Pile of Truth

Back to Proper Philosophy

A Pile of Truth.

i)Truth created by word use. This is the truth not of the dictionary definition so much as demand that a word has a meaning. The power of the demand is very difficult to exaggerate. It is hard to distance a mind away from this demand. It demands words, even the words it makes up has meaning. It looks for meaning (think here of children looking for meaning in random sounds and adult looking for meaning in the sounds children make). ~ meaning sands like a snow ball in a word. Te word acquires meaning slipping into meaning, as if the mere shell of sound was enough to scoop up the truth . Moreover the scoop of sound is textured. A meaning not only gathers a reality, but in gathering it merges, it is sloppy. Meanings are then united in the panorama of words-sounds even as they are reserved to a certain series which is a word. Meaning therefore is bagged by a word, and then betrayed. Finally the meaning o words, imposes one last dimension on meaning. It is external to its usage. A word connotes a meaning. A meaning is that which can be connoted (and yet which does do exist outside that expression). For a word to mean is then to look beyond what it its has created.- it is demands a beyond for a creation.

ii) The Meaning of words is then further bound into two axis on the one hand the meaning is clearly trammelled by the structure of a language itself. That is by other words. What is said, and the links between the said is the given in the evolving texture of a language. In the elaborate acts of translation and transition which create the slip knot in which meaning are caught and the world strangled.

iii)Intermeshed within the axis for meaning, and criss crossing it is a separate series of axis based on sharings. A Word is always collective . More than that it an element of sharing. Of assuming that something arbitrary is something we are all aware of. Moreover there is a real bullying in this sharing. WE MUST AdGREE on a word interest to be…(English, American cool,…). Using that is sharing arbitrary sounds of truth is therefore an act of social division and internecine bullying. This is nowhere more evident in the refusal to adopt certain words, we Listen to a word and say to ourselves ‘NO’ I will not us that. I will laugh at. That word stinks. This sharing stinking, is of course the best, the most conforming of truths.

iv)Words therefore demand reality beyond what they are, while being caught up in social and philological axis of their own . The slipping between these registers, the interblending of these register – their heady brew of minor gods is the stuff of meaning. It is what makes a meaning important and interesting…

i)perception. Perception is the classic handmade to words, and yet clearly jerks its own tune. Perceptions tune is characterized in a distinct before and after of perceiving . Or better the shred not shared dilemma.

ii) That is we all know a perception is MINE. It is the ultimately possession. And indeed many perceptions (in the sense of memory) are mine. I work to make a perception Mine, and do so repeatedly. And yet is we resent the idea that this work might make me be other that I was. I have our own perceptions don’t you know. The memory- or this MEMORY- is mine all mine. We would capture a perception within an axis that asserts an ourselves which can always own that perception, and do so even if that empties out anything substantive from that self at all – Kant’s apperception.

iii)We run the gauntlet of utter death to defend the basic assertion that a perception is ours. Why? Without this ready assumption one cannot breed into that perception a theory of language. That is we in making a perception un-utterly our own, we also render it a topic to be labelled and clarified. We give ourselves the rights to communicate it with others (using that other shared medium language). We render it powerless – as our own, and thereof drag it into nexus of communicating: We will evacuate it o socialize it.

iv)That is without this evacuation we could not say to ach other. This is more than the right of sharing. I is rather the right to be able to share in evacuating. That is we can only share because we clear out of perception anything that is not about us. We make it ours, and in so making render it over to the god’s of verbal meaning.

v)If perception was not lanced of laced into the medium of ourselves, if it was allowed to rework what we were, then all the verbal truths outlined about would of course collapse. That is each perception would be distinguishingly volatile and changeable. It would lack communicate-ability (and the very slip into claiming it as ours, would also involve it changing what it is). It is only then (as Kant, bless him realized so very very well). Only when we have forced or imprisoned perception within the debt of the Marshalsea, can it be render communicate and social, as only then is it capable to living the thinker the kind of external truths which lanuage in its most imperious of moods demands.

vi) Perception is then transacted between language and the self. For as individuals our lives are so much easier if we claim to be the truth mongers. That is if we claim to be little God’s of ourselves- and do so whatever the consequence (that is however our youthful strutting as a hormone filled Zeus founders on being Uranus after all all, castrated and bleeding).

vii)At this moment a real irony interrupts the argument. The assertion of the self cum language is asserted against that relativist horror the self cum perception; and thus is done self consciously. That is –if the terminal point of perception lies in the self, then it is clear that everything is merely my own point of view. I am there (don’t you know) and as I am, then everything which happens to be is MINE (not itself- I won it IT IS MINE), and not your. MY TURTH, and bingo how world is relative. Language is the offered as the solution, out of this maze . that is as long as the words are shared across a society by whatever conventions you choose, then meaning is allowed (and a relativity can be found o conform to that meaning)

viii) Problem here is that this is really the vomit backfill of meaning. That is meaning is arising in the gorge of language. the model of language is therefore being used for meaning. This meaning is then being applied to the stomached of the self. A meaning is a meaning, and is now guaranteed not in the world but in Me all me. It is me is then carried over to perceptions. That is this Me is then seen to include also in it perceptions. The meaning the arises up (and partially dues to its corrosive of acids) dissolves the oesophagus of perceptions. A perceiving coming it, becomes already mine and already a thing of meaning. Meaning is configured as if around words, and yet in the light of Me alone. And bingo the world is mine (my own being).

