Making a Principled Stand.
Three first principles: That’s one based on simple elements (and their vivacities)
To Mix up truth and error in the interest of pulling rabbits out of hats. Elements that lies so very close or so very far many or may not be true. Thereby to present here rules for the mixing up: That is dimensions of mix up to follow and exploit.
To Mix up the past: to plunder the past in the interest of making new dimensions in the present. That is to find those pieces of the past that are still hanging around; To uncover an eternity; This is achieved in the name of something utterly hidden, causality, and yet which still registers in the mind. This also involved the invention of different circles of reason, each appropriate to a dimension of thinking.
To Mix up that dimensions of the mind actively are. To take a single idea and knock it into principle. Every idea becomes then a virtual principle of its own: in its own right- if only the correct ressemlbings were spun from it.
Three principles based on complexities (and therefore involve cojoining with passion)
The Be caught up in a story someone else is writing. To never then know quite were one stand. Be a s sub author. To then look to the world one sees, and explore with an aim of layering a time: One sees up here complex exchange between different ways of linking. Between the power of the vivacity of scurrying thoughts and the fixity of passion (which gives that thought a different impetus). Time coagulate unities They fester,, in the mind, according to their passions. To right a story is to compose. It is to pull the two a differing ways. Passion defines fixed point, and vivd feeling. Many complicates these feeling, and provides other examples. Story telling is then the enfolding of Amy without the need to think for a self.
To be Caught up in a highly disjunctive space, where nothing is ever more or less that gauzy slipping away. It is then to be caught up in thoughts and memories that can always be presented differently, even if there is a real habit. One has a mind of slippage, where there are singular points, singular memories, and yet all the rest remains fluid and open.
To Be the maker of thoughts, the father of invention. If one is freed from the necessity of having to think that which is simply there. One is free to experiment. Thought becomes then about both care and creation. One runs idea s together, se what might happen, and what did happen. On the running ahead or behind, become useful.
The Dark principle of everything else: Of ossilation between simple and complexity. Each passion claims always to be, as it servs a causality so very very simple. It claims then that every passion element are what it is (using ressemblence and causes to do so). It moves across related terms: less envolping them, and more simply claiming that it was thee all along. The same impressions is then shared in a thousand different ways, each shard, representing a particular analgum. The same thought is then pitched up, made impersonal and rendered harmful in the blending. Mirco thoughts are thereby ‘established’: that is a link between apparently urelated elements.
Criss crossing these principles are those of synthesis (which run also from complex to unity) and those of tense (which run from unity back into complexity). These principles are then neither an articulation of the simple, or complex or yet the attempt to establish a connection between the two, but rather involve direction flowing one to other.
Te final set of principles are then tied to passions directly.Passions are of course highly volatile, it is genuinely ard to know what ou are feeling (if anything); It is in this voaltilit death sits.
So just what is a principle?
Gowan here is perhaps the one watch here. The founding point of the principles lies in reaction. It is defined, very well in Hume as the process which is imagination flows it at once becomes more vivacious, but also poses that vivacity as itself a problem; or better a demand that it be real to something of the world. It models then the very catching up element within is also given in reality. The sprocket of the mind.
And yet is making this move, the principle, without falling into being a single process or verb (which is a naff as the idea of a soul, or a naive as the idea of a praxis). To have an imagination with is capable of breeding principles is therefore to have one that is capable of treating ideas as they also really are (as impressions); that is of treating tem vivaciously.
And yet here one needs to make a further complex distinction. On the one hand it is plain that for the mind, is owns a degree of its on reality in posing the vivacities as reality. It is the mind which, in imagining takes over the act of perceiving, but takes it over as its product. It is the effect which absolutely defines the cause. The mind is then both allowed truth (and so vivacious elements themselves), and yet also jolted from all truth.. or better truth becomes what it is has to play with, It becomes caught up in the vivacities the mind has: Truth is taken into the mind itself-it is its ‘product’ or better the product of that which must be attributed to impressions, and yet is rooted in the mind: the portrait the mind gives of an effect elsewhere.
And yet, on the other side of this, is the existence of ones body, as an element in the world. As one has a body, one also has glands and organs for producing complex feelings: for producing passions. These passions are at once peculiarly rooted back into impression, and on the one hand they operate with the urgency of vivacity. The Mind as it is passionate gains a degree of original vivacity in its perceptions. It then has ideas as intense as impressions. On the other each such impression has the deep effect of restricting the overall effect of those vivacities. As organs generate feeling, and make feeling more intense than they should be, on is caught up in only linking together those feeling which generate these feelings (or one rather like them0. One becomes then at once lifted out of the ‘truth’ of perception,and forced to pose the truth as oneself, and as one s do, one looses the ability to pose a rich diversity of different links between the intense passions and the vivacious that inspire then.
Indeed the scope of this last problem is difficult to exaggerate. The very essence of passions llie in the fact that they are problematic to divide. If one is caught up in the scintillation of a feeling, One will not know whichever way to turn. Feeling will the dominate the mind is torrid streams and connection; Connections which moreover demand their own connections (and risk splitting anew). Each union of each passions is therefore provisional and problematic. One desires it to be singular, even if it is not.
