The Description of Irony.

The way we speak, how we organize terms, the meaning of such terms, do not establish humanity; they establish its reality through faith. The founding statement is or can be: As I proceed, I am finding the concepts difficult; this is an attribute of myself.

What is seen in the progression of non-philosophy, its method, ‘gnosis’, ‘spheroth’, its ‘stages of progression’, is what I associate as a movement from the romance (the scenario of reality) set as itself to its description as a proxy, to a justification as opposed to exposition, to the description of the content of faith. In other words, a movement from the necessary to the sufficient. What is necessary is that it is indeed expositional; what is sufficient is that it is not. This division I correlate as ironic to conventional. Such a move is itself legitimate and authentic in as much as it is founded, grounds, in the ironic, but also see, that the move evidences that its authenticity, though based in the ironic, tends to not recognize, or more so to disassociate from, its irony in the attempt to ‘isolate’ it, to ‘have it’ as the originating event that is seen as or becomes then as an ‘enlightenment’ into the True Object: a metaphysical ontology. The real move is subsequently seen as necessary to its origination, that is, true, in the sense of the true object that justifies identity, which in all cases is indeed real, or Real, and thus only sufficient. It is this evidence of division, that gains the maxim ‘faith makes true’ – yet ironically.

Yet also see, the more rigorous and scrupulous dissection of such real things, the ‘non-methodological’ aspect of non-philosophical cision, stems though, as it can be from its romantic base (as opposed to the less risked conventionality), achieves a good possibility of the description of the present state of reality, as philosophically ‘de-cisioned ‘, how such decision is manifested in terms at that particular moment in history, and announces irony in history, which is, the True Object in the last instance.

This whole statement relies on an implicit irony also, in one instance evidencing two moves, a quadripartite is brought. For, irony in its founding instance is a ‘profoundness’ of experience, not dissimilar to Rudolf Otto’s ‘holy’, [see Otto, “The Idea of the Holy”] and then also the move ‘of’ it that evidences the more conventional ironic statement (the last thing you would expect..). But then also we have the move from it that attempts to describe, or locate, the True Object’s ‘trueness’, the ‘if I follow this method’ result. This then also divides; what object is being told? The Event, the subsequent event, or then the further development that seeks to describe that these are one in the same? It is this later ‘one’ that, thus far, at least, I see as the more significant issue since the founding evenst occurs at all moments, immanently.

As above, there are at least two arenas of orientation:

1) The discourse of the subsequent that sees the event only as multiple, as events of real objects, the interrelating of negotiations of True Objects. This is the effort towards the proper real object, the discourse that sets itself in what can be called relative materialism, the transcendental move that allows empiricism, that is always framed as ‘philosophy of…’, epistemology, ontology, etcetera, that has history a temporal activity of actual physical agents involved with a movement of things in an essential true reality.

This is conventional reality of faith proper. This faith is typical, and it will not be explained out of, that is, until a particular mind comes across an ironic experience and seeks to investigate what it could be. But the main reason why conventional faith cannot be upset is because even if one has such an experience, the usual recourse is back into the True Object; in this case, it can be called a spiritual experience, and the individual will inevitably see the experience as referring to or stemming from some ‘more real’ object: a One truth underlying the relative truth, and the method for negotiating such relative things in order there by to achieve the One truth. This arena is suitable to be for, or to be called, the existence of the Other.

2) The subsequent discourse that recognizes the originary event while it seeks to locate it, to define it, thus establishing it as a true object. That which is established through a particular scheme of meaning of true objects, is sufficient for reality; its necessity comes in its sufficiency. But sufficient for what? For the One. This arena has more a philosophically proper setting. Here, discourse is understood to reside over reality, as a marker or maker of reality and thus of history, but also moreover reflecting the same type of progress of human understanding, of humans ‘coming to terms’ or otherwise realizing or discovering or uncovering their true placement in the universe as well as the true nature of the universe.

The One is always of or in time. What should be the de-struction of this arena, that the truth it argues is established in an unrecognized and absolute duality that cannot be overcome or reduced to its apparent unity, actually works for a disclaimer that grants credence when such Oneness is based in a conventional reality. But this avoids one of the two fundamental aspects of reality, what has been deemed the Subject and the Object; hence the historical oscillation.

The equivocating of Francois Laruelle and Alain Badiou s’ ideas can be found through the same matrix of meaning that is capable of elucidating the point of contention; the ‘anti-Badiou’, the Badiou-Laruelle ground, the ironic transversal of the method of non-philosophy, the coordination of the ironic into the symbolic: the reduction of philosophy to its deconstructed whole, the ‘object’ of non-philosophy, and the mathematical construction as the symbolic whole to be set, aside.

