i had a friend once, we used to meet up for drinks and talk *******... i like that notion: once... because it was only for a short period of time, i got ~bored of him, but in actual fact disgusted by him... one of those Dostoyevsky moments from Notes from the Underground... this is the thing about being well-read, self-educated, self-educated to the point where you can loudly say: university taught me nothing, hence my third class degree and ample material of having observed the pigs's numbed snout nibbling on the trough... how easily someone can say: i'm writing a book! i' writing a book! but when the question comes: can i see it? there's no book! i thought this friendly exchange concerning ***** and other juices of creativity would precipitate into a grand finale of actually seeing the sweat and tears on paper... so when i told him: i'm getting published, 100 copies and all, an introduction by an Armenian doctor... decent review... well... naturally jealousy came in... he said i should name the effort a word salad... funny thing about being well-read... you know certain terminological hot points... he was out there writing a book but really smoking dope and playing computer games like computer games are supposed to be played these days: about a million Stephen Spielbergs directing very economised games, very economised meaning: a great investment in them. he was being condescending with suggesting i name my first collection word salad, but that's the problem of being well-read, you know that word salad is a degrading term for someone not capable of writing a coherent narrative... someone who doesn't understand his own words, someone who writes loosely associated sentences of meaning, it's not a pleasant term... that was simply insulting my intelligence, not the sort of intelligence that's quantified within the framework of the i.q., when i mean the less statistical variation i'm invoking: intelligence quantum - a certain amount of understanding concerning a certain focus of interest - as with Kant, we choose what the mind might find entertaining, and discard what isn't entertaining - certainly, not everything contains in itself enough "energy" (for lack of a better word, hence the " ") to be entertaining, partially because we are limited in what we find entertaining: a) something we understand or b) something we can barely grasp... usually the latter scenario, but sometimes the former... but to claim something is a word salad? let's just say i have enough psychiatric literature under my belt to know it's a degrading remark... and the hermit and a severed friendship.
people never think you're well read,
but they never, for once, think that
your isolation is due to the fact that you read,
as with the above stated scenario of
someone thinking you might not have
come across a phrase, that's essentially
degrading - too much video games and ***
will do that to you...
as with Bukowski
boasting about reading -
he apparently
read Kant but doesn't bother to mention any
key ideas... populist at heart,
sure... if i didn't bother to learn the laws
of spelling and punctuation...
i'd say as much on the rebellion
of never bothering to learn to tie my shoelaces...
it's pretty much the equivalent of...
what he already said.
and philosophy books do
require patience... they're usually masturbated over
by students writing essays and instead
of going the full nine yards and entering
the narrative, they squeeze out a maxim and that's
that...
i'm 30 pages away from
entering the final part of the critique:
transcendental methodology -
30 pages and i'm guessing two years since i
started reading the critique -
well,
philosophy is more geology in terms of reactions
than it is chemistry, where reactions take much
less time to be completed -
philosophy in that sense is a variation
of geology - poetry and other forms of literature
are more or less chemically bound to be abrupt,
painfully drunk on the highs and lows -
and volatile -
hence the comparison.
should i quote? i think i should...
idee czystego rozumu nie mogą nigdy same w sobie
być dialektyczne, lecz jedynie samo złe stosowanie
ich musi sprawiać, że wypływa z nich dla nas
zwodniczy pozór.
(p. 303, vol 2,
wydawnictwo naukowe PWN)
another thing to mention... transcendental
methodology might be simplified in terms of
transcendental grammar classification, i.e. borrowing
concepts higher than the general classification of words
allows -
the double noun exfoliation -
apart from naming a word,
we can absorb the activity of the word beyond mere names:
words that act as catalysts
words that act as enzymes -
should there be specific examples?
in general the substrate to product
transformation using an enzyme
can be voiced by sophists
throughout the ages -
inflammatory coercion of words
to specific bundles of predictable excerpts is standard
when the pulpit is filled and all void denied.
but concerning the above quote, i too was thinking
something along the lines of *a priori being obstructive
of the ideas of pure reason accommodating dialectics.
trans.
ideas of pure reason cannot, ever, in themselves
be dialectical, but only the wrong application
of such ideas must cause, that from them there flows
a deceptive guise.
i could quote further, but the a priori principle is
the argued against dialectics are a false nature acquisition
in terms of these ideas of pure reasoning -
that we've been given these ideas by a supreme
manifestation of nature in us, i.e. that this highest of
all possible tribunals dealing with pretensions and laws
of our speculation, could also contain within itself
primordial illusions and (loosely) spaghetti muddles.
true to the reason behind moving from a)
a priori through to b) a posteriori -
if pure ideas are caustically anti-dialectical,
it's because dialectics would rarely mind the transition
being elementary -
but then again,
i imagine the dialectics in a purely a priori guise
and the Newtonian debate given Einstein's counter-proofs...
in that sense, i somehow seem to disagree with Kant...
well, then again no... in themselves they cannot be
dialectical: i.e. disputed or argued against,
hence the deceptive guise when Newton was supreme
for so many centuries and then Einstein came along
and the mask that Newton put on the face of gravity
was to be found not straight, but parabolic.
so yes, that's true: time and space are ideas of pure reason,
and they cannot be dialectical -
even though they are
but not in-themselves dialectical,
they have to possess a dialectical
facade, or at least that's what they exfoliated
and sedate with...
i'd go one step further:
dialectics is, as far as i know, the only way to approach
ideas of pure reason -
only once dialectics shows
us the ideas of impure reason (the Socratic daemon) -
as leading us into acknowledgement
that certain things are truly
non-debatable -
but that they somehow have
to be debated in order that they might be refined
for the purpose of them being true to their nature:
non-dialectical.
this approach is at least better than
what becomes forcefully adhered to,
i'm still facing a dialectical concern
over Darwinism...
primarily because...
well... my concern is that a belief in a god is more comforting
not for some case in jurisprudence, a heaven on high...
it's the bothersome timescale and the fact that
skeletons and drawings on cave walls are not much of
a comfort either...
partially also, due to the fact that
i like to think about the item of concern, rather than
express some sort of benediction toward the item of concern:
there's nothing insensible about that,
given that god, as much as space and time, is an idea
of pure reason - if i was imbued with
a natural supplement of atheism, i'd still be trapped
in a dialectical moment of concern -
until i'd finally shed all manner
of a dialectical approach concerning the idea: and make
the final non-dialectical statement of faith.
the flip side is not whether you're right or wrong,
but whether you actually can make that statement.
as far as i'm concerned (well, i never had that much
admiration for the man) - Mr. B never read a **** thing
of philosophy.
i find it abhorring to somehow feel the need for
a condescending approach to this subject of interest...
as any assurance there need be concerning philosophy...
one thing is perfected witch each new approach to
the subject: you never actually find the time to moan
about not being with women... or how poorly humans
treat each other... you never seem to complain about
solitude, you never once feel lonely...
you quiet simply get on
with it... perhaps that's what it always way:
the best way to entertain yourself...
you're basically having to write out with
ease crossword puzzles in your mind that precipitate down
onto the blank page... somehow with it:
life is bearable when alone... and there are more
entertainment hot-spots... none to do with gambling...
so that's about as much as being pegged
down to size actually means...
never true: that cinematic
feat to depict modern (and very much Anglo) guises
of modern alienation...
then again: he probably
did read it, but he never bothered to discuss it in any
way relevant as for it to be revealing his interest in
the topics... macho cool keeping it trendy, i'm guessing.