?

Log in

There's glass upon this playground [entries|friends|calendar]
expansion

[ website | Happy-Fractals. ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ calendar | livejournal calendar ]

Subjectivity and Profundity [13 Dec 2006|05:42pm]

mostconducive
Objectivity without a predicate nor a coefficient is what I mean by 'pure objectivity.' It is hard to imagine objectivity without the one imagining it, but that is precisely what objectivity is, independent of the subject. Such a conception of objectivity is, self-referentially, a conception still, but the concept's abstraction gives it the power to transcend finite concepts, just as the concept of the infinite does. In this same way, the infinite as a concept transcends its own status as a concept, since it is defined as that which overflows definition. Therefore, though pure objectivity (superjectivity or surjectivity) cannot be pinned down (yet pure subjectivity is the epitome of pinning down since I have defined it as the Infinitesimal), it yet can be known by the concept "Profundity," the source of all meaning and value, or the absolute value of value, or the absolute of value, or the value of the absolute.

So of course Profundity is a concept, and as such a form, but the syntactical object, the literal word is definitely distinct in what it signifies, which is its meaning, the only meaning which can truly be a consense, the only meaning which can be absolutely agreed upon, the meaning of meaning. The semantic object of the term is the infinite of significance. An object derived from objectivity is a contexturalized content, and so a latency of profundity, but a value still, since it is a content. But a content (particularized) is not polycontenturality, which, drawing on Gotthard Gunther's polycontexturality-as-subjectivity thesis, is Profundity.

Thats what I mean by transcendental objectivity. Objectivity in parentheses is the profane and omnipresent object of experience to which those who call themselves materialist-objectivists are attached, and they are the so-called empiricists, but their affiliations do not degrade transcendence itself. Transcendence is inherent to integration, and thus to integers, which even empiricists count on. Empiricists are overly-analytical, and to this extent, they do not appreciate the totality which is one and whole, since they analyze it, in whatever terms, at least in terms of their own consciousness. This is why and how their consciousness lacks essential novelty, and ultimate profundity.

Pure Subjectivity, in my view which I believe is correct based on my experience so far, is the transcendental oneness of the Infinitesimal, the dimensionless point which traces all distinctions, and from the literature I'm into I've identified it with the term 'first distinction' from Spencer-Brown and the post-disciplinary field of cybernetics and semiotics which took to it, but its meaning can be easily inferred, for instance, by comparison to the popular term 'first dimension.' I call it the Infinitesimal since this is how it appears in relation to its background of the Absolute Infinite. It is the entity which traces all distinct forms which appear in every regard, it is the one.
post comment

The Infinitesimal: There Can Be Only One, but who else believes that? [23 Nov 2006|10:46am]

mostconducive
Does anyone know of anyone else's view of the infinitesimal, unity over infinity in fractional form, which is the unicity of one-ness (any unit) which condenses to singularity (without a multiplicity of singularity, acknowledging the paradox, ignoring the plurality)?

I mean to quote the Highlander "There can be only one" [such entity]. I mean, how could there be another in the same frame of reference? They would condense to being the same one. Newton, Leibniz and Abraham Robinson adopted the definition of infinitesimal[s] as non-zero, but less than 'any known number,' suggestive of the "unknowable" aspect of this number, but its not so much unknowable as not graphically representable. Every point has some dimension, its expression is its extension. So the real dimensionless point (usually considered ideal, in contrast to real) is not visible, but it is because it is the viewer, the point of perspectivity, of the observer. If viewed, it could only be sight in itself, of itself.

The definition "non-zero, but smaller than any known number" opens the discussion for a plurality, and reason would have a multiplicity of such entities as they represent the infinitesimal distinctions all forms of and in our world, which compose it. I contrast this view with the singularity of the infinitesimal, that there can be only one real or true infinitesimal. The only other person (in this case, a mathematician and philosopher) I've found to hold this view is Lorenzo Pena of Spain, editor of the electronic journal Sorities. Is there anyone else?