Again, my mind does not often bare such weight; I find it somewhat difficult to sort through, to find the right mesh, the right screen, rather, the right ‘authorial’ matrix to view Ideas as particular temporal objects to be referenced. Always there is another, and another, argument to consider, more subjects to be associated with their objects, and I find myself floating in a metaphysical world, an eternal abyss, of historical discourse.

The reason I can get through such ‘historical’ authorship, but in particular to this essay, Alain Badiou’s “Being and Event”, is because it is steeped in the motions of irony. Badiou’s mathematical relatings are not difficult to wade through because he is situating the Event of irony in math, or rather, because what he has situated in mathematics is ironic, and is not stepping too far from it to pose a solution, which I am gathering he does subsequently, as pointing toward a ‘new’ philosophy (or has offered a route for others to follow, such as what is called speculative realism?) In a manner of speaking, he has transcribed the possibility of the romantic structure into mathematical scheme, and by these symbols has achieved what can be called the ‘real romantic formula’ in as much as he keeps what is otherwise conventional discourse in close reading of the mathematical relations. But historically, ‘in history’, the extrapolation of the conventionally appropriated ironic base, thus drawing upon its converted object, reaches ‘with-out’ of the evental horizon, which is the best acknowledgment of the void-as-void that convention can have, into the evental site, so by that time the event has already coordinated with sufficiency, its ordinal, the ‘first’ that contains the vectorial discursive coordinations, which is to say, the subsequent determined meaning of things. When Badiou is read from a position of such sufficiency, he then is read as speaking about all reality, and thereby is describing the possibility of multiple individuals, but multiple objects as well, of pure multiples, real evental sites even while both of these types of objects are of the same quality: conventional. Everything is included with another in potential. Yet, when fidelity to the evental site is true, as opposed to real (read: of a True Object), that is, acquires or harnesses both objects in a single description without contradiction, then the evental site corresponds with the void itself and is then included in the ordinal as the ordinal belongs to the site; Badiou explains as much. Hence, “Being and Event” remains in its ironic bearings, as the motion of the romance being justified is formulated mathematically, and reality and the romance remain conventionally mutually exclusive while falling under a comprehensive, real, single description. I am unsure as yet if Badiou sees his mistake of taking the mathematical formulations to sufficiency, though it appears that if he does, he has already made a disclaimer as part of “Being and Event”: he has spoken ironically.

Yet then the situations that arise subsequently to what is subsequent (that maybe forms a ‘meta’ discourse, but which nevertheless remains of subsequence), what is only sufficient, that is, reality proper, continue in the route of what could be his mistake, and develop conventional philosophy proper that seeks sites upon which to philosophically decide upon multiple outcomes.

Other mathematical concepts, such as fractal and quantum discursive applications that seek to discern a meta-physics, appear to me to cloud the issue and assert a proper reality. To me this is a motion of mysticism: such sensible relations of true objects arrive at arguable metaphysics, which actually, when understood within their ironic bearings, again derives the maxim ‘faith makes true’, as then the multiple subjects of reality may be in discussion of which is more true; the faith that establishes the individual, so much as they may ‘find’ the truth by their own faith, is brought forth by reality, which is the ‘conventional faith’. But such metaphysics can have significance for establishing reality upon different trajectories or being an impetus for change.

These two motions combine. Again, the ‘One’ can be seen as of the ‘edge of the void’, the ‘first’ ordinal that straddles the void and reality; ‘the Real’, the real incarnation that reaches out into reality, as well as that which also falls back into the void ironically, but which is spoken to be oriented out into reality. We can say therefore affirmatively that the One is conventional, and thereby its nature begins the count of reality as an historical reduction. It describes the ‘object of the Object’, as well as the ‘subject of the Subject’, as these may be conventionally decided, the explanation of the oscillating motion of the minimal discrepancy that can be had for conventional reality, the motion set as basic objects; the ‘One-in-One’, the object of the ‘last object’ before the void in the movement of regression, and the pure multiple, the movement of progression, the Object of convention. Hence, Laruelle must posit a transcendental Ego.