ix) The Self therefore moves from the anchor of truth. That is the mazing medium or light filling prism which allows perception to be translated into words ,, which allows meaning, to the master of meaningless itself.

x)And yet this move is actually vital as it insulates language against the power of perceptions. The point about a perception, if a self is meant to revolve around it (which is after all our experience of it), is that it forms whirling disk which I in thinking am never the same I. For what else am I be the legate of changing perceptions.

xi)Moreover as it is of course critical in the rubric of all perceiving that it is shared as it is external – that is that there is somehow are also influenced in and by it, then the act of perceiving is a change in which others are also changing . these changes might them be or not be similar to what a mind actively is.

xii) The world is then caught up in the ‘truth’ of mazing prisms of perceiving which changes. You and I are not quite what we were, the game is to keep than in accord (this is of course where language creates beautiful counterpoints of truth stripping across the entire picture).

xiii) The problem here is that is it so difficult to actually capture what is changing here. It is not the simple outside world. If I was language would be right. T is not the self, for then relativism (or kindly language) would e right. It is somehow somewhere the obvious world in between these element – a world willed by hidden springs or God: a world beyond knowing. Because it is beyond the obvious.

xiv) This is not then a silent other between relative and perceiving (and the speculated medium of the body itself). The other here is clearly the another of Deleuzean expression. That is that ability to always be change that lie in the face of fear or the word China. The alchemy of an index of possibility or a percept. That is the changing axis of being other in perceiving.

i)But this is not to finished all hat can be said of the self, or perhaps the Soul. De amina here set the agenda here in remarking that the relationship between soul and the body was the difference between use and mere existence. The soul of the eye was sight…Each soul’s usage was then available to the next soul in a great chain of being. I use sight then in my soul as a square contains a triangle. I exists within the as a potential I am realizing, as a thing I am using.

ii)To be at all, that is to be Me is therefore o be using the world. To be bending it to some purpose, r binding it in some process. To exist slips into matter of creation.

iii)The problem then is how one is creating. Here there exists two main possibilities both of which revolve around what a meaning is thought to be.

iv)One might be creating the world of turn and god’s little helper . That is self might be the Kantian engine by which a truth is formed and given to us all (and therefore sharable by all). The problem with this move, when it is made is that there appears no reason beyond that is the god given nature of the truth for this cretaion

v) I mean we might supply endless pretext (morality, morality, idiocy survival), and yet none really cut the mustered. Why after all create a shared truth with the same basic effort one can create something so much richer and more profound?

vi)The reason were of course given above (that is the reasons which were not contained within Nietzsche…)

vii)The other option is perpetual recreation. A truth wonderful solution perhaps most fully explored by Whitehead. And yet this solution has its own costs. Each actual entity is a pint of creation, which then takes up and transforms other points (as a good Aristotelian Soul must). He world is therefore an unlink of such act of creation, which only pretend each other in making each other (as sight remakes an eye). Each throw is therefore a genuine different. Indeed it is an infinite different, as a throw will involve an innumerable number of separate throws by each point in the universe throwing at once, and in a way that does not relate to one another. The relation is a subsequent prehended creation.

viii)Reality therefore slips n the difference the elements make. That is into their absolute ability to be in the middle of remaking difference, and all rights to think about time o continuity on the level of reality is quietly brushed aside in the game of creation.

ix) The probe is then holding onto the exact rational of these prehending points. That is of holding on to the moment in which and by which is made. Why have reality this way? Whitehead defines it by arguing with Locke that there must be something real, some actual moment of creation. But there are two rather different arguments here. To be is a state of perpetual creation, and to be a point or an occasion of that creation are not absolutely one and the same. One can envisage (indeed Whitehead argues there are in the form of time and the event elements of creation that re-create from within the flux of things, that is within time. Matter and creation need not be synomous.

x)Indeed it is tempting to think that the point are only given together- given in an actual occasion because of a pre-existing Aristotelian prejudice that tied creation to individual things (aka souls- elements which use other elements). Occasion need not surely be separate souls, but should be far far more problematic; they should be the pint in which mattery souls are created, and not merely something which borrows elements from them.

xi) Behind this spat (one which Whitehead is utterly aware of – he presents the other agents as time and events, Deleuze then follows him upon this). Behind this spat is then, problem of meaning itself the problem of where to begin with reality (if one does not begin in language or perception). Is meaning then the hidden elements of creation (actual occasions), that therefore configured around a ‘reality’ (that is an external meaning, as given to us in language). Alternatively is meaning given within the mechanism of perception (even as it is distinct from perceiving itself) .