I don't think multiplicity or plurality doesn't exist, of course it does, but there is no discontinuity of parts, it is contained in the continuum ("the real number line" R in mathematics), the four-dimensional space-time matter-energy continuum in our experiential case. The contents of the continuum plus the continuum compose the totality which we are given, the present. That totality is the unicity of one-ness, the singularity, the Infinitesimal. Other continuums (there must be infinitely many) also condense to the Infinitesimal this way, it is the alpha and omega in common. I identify it with the First Distinction of Spencer-Brown, which cybernetics has taken to. And I set the First Distinction in contrast with the First Dimension, that linearity of the number line (expression of the continuum), the first dimension being the first expression of the first distinction which is ever-present. The First Distinction is the cybernetic Proemial Relation between pure subjectivity and pure objectivity, and every distinction (and keys, key distinctions) are only instances of it. The transcendental distinction (also called difference) is the Spirit which animates us (as the point of perspectivity, the supreme being seeing itself being, that 'negativity within God'), the point at which the pen (-ultimate) strikes the paper (or 'page of assertion,' 'unmarked space') in the book. The abstract pen-point of punctuation is the programmer of all programs, the allegorical writer, the author, one-self, the Spirit as negativity in God, and I've found it to be with mathematical precision "The Infinitesimal."

So my question is, who else demands one true infinitesimal? Or am I to take credit for this radical conception of 'unity over infinity'? Please stop me from that, I don't want to be so alone in this expression. But I've searched a lot, and haven't found much confirmation.
post comment

[21 Nov 2006|11:07am]

mostconducive
Leibniz and Newton defined infinitesimals as points which get ever samller akin to the distinctions which define everything. I have a definition of distinction which includes such a conception of infinitesimals, yet it is absolute oneness, the unicity of all units. In my definition, which I take from the one of two-value logic, (wherein the other is left unmarked, called the unmarked space) the one is perfect (pure and transcendental) self-reference, which is pure subjectivity to metaphysicians and scientists of consciousness.

Abraham Robinson's non-standard analysis also used infinitesimal distinctions to produce a calculus. But both these instances where empirically defined distinctions, such as the scissors's junction, or the point of overlap or contrast. The true infinitesimal is not an imaginary number, and this is my theory (I have only found a contemporary mathematician who agrees, named Pena, the editor of Sorites in Spain), the real infinitesimal is one, and there can be only one, and every instance of number "one," as any reference to one-self (and Schrodinger would agree) is the numerically one, the real beginning of the number line (and continuum, not at dimension one, but at the First Distinction, dimension one is the first extension), as I suggest that zero is only a number as much as the Absolute Infinite is. The so-called origin is not zero, but one, and the ultimate reality of the real numbers is what they are only in reference to as a whole (taken in the first place to be one, all numbers) and they are N over (fractional) Infinity, and One is Unity Over Infinity, the real Infinitesimal, There Can Be Only One (to quote M. Lambert).

See what I did? Zero doesn't exist. Nothing is just that. Non-being does not exist. That part is so very simple. But wait, it's all quite simple...

Oneness is being-in-itself, which is pure self-reference. One is absolutely imaginary in its staticity, since its reference to the Other (transcendentally, the Infinitely and Totally Other which Levinas speaks of, to label the Infinite as teh Other or pure Objectivity or Superjectivity) manifests in-so-much as Other Numbers manifest. In other words, One refers to whatever number has already been counted this time (empirically), otherwise it only refers to the Infinite.

Infinity is overwhelming. To capture its meaning is futile. We do have a word for it, but etymologically it is a negative word meaning "not-finite" where "finite" refers to our state of being, which is not the state of being-in-itself (the first phase of phase-locked space) but of beings (to make the ontico-ontological distinction) wherein we are taken to be only one of them (so-called finite). But we are one, the Subejct of the sentence, and of the universe of discourse, we are singular, I am. I am pure subjectivity in the absolute sense, and you are too, and so are we. So 'we' means one too.

Infinity is in permanent super-position, for it to be posited requires not perfect superjectivity (objectivity) but perfect subjectivity, which is the Spirit which animates us. The Absolute Value of the Infinite (the Infinities of pluralists, including trans-finities) is the Absolute Infinite. The Absolute Infinite is Ultimate Reality. That's a bold declarative statement.

The Absolute Infinite is Ultimate Reality.

The Infinitesimal is Pen-Ultimate Reality.

There can be only one Infinitesimal, and it is Unity over Infinity, the Unity of Infinity, Spinoza and Plotinus' Infinity, as if 'The One'.

Now is the time for these secrets to be revealed, and this is the place of it.

The Zero doesn't exist, and if you demand it to be, you must acknowledge your one-ness, and your two-valued logic. But ultimately you are One, and you are the origin of reality.

Thanks a lot,
Randy Dible
post comment

Abstr-Activate! [12 Nov 2006|12:17am]

mostconducive
Act-ually, the subject of this post is subjectivity. The point of the post is the infinitesimal point, not an infinitesimal, as if there were another, but that the true infinitesimal, like the absolute infinite of infinity before it, is singular. If it is presumed to be in plurality, it would be a multiplicity of units, whose unicity is merely one abstraction removed from its reality as unicity itself.