We should see then where the ironic becomes conventional, especially in as much as we may have an Ego, of any sort. Yet the irony of these discourses I have shown to be complicit lay in just their complicity. The One has to account for how it may be situated against the Void. We must delve into the justification of the justification. For we are not in an endeavor toward any new thing, for what is news is a conventional movement. The conventional is the subsequent, the sufficient, the good enough; to bring in Soren Kierkegaard, the universal, the ethical. We are in an effort for what is necessary. We should see that what is described in its truth is destroyed, or rather, indicates a dissolution of what ‘has been sought’ in reality. The truth is thus the de-in-struction, the de-construction, of reality, and the truth revealed in reality is the real movement of historical progress. Wherever the truth is spoken, its reality becomes manifest while its truth, the object being described, the subject being exposed, is destroyed. This is the (a-?) philosophical effort: to reach God. So, if it has, then it was because God was destroyed in reality. To the point that philosophy says God was never the object, that God was merely a phantom, an illusion, there we have the evidence of my assertion, that progress has indeed occurred. And to the point, quite ironically, where there is Ego left, the Ego must be destroyed. And this is a discursive situation.

Such it is that we can speak of the ubiquity of the Law, conventional reality, and how this has determined how history is to be situated upon a particular static universal horizon.

With this situated then, we have only to see the return, so by its exposure, the return is likewise destroyed, and the repetition of human consciousness in the world may proceed as if it was never repeated, and reality be upset. Until that moment, history will continue to progress, and after that moment, likewise history will continue to progress. Because the human being is the only constant, and that it demands consistency.


  1. (This Weeble-theory of course relates directly to non-philosophy, its gnosis, alchemy & perpetual motion, etc. In time, I hold – and my experience is – that it will soon exhaust itself if I do not kick back at it so much…)

    1. Good morning! Lol. That’s a great analogy. I suppose that’s why I speak of effects. Lol. So I look at it and ask : what is wobbling ! Is it me, my thoughts, reality? What makes ‘it’ wobble ? Is it belief, the other, self, existence, the transcendent , immanence ?

      More later. Have a great day!

      1. Good morning to you!

        For me it is mostly my thoughts, not reality so much, which wobbles. It is a mind-thing, mostly. I could fix it if only I learned how to focus a bit on what is really important. What makes “it” wobble? Perhaps because there is so much out there to read and to know, and I find this important. I always make sure to read and to know new things all the time for fear that I am (we are) forgetting something important. I can say that my biggest fear is forgetting (and so also, it is a statement about myself: being forgotten by others or by God or by whomever else).

        I’ve mapped the territory very thoroughly well it is just time I suppose to get my head of the maps and books, and so too get out of the Weeblespace.

      2. I’ve been looking and looking back through our conversations for where you introduced ‘pocket veto’; I couldn’t find it. I wanted to reread where your brought it up to see how my appropriation of it may have been different than how you intended. But I find it such an excellent idea – I am writing an essay that I hope will show how I understood/stand it. Maybe you can tell me how you meant it, if you want.

        Maybe it was just a passing thought that coalesced in that moment and you haven’t put much thought to it. That’s ok.

        I do not intend to grab the idea from you, but in pondering your last few replies, the pocket veto idea came to mind, and then in attempting to describe the situation ( this situation that is your situation, my situation, and the view that sees our situation) the pocket veto seemed so good. So I will post the essay soon.


        The reason why it seems such a good term is similar to why I have said our views may be complimentary, as in complimentary angles, as in if there is a ‘whole picture’ then You and I may represent complimentary views of it. Like a Janus. The ‘sphere’ that encompasses possibility; around us, the center, ‘our head’ with faces that look outward, away from each other, but that center being the ‘Romance’, that common understanding and or experience that each of us seem to be speaking from that has allowed us this chance to communicate.

        The pocket veto, in short, as I said in that reply earlier, is something I don’t have or didn’t have. But you do. The significance, the meaning that ‘adds up’; your ability to ‘veto’ it, maybe, to ‘cancel it’ so as to think about it and hopefully gain a perspective or impetus from it. From my perspective, the veto that prevents meaning from becoming all significant.

        But this then would be significant. For it would be that which, from You, would be the ‘you’ that is me, in reflection of the repeating romance. The pocket veto would be that by which ‘you have no choice’ but to co-operate in that way, which is, by choice. That is, the choice that brings the significance of the romance.

        Strangely, I feel that I may have gathered much more than you may have meant by it, or even gathered a meaning entirely incorrect to your intent. But this is the nature is the occasion, no?

        I would like to know what you really meant if you feel like bringing it up again.

