and the island seems different than before. Of course, it is not to say that the island has become empty, for the waves of phenomena will always replace that which it took, for all causes have anterior causes that date back even to the beginning of the island's existence when plate tectonics fed the island life. Also, remember that the ensoulment of the island took place viz a vis the waves, and nothing else truly gave it life but the waves. The waves is the island's mother. It is not only the mother, but also the sum totality of experience coming down on the island. After taking so much sand, the island still exists, but can we call it a beach anymore? Something is missing.
Either case demands a detachment from ardent argumentation and an abrogation in bias. With that in mind, I believe that some kind of bulwark be created for the sake of the island and for the beach. For there is such a thing as a healthy bulwark with a healthy size and healthy proportion. No beach would be complete without it. A bulwark is cardinal to the preservation of the beach. I say this because waves take things away not equally or proportionally, but systematically and randomly. If an island prized itself with its golden white peninsula, the wave will not amble around the protrusion in order to salvage the aesthetics of the island; it will consume anything randomly when it has the chance. That is why the principles of waves are so phenomenal and we can only guess by use of Pythagorean probability that it will be crashing down on a specific date. It is not absurd to advocate precaution. And if it is, perhaps we should destroy emergency rations for earthquakes for those living along the ring of fire, or cancel fire insurance in increasingly dry desert areas. An island was ensouled and if the island finds itself good, then it will wish to preserve itself.
The waves are not teleological. They are short-tempered and ephemeral, hardly a thing that cares. It will decide, in its algorithmic accord, that some islands are better than others by virtue of it sparing some and destroying others. An island has no say in the matter. But a bulwark can guide and focus a wave's uncontrollability and fend it off for quite some time and this is what I like so much about this protection. When sand is lost, a beach will eventually be lost. Categorically, it can be said that a beach is no longer a beach when it has no sand, but a beach may not be a beach also when too little sand is apparent. Then, if the island is good and the beach is good, then both should be preserved. The island wishes to remain intransigent. Whatever the waves take away from the island, fine. It will be the case that perfect preservation will never happen, no matter how strong the bulwark. What I can say is that, for whatever the waves do take away, the island will remain intransigent but will gain reason. It will gain reason whenever a wave takes away from its "unreasonableness."
With this, the island becomes more reasonable and the once unaffected beach is slowly being shaped into a distinguished and intellectual frieze. So amazing in its shape and conviction, it may almost prove theodicy by declaring itself an unmoved mover that is being move constantly, but can retain itself indefinitely.
For waves represent extension,time, and phenomena while the island represents the self. We are fettered by the causal chain, but thanks to Kant's Transcendental Unity of Apperception, we note that we are bound by it, but once we're done shackling ourselves with its palladium-colored hinges, we no longer feel its presence on it. Just as we drive with our car, we focus on the road and sometimes forget that our shirt is touching our skin, our back is touching the seat of the car, our right foot is touching the pedal, our right hand is touching the steering wheel, and all of this occurs so simultaneously. But now, I speak of frivolities.
An island feels waves and its beach is determined by these waves. How, then, can the sand preserve itself? Bulwarks! But if... the waves are phenomena, the island is the self, the beach is the will, and the sand represents important internal causes that make up the will, what in the hell does the bulwark represent?
The bulwark is the filtration system which reduces phenomena to smaller, more digestible phenomena. It cannot choose specifically what kind of phenomena will be let in, but it can at least block the great majority of it. With most of the phenomena blocked, the will is preserved, and the self is maintained. This is basically the definition of being intransigent. Of course, we are causally determined to think, as we have interior dispositions affecting our current ones. We are causally determined physically because we would have anterior causes causing us to be where we are now. And epiphenominalism will never reign since the mind can affect the body and externalities with emotions and suggestions that can actually cause other things. I do see that a filtration system is needed somehow to become an unmoved mover, or at least a partial unmoved mover, but unfortunately I must make this unfortunate distinction that being an unmoved mover is one of the most categorical concepts of philosophy and no degrees can be bestowed upon it unless logic is proposed to support it. I need to know what the bulwark really is.
I stand now, a bewildered island.
First Theory:((Destroying one's conception of time or destroying the memory may be synonymous to the creation of a bulwark because to avoid being affected by phenomena, one must not be a receiver of phenomena. Of course, it is the case that a bulwark will only minimize phenomena, not destroy it completely. Destroying the memory will mean that the island will have no recollection of itself, but at the same time will preserve the beach. If such a block is in place, but blocked initially by the awareness of the island, then once it is in place, the consciousness of the island slips away to a timeless void, free from crashing waves what point is being a One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest unmoved mover?))
Objection: Those who do not possess intentionality are still affected by outside phenomena. Just because one island does not have the conception of time doesn't mean that all of time will just stop when one consciousness is lost. This is evident in the case where one person dies and time continues on as if nothing happened. The causal chain is not a human construct like time, and therfore operates independently of any human conscious. Even if all persons were to die the very next day, time would no longer exist but causality would continue to exist...... right (question for Parent)*****************?
|
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
criticalhit's journal