To quote M. Lambert, "There can be only one." I refer to being-in-itself. Being-in-itself is the self-presentation of the Absolute, or the Absolute self-presentation. But I identify the self with the presence of this being. So to avoid misleading redundancy, let us distinguish being it from seeing it. To see it would posit two infinitesimals, the point signified and the signifier as a "point of consciousness" and so it (seeing it, that relation) wouldn't be dimensionless, it would be precisely the first dimension, that seeing it is its first extension. I am paraphrasing George Spencer-Brown whose "Laws of Form" reified the "First Distinction," as he goes into it "seeing being seeing being seeing being seeing being" (our dimension of time emerging with our material realm at the fifth crossing of the distinction) in the Esalen Institute conference of 1973 (transcripts at lawsofform.org) that Alan Watts organized with Heinz von Foerster and John Lilly, Gregory Bateson in attendance with "distinguished others."

Are you prepared to accept my definition of dimensions?

Having established the point, don't ask me that one, I'd love to get into it, actually I live for it, and it enlivens me (I consider it intellectual samadhi), but don't use the rhetorical form, the critical "what is the point of this?" colloquial idiocy. The point is established, I consider it pen-ultimate reality. Tangentiality may ensue, and re-entry obviates.

The Absolute Infinite is ultimate reality. The finite continuum of subjective experience (actually subjective-objective) is included in the Absolute Infinite, which is to say Infinity contains the finite, but is only obvious in the void state, only obviates in Nirvana (a negative term), the non-relative void, as if there could be nothing, as if there could be everything. Oblivious to ultimate reality, which is always already even more than ever present, we can return to it by concepts such as the Infinite, with mathematical precision. George Cantor went mad with it!

What are the consequences of this? Nothing (which there cannnot be) or (nor?) non-being connot be (definitely) save Infinity. To distinguish the formless Infinity, it's Absolute Value is taken for the Absolute Infinite, the Superject.

Are you prepared to note that the Absolute Infinite is God!? I am, it means the meaning of meaning to me, I call it profundity, the infinity of consciousness whose nature is exceedence, ungraspable.

Are you ready for my definition of the Spirit which animates us? It is the Infinitesimal, pure self-reference, difference itself, transcendental subjectivity.

God is Love (Unconditional being the only condition!), and the Spirit is Life itself, pure self-reference.

Thats what I call a "completed metaphysical system." Attack!
9 comments|post comment

Elephant Universe [02 Aug 2006|07:30am]

jonbeinart
Elephant Universe - Obsessive Compulsive Drawing by Jon Beinart
Elephant Universe - Ink & Graphite on paper A4 by Jon Beinart
post comment

[28 Apr 2006|09:08am]

eloquentsilence


JOIN: micksanctu
post comment

"The Antecedent" [21 Dec 2005|10:26pm]

harold_hood
An interesting discussion is taking place here regarding the nature of spirits before they manifest in physical form. Make sure you read the entire entry, or you may get lost.

Namaste!

(x-posted)
post comment

[23 Nov 2005|01:13am]

tiredofseems
is any one human being capable of drastic change without losing ones initial self and being selfless and undefined?
1 comment|post comment

[25 May 2005|11:09am]
oh_marvelous
[ mood | curious ]

are we our thoughts?

4 comments|post comment

Dune Speak [20 May 2005|03:50am]

tecknovore
[ mood | gloomy ]

"At the quantum level our universe can be seen as an indeterminate place, predictable in a statistical way only when you employ large enough numbers. Between that universe and a relatively predictable one where the passage of a single planet can be timed to a picosecond, other forces come into play. For the in-between universe where we find our daily lives, that which you believe is a dominant force. Your beliefs order the unfolding of daily events. If enough of us believe, a new thing can be made to exist. Belief structure creates a filter which chaos is sifted into order. - Analysis of the Tyrant, the Taraza File: Bene Gesserit Archives

"This is the awe-inspiring universe of magic: There are no atoms, only waves and motions all around. Here, you discard all belief in barriers to understanding. You put aside understanding itself. This universe cannot be seen, cannot be heard, cannot be detected in any way by fixed perceptions. It is the ultimate void where no preordained screens occur upon which forms may be projected. You have only one awareness here - the screen of the magi: Imagination! Here, you learn what it is to be human. You are a creator of order, of beautiful shapes and systems, an organizer of chaos." - The Atreides Manifesto, Bene Gesserit Archives

This is yet another example of the profundity of Frank Herbert. Especially in light of what string theory is positing, his description of the universe being "only waves and motions", is spot on. I also like his description of a malleable consensual reality, it fits into my current model that I'm developing and also jives with some 'scientific' thinking.