      3. I can’t find the comment either, but let’s think. My understanding was that it was worthwhile to consider owing to its form of a strange neither/nor, in the sense of neither accepting nor rejecting the proposition at hand in a conventional sense. It allows for a complication of the situation, for better or for worse. It is a tacit rejection, based I believe upon a kind of “tacit axiology”. A pocket veto, while “passing over in silence” whatever issue is at-hand, does nevertheless speak to the active taking-up of values. It is an instance where non-action becomes a form of activity, owing to a shift in focus or emphasis that is placed elsewhere than the present discussion. Someone may be so engaged with things of substance that “time runs out” on another insignificant proposition (for lack of a better word). Or, the reverse can take hold, more commonly: focus can be on things which are not significant, and then things which are substantial fall by the wayside. So it works both ways, but in the final analysis the pocket veto, ironically perhaps, speaks to which values are upheld. Or else it is a good way to “see” the orientation upon objects, maybe, if somebody when called into question for seeming non-action begins to try to give a justification or else rationalize why the pocket veto was consciously set into action. Or whatever. Many things can happen, depending upon the situation. I am looking forward to reading your essay!

      4. I am hoping that you will see in my next essay the potential that seems to be developing between us. For your answer confirms what I see as our complimentality; I could not have given such an answer, but it falls in line (complimentary) so well with the answer I am able to give, yet saying something else. I am having difficulty voicing what I mean.


      5. Partly I was trying to go back and recall what I might have had in mind when I first used the term pocket-veto. I am not sure if I would hold to this understanding today. It seems underdeveloped to me, but a good starting point perhaps for our discussion nonetheless. I remember how I was influenced by this idea of “tacit axiology”, but it seems from where it becomes important to speak those principles and, well, actually hold to them. I think I’d like to see this discussion move gradually towards a consideration of general principles in thought and action, rather than this more tacit understanding. These principles are the kinds of things that can, after all, be stated.

  2. I am not so concerned about ‘the message’ or ‘the agenda’ per se, it is just that the Weeble pops back up in my face again, like a kind of residual momentum from previous kickings returning. I try to mind my own business and then , well put it this way: When I was a little kid I would kick or hit the Weeble and then go try to do something else constructive before it suddenly returned and bopped me on the back of the head and knocked me sometimes off my small feet. This is a good analogy I think to describe the discrepancy, albeit with a God-sized conceptual Weeble and its kind of momentum.

  3. I was told once a long time ago by someone wiser than me: that the easiest way to destroy Ego is to have a baby & be a good parent.

    1. My issue is not so much kicking away the ladder as it is kicking away the need to continually kick away the ladder. I kick the ladder and it goes away only to reappear again. (it is not that i do not kick hard enough i assure you.) from my childhood: it is like one of those toys with the jingle “Weebles wobble, but they don’t fall down” shaped like an alchemical egg with constant positive curvature whereas what you are saying has a negative curvature. of course this only works physically because of the weight at the bottom, heaviness, the spirit of gravity and the like … i can sometimes make the weight go away with just thinking with my mind, but not consistently so & then it doesn’t fall down once and for all. an analogy, perhaps.

  4. In celebration of the mother, I remember how my mom always says “you have a choice” but not in a loose way, since it sounds more like “YOU. HAVE. A. CHOICE.” I do not mean yelling, but it is a kind of assertion or insistence that I never understood until quite recently. So yes I had a choice, but did I realize that at the time the romance so to speak began? Perhaps not, since some violence, situated somewhere in history, disturbs our ability to see that this is the case. But it really is the case throughout the situation, whatever it may be. It is the truth.

    On the other hand, my dad’s side of the family gives me a different piece of wisdom. It has been passed down in the family, a very makeshift family to say the least, specifically from, his mother. She would always tell him that “there is no such thing as useless knowledge”. This is interesting to me, and between both of my parents I appear to have been taught both of these things at once. And they are in a certain tension, as you point out with your mention to “knowledge”.

    But enough about me, how are you Lance?

    1. I have been thinking (oh boy…), and each time you present your ideas I don’t find an issue to which I can speak. Not often, at least, maybe only when I am in a bad mood owing to some human inconsistency that I still need to work through personally.

      To the point, I don’t feel inclined to take issue with your terms, and your ironic situation. You speak, as you say, the truth of truth and you do so quite consistently. This is like a “stack”, a looking into the justification of justification, investigation of the boundary, an insistence upon truth (again I am recalling Gandhi hybrid… satya meaning truth and agraha as insistence, understood here as truth of truth…). This truth of truth, telling the truth about love, is often not spoken or thought by the conventional many, because it is often mistaken by (usually Christian agape) love, but more generally by the romance, etc. Very well, I grant all of this no problemo. We have already before us a non-totalizing ndimensional thought (I am summarizing things we have discussed rather quickly, definitely too quickly, getting ahead of myself again as I am wont to do): the multiplicity that is humanity that is civilization, and so forth, but also a seeming infinity of “categories” and holding them lightly or else at a critical distance, this general tendency against categorization, guarding against imposition of arena, irreducible complexity or hybridity, etc. We also trust that we have been communicating and we really do see these things in a mostly similar way, that we can build upon these.