xii)Neither option has then fallen out of the box of meaning, even thought the later option has at least fallen out of the box of the self; while the former has dropped out of time’s trap.

xiii)That is, actual occasions are carefully poised against time, time will o course construct a different into a single obit (or set of orbits, or multiverse options). It existing in a tread ,but existing as a thread, it makes the actual world borrowing and stale. The advance actual occasions have is posing a level of creating in a point beyond any time, and therefore actual while also being free from time noosing net. Creating can thereby be actual and free – and not merely a rendering of a virtuality as it tumbles into being.

D difference.

i)building of the last section it is clear that an axis of meaning can be defined in difference, and through the event. One must think like Whitehead’s God or Deleuze of events in which all possibilities lie virtuality. Event that therefore tumble into the world into act of creation, as acts of creating. Of making the world different across spans in time, and of time.

ii) Time therefore understood as this radical power never to be where one was, becomes the agency in which and through which creation occurs.

iii) What is created in then in a sense nothing actual. Or better what matter in that creation is nothing natural. The Moment is the splitting of an stale borrowing actual 9so much for an actual occasion) and the founding of a rich series of new possibilities (the world of the virtual), which the set about transforming across other occasions the world.

iv) The creating thereby occurs in between Whitehead’s actual occasions, and frees itself of the thing-soul based minis that still haunts the philosophy.

v) Moreover the event can be envisages in a way that Whitehead’s actual occasion cannot be. It can be seen in perception. Or better it gives a meaning for (the reality behind) the percept – that axis for locus of change. It gives it a noumenal content. An element or dimension to mean within (whether it wants it or not, my money is hat it does not want it).

vi) And yet it does so only by another us into time. That is it makes the mind turn on times own lack of meaning – or better of the acts of creation which turn on that lack, and reinvigorate it. Everything looses bit time (and the insufferably smug Bergson).

vii)A Good Whithead or a Good Spinoza, committed as they both are to tumbling out the box at just this point both demure. The problem is always the creation of one axis of creation restrict what creativity itself it. Spinoza wants therefore an absolutely indeterminate God and Whitehead sovereign occasions.

viii)Deleuze is of course aware of this. He posses an event, and opens up the world to many times in a choasmosis that was itself true. Each vessel of being the pulls apart the reality of another, Each event contains in itself an axis of pulling. Contra Bergson the axis of creation is not the mere hanging around of farts in sleeping bags. It is rather the active creating of these differences.

ix)Time is creative therefore because in differing form itself it differs in the way that it differs, an so is alone open to create the maxim number of possibilities for its own difference. All of these nest into each other without being different.

x) Deleuze hopes this is enough to counter at least Whitehead (he knows surely this is not enough for Spinoza, who would immediately doubt the nature of only having one way of differing from ones own difference. Surely he would suggest God or substance or whatever will have an infinite number of differing ways – and he can supply quite a view from his Ethics…)

xi)Whitehad also is unlikely to simply accept this, as it still sacrifice actual creation within these axis of different times. Time can be creative, and be different from and to itself (and difference can be the meaning o itself) if that creation is located in a virtual plane, in which and for which these times are, and not congealing Lava landscapes of actual occasions. Each is the free to remake the other and say bugger of to a time, which like a land mass, can only follow and modify what the congealing masses of made of it (and how they then remelted it.)

xii)Or to it I slightly different, there is nothing in Spinoza f Whitehead the demands times behaves as the acids of meaning without meaning. Time when over, when remember need not be of the same order of existence. Indeed it ought not to be (so long as it has its on actual order). Time is less about then finding the single axis of moving flux, and more about allowing difference between different sense of time to be (the past is utterly unlike the future, most of the time).

xiii) or to be ruder, there is just a whiff of backfilled vomited meaning in the appeal to time That is there is an appeal to something which must have a meaning, something beyond reality,- a time which as it has meaning is what it is and one cannot help that…

i)Why not the absolute itself for itself. Why not call God meaning or truth or peter or Harriet for that matter.

ii) The historical trouble with Bob-God is that it gets mistaken for positive theology.

iii)Or better it gets thought the negative theology is not itself creative – which hit must be.

iv)Or better It mistakes the slips of negative theology, the question n and recreation as an examination of the truth, rather than what it is- it is the came of pre-positioning and recreating the nature of the absolutely recreativie.

v) The trouble always with thinking this element was the trouble that haunts time (and makes actual occasions the thought). That is the problem of avoiding that dratted unity.

vi) This problem was one Spinoza thought he solved in the idea of God.

vii)Unity was created by absolute indeterminacy, and therefore could not challenge it.

viii)A brilliant solution, but one it takes rather allot of bravery to follow, indeterminably.