Looking through a list of quotes @ http://curator.hotbox.ru/dune.html
shows quite a few more gems from this author.

x-posted

7 comments|post comment

[10 Apr 2005|03:19pm]
oh_marvelous
[ mood | calm ]

Meet Me There
In The Blue
Where Words Are Not
Feeling Remains
Sincerity
Trust In Me
Throw Myself Into Your Door
3 comments|post comment

Check this guy [18 Mar 2005|09:04am]

philowen
[ mood | productive ]

He's so awesome!

http://www.glumbert.com/media/dancewhiteboy.html

1 comment|post comment

[09 Mar 2005|02:16am]
oh_marvelous
[ mood | contemplative ]


you'll be given love
you'll be taken care of
you'll be given love
you have to trust it
maybe not from the sources you've poured yours into
maybe not from the directions you are staring at
twist your head around, it's all around you
all is full of love
all around you
all is full of love
you just ain't receiving
all is full of love
your phone is off the hook
all is full of love
your doors are all shut
all is full of love
6 comments|post comment

[03 Mar 2005|09:32am]
oh_marvelous
[ mood | peaceful ]

The heart never stops growing from it's very first beat.

4 comments|post comment

[27 Feb 2005|09:15am]
oh_marvelous
I want to balance the world on my fingertips & defy every single law created by the sky & it's memories.
3 comments|post comment

death [26 Feb 2005|12:40am]

mahanaxar

While taking a shower Thursday evening I thought about what my future experience of death will be like (if indeed there is one). Not the actual act of dying but after. My main concern isn't exactly what 'afterlife' awaits me, but I'm troubled that death would simply be an ending of my consciousness. Of course if I were to choose the fate of my thoughts and memories I would want them to live on indefinitely, perhaps attaining a sort of absolute knowledge; as is one of the main goals of the study of gnosticism.

While thinking of the possibility of the workings of my mind simply ceasing, I became incredibly disturbed. I had to be staring at the sparkles of reflected light from the water falling from the showerhead for quite a while, since I didn't finish up until I noticed the hot water was gone.

I've found that only way to quell my fear of this situation is to keep hope that there is something than just particles and the space between them. It's a good reason religious faith persists; this fear, and since I value my individuality so vehemently that I can't bring myself to worship a deity (and life so that I'd never end mine purposefully so I can find out) I have to just enjoy the suspense.

[posted on mahanaxar, abstractthought, ravingtheosophy, gnosticism, expansion, and 2_0_1_2 to collect better quality and diversity of outside input]
2 comments|post comment

Gratuitous Grace [22 Feb 2005|11:21pm]

tecknovore
[ mood | thoughtful ]


"Not all young people are looking for money and power.  Some are looking for a happiness and satisfaction which is of the spiritual world, not the materialistic world.  They are looking, but there are not sanctioned paths. 

Open your eyes!  The doors of perception must be opened.  That means these young people must learn by their own experience, to see the world as it was before human beings were on this planet.  That is the real problem today, that people live in towns and cities, where everything is dead.  This material world, made by humans, is a dead world, and will disappear and die.  I would tell the young people to go out into the countryside, go to the meadow, go to the garden, go to the woods.  This is a world of nature to which we belong, absolutely.  It is the circle of life, of which we are an integral part.  Open your eyes, and see the browns and greens of the earth, and the light which is the essence of nature.  The young need to become aware of this circle of life, and realize that it is possible to experience the beauty and deep meaning which is at the core of our relation to nature. 

It is important to have the experience directly...This is why the different forms of religion are no longer adequate.  They are simply words, words, words, without the direct experience of what it is the words represent.  We are now at a phase of human development where we have accumulated an enormous amount of knowledge through scientific research in the material world.  This is very important knowledge, but it must be integrated.  What science has brought to light is true, absolutely true.  But this is only one part, only one side of our existence, that of the natural world.

We must have the experience directly.  And the experience occurs only by opening the mind, and opening all of our senses.  Those doors of perception must be cleansed.  And if the experience does not come spontaneously, on its own, then we may make use of what Huxley calls a gratuitous grace.  This may take the form of psychedelic drugs, or perhaps without drugs through a discipline like yoga.  But what is of greatest importance is that we have personal experience.  Not words, not beliefs, but experience." - Albert Hoffman in a 1996 interview with Charles Grob. 