      You said earlier that I have helped you, just as you no doubt have really helped me. I wonder how it is possible that I can help, since it seems I have only helped you in a what seems to me a “superficial” way (again we see “super-” as in beyond) by which I mean helped in way of your discourse, in your project of situation of terms, exposing the romance, making progress in your articulation of the truth of truth, despite the individual’s difficulty in speaking it, etc. I am thinking now about the life of the mind (Arendt, & possibly you?) versus the mind of life, that all is mind,… hmm….consciousness. Life itself. Higher things. Don’t mind me, just minding my own business here, just saying things… it seems much more is entailed than we might realize.

      My difficulty is not due to anything with this truth of truth, no objections, no criticisms… But there appears to be even still something “higher” than his infinite grouping of humanity, if you will, which draws me when I don’t have a real occasion to speak. I don’t want you to mistake this for recuperation of meaning into the conventional again, or a complicity, etc. Even though in general this is the case and so I grant even your emphasis on this note. I mean something not unlike perhaps the contemplations and considerations of Alexander Grothendieck, that often manifests itself in reality as a deeper, “inexpressible sorrow”, like that of Robert Lax as I have mentioned. There are more examples.

      Aside: What is it with me and hermits LOL, maybe I should shut up and just become one myself before flailing around about these higher things. I am not so sure it (my difficulty as you say) has to do with Ego, except only when I speak is Ego an issue, unless an occasion presents itself beforehand. I agree with you, yet the flailing around with the higher seems hypersubstantial. It is simply about what I am or you are inclined to do, maybe, notwithstanding discourse. What can we do, without deciding to wait around for an/the occasion? Is the apocalypse THE Occasion of all real occasions… ? Again I can’t say, but it is not in the end a conventional difficulty in speaking, since as you admit there is a “different dynamic” that is qualitatively unlike a preferential option for silence instead of speaking truth given the occasion to situate terms in discourse. Neither of those things, both of them. They are often confused, but I think I can pay attention to my confusions…wittgenstein is that you?? this opting for silence is sometimes really the case for me, and you have greatly helped here (thank you) by encouraging me to speak up when there is an occasion which otherwise I would have missed or dismissed. But with you it is different, and i feel OK to at least try to say these things, between spiritual friends… Sometimes it is not the case. In some ways, it is indescribable….the higher indescribable story of the all mind of life itself about the life of the mind’s bigger story on the already way too big story. You might say this absurdity or strange or whatever, like you said: who really wants this? But is this not what reaching god itself entails? Beyond the infinity you see, more paradox. Irony meets paradox, paraconsistency… something higher. And can’t we already paradoxically do this ironically? It seems you want this, just as much as I. What a mess, all of this… I am hoping you find something here, even if it is not strictly speaking useful. It is not working…so end my aside. I am beside myself.

      What do you do when you don’t have an occasion? Do you go looking for one? Do you do what you do? What can I do? What can i do to help you? Yes, you said don’t feel the need to speak, but what do you do with your time, with yourself, etc.? How is (your) mind? You said you have the time to think but maybe you have no real time for higher things. That’s fine too, since you’re just always doing things. What about doing nothing for a change? To change things, I mean. Everybody is always doing real things! I mean doing nothing like sitting in meditation or something. No wait I don’t mean something. This is strange I’m not quite saying things right, as I am not ultimately talking about making decisions per se (!). Perhaps some of your reflections on obscure hermits would help, with case studies of your choice, early Christian mystics perhaps are interesting here, but then again maybe not. It could all be a big muddled distraction.

      Reaching God… What might happen when “we” reach God? Can’t any “I” reach God before we does? I’ll race you and we there! Real contradictions, not just in terms but in our doings too. Paradox…fuzzy mind.. Perhaps you think it pointless nonsense to think of these things, especially so confusedly, abstract nonsense like the sheer pointlessness of monasteries or Buddhist temples where monks just sit and do nothing. But if you’re going to say Namaste and advocate destruction of Ego then maybe we should just go together to meditate on a mountain somewhere. Or a remote island, whatever you prefer. Reality will catch up to us someday. I mean that last line in both of its implications, maybe.


      1. It is funny, ironic to say the least; there is always an occasion to speak. I think the frustration I sense in you is how to find the particular occasion to say something that coincides with ‘the agenda’.

        But what is speaking? I am. And what is real? Discourse. Am I real? Yes. But what I speaking? Am I discourse? Ironically yes.

