The problem with the big worry about what is generally called Accelerationalism, a philosophical idea which spans modern knowldge lately, is that its figures and worries are based in the “y factor real Ubiquitous Assumption”, that I’m calling it right now. lol.
The X factor is taken to be a sort of ground or a sort of stable place from which Y is measured, and so from this perspective things are accelerating as the graph with us represent; that is, the rate of things is getting greater as compared to the nonmoving ground of x. The graph is taken to reflect a truth of reality which corresponds with the view that is already given And assumed of all things knowable from the human perspective.
Yet if we change how were viewing what is occurring then we can see that the Graff is actually representing a deceleration. It is not so much that technology or the world or whatever sort of frame you want to put to it, which everyone seems to love to do nowadays, is accelerating, it’s probably more likely that it’s decelerating and what is actually occurring is that people are getting more anxious because the world is not corresponding with the way that they think that things should go.
This is to say that the “here-now” on the graph is always in the same place. That the graph shows what is always occurring with reference to what is knowable.
This is to speak to a theory that I’ve been having run in the background. this is the theory that what consciousness does is culminate. It’s function is to make semanticculmination, to have things mean, and to have meaning culminate into something that makes sense, and then to have some thing that makes sense culminate in a “grand scheme of the universe”, which ironically Graham Harmon has termed “undermining” and “over mining”.
As we begin to become aware of our emotions as not some passive thing, not as controlled by a rational mind, but rather that the view that is rational, the rational mind itself, is always in effect by the emotional engagement with the world, and that rationality is like riding on a train that’s going 100 miles an hour, or riding on a train that’s going 10 miles an hour. From the perception of the rider it seems like there is “rationality” but in a see ctuality their situation is going faster or slower. Or various awareness of existential anxiety, or what they used to call dread. Rationality is the response of consciousness attempting to keep itself fixed in its reality.
Deceleration, by contrast, looks at the graph from the standpoint of the Y-axis. And this is to say that if you look at the graph from that standpoint, it is not that things are accelerating but that the rate of motion is decreasing. Things are coming to a halt. The relation internal to time ands it perceived rate has been slowing down so far as how “quickly” we are moving into the “future”. It is not that worrisome then that we might be accelerating to some unknown singularity where we become so fast that… I don’t know? What are we worried about? As Kierkegaard: Where are they going so fast?
well; from my perspective, they are going nowhere fast, but indeed to get anywhere we want to really be, anywhere better fit everyone we could say, they are always going slow.
Somehow, I have a suspicion that in the same way that we thought that in the year 2000 there was going to be some cataclysmic computer Internet collapse and everything’s gonna go to hell, this idea of acceleration It’s just a point of worry, and has no true basis and what is actually occurring. ￼￼￼￼￼￼
It is, for a word anxiety informing what then appears real and rational, rather than what is true informing those things.
I a speak of rationality as an ability of consciousness and not an aspect of consciousness.
it is the difference between saying that Red is some thing that exists inherently in the universe such that Red appears as such, and Red as something that is able to be discerned Oh there is really nothing that is ever actually Red in itself.
but note, I’m not making an argument about whether or not Red actually exist in the universe. Indeed, I would say that Red actually does exist in the universe, and I am also saying that rationality exist in the universe, as well as consciousness. But then I am also saying that given any particular instance of one of these universal objects, they likewise must arise under certain conditions. These conditions are known, and thus have relationships with one another. And so when we talk about consciousness we are able to understand it in a different manner than we usually do, in the same way that I’m talking about what exists and what conditions actually are.x