This is an excerpt from Hallucinogens: a reader edited by Dr. Charles Grob.   I think this is a really well formed view of reality.  He describes the sublimity of nature and the possibility of transcendant experiences from it beautifully, yet he still leaves room for science.  His admonition for direct experience is so refreshingly gnostic.  I am very glad to have had my own 'gratuitous grace' so that I can even grasp the intent of what he is trying to convey.  I can say that had I not been so graced the above passage would appear to be just as it seems, words.   Know what I mean?

If you haven't seen the movie about Albert's most famous chemical discovery, Hoffman's Problem Child, you should.  It has lots of priceless footage of Hoffman, Metzner, Osmond, Mrs. Huxley, and some of the most refreshing attitudes towards the responsible/spiritual/ritualized use of psychoactives that you'll likely see on film.  Too bad there wasn't more effort to video document important figures in the field of psychonautics before they die until relatively recently.   I would have loved a documentary centered around interviews of John Lilly in his last years like the one they did for Jaques Derrida. 

And...
Here's a link to the complete online version of Albert's most famous book.

x-posted

2 comments|post comment

[22 Feb 2005|10:08am]
oh_marvelous
[ mood | peaceful ]

I want to cut & paste pink paper hearts all over the earth.
Everywhere people look, they would constantly be reminded of what really matters.

9 comments|post comment

Consequences of the Calculus of the Present [19 Feb 2005|01:32am]

mostconducive
Consequences of Unkowability: Subjectivity Without Knowledge; Where Nothing is Rationed.

Categoreal Abstract

O. -Order Zerom, Zeroness, Chaos, White Noise,

Transdisciplinary Nomenclature: The Unknowable, Hetero-reference, Loss

Pure Objectivity = Profundity = Love

A. Axiomless Abstraction: Profundity
composed conversion: Paradox - Subjectivity
B. Axiological Abstraction: Universion, Subjectivity, Trinity or Triplicity of Divinity, Marked state, The Parameter

A logical domain can be discerned relatively as a communicative contexture or pattern of junctions of factions and functions (in connexus) whence counted by a Principal or Count (ruling and measuring subjective forms) computes as much as confines a creature by means of praxis or dimensionality. From such angels (algebraic factions and function) subjectivity is manifest as inspiration of a living present The creatures define a present world of scene and stage created contextually and concreted constructurally.

I. -Order One, Oneness

Transdisciplinary Nomenclature: Unity, Self-Reference, Identification,
Pure Subjectivity = Subjectivity = Life

A. Axiomless Abstraction: Subjectivity
configured composition: Paradigm - Subjective forms and Eternal objects
B. Axiological Abstraction: Profundity, Hetero-reference, The Unknowable, Unmarked space, The Axiom

An organism or organization can be concerned relevantly within a community of nations and notions

Corporeally Concrescent

This is a corpus since it unifies an authorative body of text into the terminological or teleological subjective orgasm of peak experience, conceptual seeds of utmost potency paving allegorical forests and uncharted wilderness of novel creatures and natures. Colloquial human spirituality is asymmetrical and hence not attractive enough for other organisms to commune with. From brids, bees, heards, seas, every natural finnished product, and far more supernatural principles primordial (elementals; actually elementalities, mathematical tensors, angels) creatures. Human spirituality is underdeveloped in its "in-touch" feelings, dominant are "in-fomed and "in-told" thoughts. Relativity is far more developed than relevancy. The eternal object of culture is community, as the eternal object of life is love, so external is just a bad word.

A paradise is a cog in God, for God doesn't think or cognize, but is in the cog without the ignition since dynamics are a temporeal perversion of the ever-present God given. Creatures-- captured instances of a creator-- are geared up and such is their general predicament. But each cog is an infinitesimal point of reference, the gear being the rationally ["ratio (half diameter)-nally-deter (indicative) -mined (dug)"] determined sphere or ground of reference whose music is the iterative nature (natural process) of the ground; where the gears are characters, the corpus is an ego or communicative subjective form. The cognizing ego-form (egoic subjective form) operates contextually (by its sense of consense) and defines textually. The world of the ego is the social scene constructed by the consensual definition of the interest
post comment

[16 Feb 2005|09:13pm]
oh_marvelous
[ mood | contemplative ]

unrelenting.

2 comments|post comment

navigation
[ viewing | most recent entries ]
[ go | earlier ]