        More in a bit.

      2. So far as doing. My life is very simple. I work, I have a family. Presently I am not in a position to to, say, activist work, in the very common sense. But I view how I carry on in life and my demeanor a type of activism in that I do what I am able considering the life I have that is presented to me.

        More in a bit.

      3. I feel I am kind of stepping off base. Can you be more specific? Can you tell me what you have in mind? I tend to be quite dense at times, and when I realize this of myself, I tend to try to step back and ask of others.

        What do you have in mind, even tentatively, as to what is to be done as opposed to merely writing – if I take your meaning correctly ?


        I can only name ‘hermits’ that you probably already know of; my list is small. Matter of fact, it is tiny. Not even worth listing becuase you’ll probably have a lower opinion of me if I did list them. Lol

        Alistar Crowley is a significant figure. He believed he was the Beast of revelations and went about doing the Work. Yet he was a drug addict and even though he advocated being able to control it through his Magickal system, he died an addict. Yet ironically, his very weird activities didn’t bring about any Revelations, but did systematize a bunch a magically systems into one system, and opened the door to what became the New Age movement. At least , one could draw such correlation, which could be seen from Christian eyes as a marker of ‘revelatory’ motion.

        What occurred with me is I had an experience which I tried to convey. But I found it could not be. Then I found that other authors were writing about it . Weird. So then I found that there was a guy who went digging in a salt mine who seemed to also have the same or similar experience.

      4. The problem as I see it is that we, I, they, you, are talking About the experience without telling what the experience is. The irony is that in talking about a particular experience, the singular experience appears to talk about All experience, or the basis of reality. And then this talk begins to appear as a route, a teachable method To the singular experience by which reality is reconsiled. But such talk proposed as a method, taken as such, never achieves the singular experience. It is like Nietczhe said, one uses the ladder but then must throw it away.

        Or a song: ..that saved a wretch like me. I once was lost but now I’m found; was blind but now I see.

        Or Kierkegaard: what is lost is gained .

        Or even Wittgenstein: we must pass over.

      5. It is quite an interesting thing I find in our interaction. I’ll try to be plain.

        I am unsure what exactly your questions refer to. On one hand, I feel that you are communicating to me a certain lack and asking about a solution. I gather that you go through a certain vacillation that has something to do with the romance, that this movement has to do with what you seem to imply to me to be a descrepancy on your part, asking me how one goes about reconciling it.

        But perhaps I am being to pompous in that reading. So on the other hand, us apparently having come accross a sympatico experience it seems, or at least a common understanding of a basic issue, it seems you are asking me to ‘take a stand’ or maybe more that if the experience is true how I or we might find that ‘place’ from where to move forward, as ‘the message’ so to speak.

        I feel like we keep traversing these two domains and that I presume too much and my head gets bigger than might be necessary. ;).

        Can you clarify what we are taking about and or if I am on the right track. ?

  5. Thinking from something not real might mean simply thinking from the future, in a way that works through the past or else already recognizes these historical linkages.

    1. Sarte, as you know, speaks of a past informing the future…but
      Perhaps it is the categories that enfold upon themselves that leaves room for .. “More’? What is real then argues for the validity of what is not real for reality. But from where can we derive categories that somehow get beyond real categories. What is real is an oppressive state; the route then precipitates from that mere understanding .

      Happy Mother’s Day to your family .

  6. My apologies for delay, I am not near a computer. I am thinking about Ego though, in relation to the “im-” prefix in particular. Eg: imposition, impression, and related words.

  7. Yes I agree regarding Laruelle. I saw that discrepancy as though intuitively and perhaps I wrote about it a bit too… I just had a hard time moving forward since when I stumbled upon the non-non- I saw something wasn’t right. Then I began looking into thinkers like Novalis and Gandhi, the latter because for all of the talk about non- Laruelle never seriously considers non-cooperation and nonviolence in an infinite way. At the same time it seemed natural to me that if L. is topos theory against Badiou’s set theory (as you mention) that I should try my hand at category theory and something “higher” so as to move beyond. Of course I am no mathematician, but in Novalis I see an interesting use of categories. In the end I saw that my initial tag line “imterpretation with and beyond” is my real issue at this point.

    1. A thought that came to me and has come with me for some time is ‘humans have an ability to reach beyond’. What I am finding is that this beyond cannot be set in a relative context, that the relative context is always for reality and thus loses its credibility as to its ‘beyond ness’. I know we keep coming back to this same issue. What seems appropriate to this beyond is a coordination to the beyond ness in itself. How this is to come about seems to already be in the works. For my end, I suppose,has something to do with, as I’ve said, consistency, and so has to do with history.

      I am interest in Novalis. In fact, your suggestion to look at Wood’s translation lead me to a PDF of Novalis ‘aphorisms’, from which I pulled that quote. Much to get from there at least for sure. I’m not much for poetry anymore and the Hymn to the Night (i think its called) was a bit too..uh.. Romantic for my tastes. But I do get his expression, as I have with many romantic poets I have read. What I get out of them, as the unsettling somehow distaste of them has lead me to, is an indication of limit, but also an occasion to speak of consistency; but not right now.

      1. I agree with you, but if credibility is not a major concern…. do you see what I mean?

        Yes it is very difficult, since we are after all human beings, to consistently operate at these heights or depths as the case may be. It may not be desirable, and others will see Ego and self-indulgence in all of this… people say that of me sometimes. And they are right. It may be said that someone like Novalis was not firmly living I’m reality but in his own strange Sophie land. This has consequences good and bad. Who really takes someone like Novalis seriously? Well, nobody does, for the most part, but I do. There is Ego in my saying “I do” just as Robert Lax might say in response to your observation-question of who really wants to live like a lonely hermit “well, I do”. I see the connection between history and consistency, and the human being, but when a romance becomes a marriage both parties say “I do” to each other. This is real madness, isn’t it? There are good arguments against marriage qua social institution, which are perhaps credible and legitimate… but who in love will listen to them? The truth of the situation may compel us to do so, eventually…

        Yes, these people concerned with “higher” things are stoic even to your kind of grounded stoicism in reality. This has psychological (individual) and ecological (collective) effects., as I am beginning to explore in my recent posts. It may not be sustainable in reality, and it could well be harmful. It also reflects a strange relationship to others In the world, which may be neglectful at times if one is not vigilant. The consequences can be good or bad, even as they are inconsistent. I appreciate you as resisting those regressive consequences and upholding the positive ones, reaping and sowing from my mines as it were. Someone in reality is generally more effective than someone who is not, I would agree. I agree with most everything you have to say, but what conditions this agreement? Like how Faith conditioned my receptivity to Love, it also conditions my willingness to take seriously what you have to say. Many people may not be willing to listen to you, but I do really listen. This “I do” argument is just for sake of discussion regarding Ego, since it seems that what it does in reality is exhausts Ego by variously revealing its possible weaknesses in reality. This approaches from the other side of things, again we are Janus faced….

        When it comes especially to legitimacy and consistency, I trust you perhaps more than myself. I will likely tell others: Listen to Lance he is saying something very important, I am still a mess. You can have all of the legitimacy you’d like. Love is a real issue, yet as humans we love anyways. But since my primary concern is truth and not so much love, I know better to yield almost always to your terms.

      2. You are very kind.
        It is strange to me that you would have such depth in knowledge of the issue, as this depth arose and is part and parcel from and of the romance, and yet it seems there is some difficulty somewhere.
        So again I have to ask : what is ego? Or maybe, what is The ego?

        When you sayd ‘I do’, did you have a choice in the matter? For me, this was is a pivotal question.

      3. Novalis being said not living in reality. Lol. It is an ironic feat that I say ‘not real’; is it not? That I am (we?)developing a position from what is not real? What does that mean?
        For what is real? How does one discern what is real and not real?

    2. Also; you told me about how the romance expresses itself so far as a ‘life outlook’ or maybe ‘effect of’ the romance. Are you able to express how the romance took shape; what parties were involved? Could you call the romance a type of relationship? How was this relationship, if you have viewed it that way, manifested? Of course there was is love, but Is was there jealousy? Bitterness? Or is the romance for you an expression similar to, say for example, ‘I had a romantic notion that the Yankees would win the World Series this year’. Is your use of ‘romance’ referring to a sentiment upon life, like “it is a romantic notion’, or is it referring to how you engage(d) with life, such as ‘Sarah and I had a romance’?

      1. I have a difficulty in saying, but it began let us say when I was 13 or 14. Yes, there is a historical linkage, but it seems to be drawn out over a certain period of time, where, upon reflection, I can see how I was some kind of depressed or at least maladjusted. Everything was conventional, for me, in way of my Faith, before I was picked up by my family and had to move to another place, in seminary housing. I mean to say that for me my Faith was once Everything. I did not adjust so well to these changes in place, and I was a bit isolated at first. The bubble of convention was shattered, but I did not know at the time what this would entail. The effects expressed themselves only upon returning to my initial home, two or three years later, after that extended experience which disrupted convention. Upon seeing the contrast between the two places, maybe, I could not readjust to home again since I did not follow convention any longer. A standard story for a preacher’s kid, I suppose. I lost my Faith entirely, and the next several years were spent continually reenacting that story. This stirring for me began the romance with Christianity, or at least a significant part of it. Novalis says: Faith and Love, or the King and Queen. The other part, Love, came upon returning and it served to add fuel to the fire, inspiring me as only love can inspire someone to begin reading and trying to find out the truth for myself. She was in the ethical, you could say. I was brought from the aesthetic to the ethical through her, and I have since been struggling seriously with the religious. I can see the stages play out in me, too. The romantic relationship, too, ended after a few years of innocent joy. So, yes, there was a true relationship in there as well, and an element of jealousy too insofar as I was at first in the aesthetic. My loss of Faith allowed for me to respond to that Love, and finally I could escape the aesthetic unto the ethical. If I still had my conventional Faith, perhaps I could not have Loved her as I did. I have provided you with only a bare skeleton, in the most simplest terms. It is incomplete, but that maybe is the crux. I have mostly worked through both of these experiences, and it is here where I have said that I effectively “made peace” with them both. This to me is a “higher” peace, and it does not preclude the occasional warring!

  8. Yes yes destroy Ego… but that is easier said than done.

    NB: In Laruelle as well as in Novalis I find that the term “sujet-sans-ego” is most fitting, on their own terms. They both seem to understand Ego as an irrefutable point, and then they formally-scientifically (Goethean universal science, non-standard aesthetics, etc.) proceed to target three symptoms through their mystical mediating matrix machine.

    But here I hear you are saying: What’s the point of that!!

    Maybe we could think about ‘targeting’ together. A category in maths is usually understood as operating according to the formula “source -> target”. Laruelle posits Transcendental ego, it seems so clear to me, just as Novalis does: via “Re-Kantianization of Fichte” or whatever. And this entails some target practice, like in archery. By destroy it seems you do not mean “target”, but something else entirely…

    Just some initial thoughts. May or may not be useful.

    1. One of my questions is: if people have been talking about it at least for 300 years, what is going to happen different now in talking about it?

      I tend to say, it is not what they meant, but what Is meant by our now reading it, a consistency, not so much an intent. So part of the project has to do with spelling out the ramifications of this situation.

      Hey; why did u post only an abstract? Is there a work in progress or is it a posting mistake?

      1. I misspoke on Novalis, and there is a key difference here with Laruelle: Novalis agrees that God is already at work, that this matrix of L. is already the case, but because he works in a self-described “haphazardly” manner he didn’t ever take his time to reach God. Whereas, Laruelle might heretically object to this reaching, since it is impossible, but then again I’m not so sure what he would say here. Novalis ephasizes the “already” where L. does not, but doesn’t go slowly enough (as evidenced by how expansive his Encyclopedia project is… he is all over the place, kind of like me…). So this is why I drifted to Novalis instead of Laruelle… it is alphabetical, as in L, M for mediation, N, oops…!

        Ah! Sweet insight! There is my real issue. & This is your basic concern with higher categories, no? Novalis speaks quite often of the “higher”, so I made the connection that way. You might enjoy David W. Wood’s translation of his final fragments, if you have the time. I have time, but it seems I waste too much of it.

        I really need to remember (how) to focus on what’s important in all of this…

      2. Ah yes ! I can appreciate in a most intimate way this ‘alphabetical’, this ‘oops’, and this moment of insight, this real issue.

        What is important, I can’t be totally sure, but know you have helped me also. I mean I can be sure ( I’m being Way to enigmatic where perhaps I don’t need to) : the work is important.

        So I might add (just in case): what is my (our?) issue with Laruelle? He is in bad faith by his method. That he is stuck in the power and profoundness of such jargon that is able to present a method; that his method contradicts the meaning.

        What is the crux of his meaning: the argument of a transcendental Ego, that argues a particular method through which one may enact (my terms) a radical agency. An agency that stems from a Real unilateral duality that posits two contexts in essential disparity, one that includes, one that excludes. Where the one that includes takes place as a radical immanence. So what is the issue here?

        To be sure, the destruction of the Ego I have proposed as a solution of sorts. But what is Ego, regardless of modifiers, whether it is transcendental or not? What is Ego?

        Bit first, I should not be so presumptuous. First: do you agree with my appraisal of non-philosophy?

        We conceive God as personal, just as we conceive ourselves personal. God is just as personal and as individual as we are; for what we call I is not our true I, but only its off glance.”

        There is a whole discussion that can include Novalis as an occasion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s