It is in this union the self is conjured. The idea that was in its inception within the mixing principles was problematic: an effect that nonetheless tilted at being a cause, becomes in contrast a cause. Or better one attributes that idea it cause of a feeling of pride that folds over numerous other thoughts. Ones pride alone enfolds numerous other feelings, and forces the mind to behave itself.
However this the breeds two new sets of problems on the level of the vivacious mind itself. on the one hand it is clear hat the vivacious mind does not simply abandon its mistrust of identity. I mistrusts it , because such an idea would need, if real be based on contiguity. That is there world need to be a space called self hood, and vivacity knows it. The Identical is not a space but an amalgam of resemblences (which jump independently of vivacity, and according principles of overspill, and independence) and causality within overflows these relations, posting them in a temporal sequence. Without Contiguity, there is no positive definition of the subject. It follows that the subject is based ultimately on twisting vivacities, into devoured images. The world becomes one identity into a world, which would, rather happily do something else.
Or to put it better, it arises in the very strange death little passions insert into our mind. Each passion, generated by an organ, in relation to a certain set of ideas, breaks the mind of from what it is (the reaction to perception),and forces into what it is not (the devouring of elements in its world). This death is essential treble.
Firstly the mind looses the life of free flowing though (it can therefore be very readily caught in an error).
Secondly the mind’s treatment of the world becomes textured more by they organs of its brain, the organs that it find in itself, and the way these organs look to fulfilment in ideas, than by anything else. The effect is that the reality of the world, becomes composed of a torrid middle zone, between ‘impression’ and idea; where ones organs look to fulfilment, and are expressed with the stuffs of the world: Geography, biological and social intermingle uncomfortably.
Thridly th mind becomes caught within a lodestone of the unities and not diversities. Unities, be they love or the self, provide the mind with the only stability passions otherwise demand. The minds grasp on what is greatly skewed, and it is almost set up against its own diversities.
In is at this point the second set of principles enters in. The first three had had as their foundation the simple idea. They were then the elements of vivacity in which, even in being given simple ideas were caught up in one another. The second set (devised initially in respect to morality) deal with the complex world as it includes passions (which demand there own articulation).
However, before the key issue of how each of these principles copes with the little deaths of passions, is examined, it must be first noted that such principles are rather different from the first three. The First set are ‘real’ in that they are integral to having perceptions themselves. One cannot avoid them therefore. The second set are quite different. It is very easy to avoid them, and thereby become caught up in the byways of identity (and self-‘love’). The challenge here, with these complexities, is that they start not with the simple idea (and the impression) that is before it, so much and the complex individual. Their ‘simplicity’ therefore consists in asking the question how am I, an already highly complex art, caught up within another complex series of parts (that a society). Or to put it better, its starting point is really a matter of geography. It asks where is my place in this process. Where shall I start from.
The problem being the use of I here. An overactive identity, can of course immediately flow in at this point, and that can become pro-active. The ‘My’ can demand very, very easily that the world by synthesised, and a place form me found (in some degree) in that unity of that synthesis. Alternatively One can demand that the myriad of the very quickly dissolves into the service of a unity. On might then so readily be in the service of some threadbare myth, which interweaves numerous highly diverse elements.
At this point is very obvious what the problem in both these care are. Both seek to extend the notion of place, to a simple definition of contiguity. They therefore asks what contiguites are necessary for my identity to be real? If this is so the world could be my contiguous creation: that is my My might demand the world it is in to also be. Alternatively I might se everything that I am, all the myriad elements and diversities as serving one prior thought. The difference, from such a perspective is really were this place is place, such that all diversities are caught up within the same lack of motion (the mystery of circumlocution): Diversity is given only as it is run through and held togtehr in a shifting weave of unthoughts. Alternatively the unity could be simply demanded to be what is owned by right. One owns a status (or a fine house), and diverse elements must be allowed to fill it. Or again one owns a poverty more noble than all the rest, and demand a world fit into the owning.
Both of these moves articulate the deathly element of a passion, without any attempt to reconcile with it. Circumlocution suspends life in a death: that is in a pointless never ending dance of accountability. The Threadbare myth, demands that everyone accedes to the death head of what has been – and slays the present in its name.
Both in making this ploy exploit that deep difference between the differing contiguities of vivacity and passion.. Contiguities of impression, will always pose relations in external defined neighbourhoods, which are together bound into a shifting idea ; while passions always know they are close to other feelings (or even contain them). The Conjunction (for such it is, and no synthesis, at this point – it will be only thought as synthesis in its effect) will be intricate, and nuanced, in that it clearly caught up one contiguity in the demand of the other. There are clearly two options therefore.
Either the contiguity of passions can lead. Numerous differing feeling are called to account (sometimes severely). That is they are made to accord in some dominant passions embodiment. In such cases direct passions will aim to produce those feelings which support the perceptions: or better will demand that they are produce. This demand will then be highly volatile; a passion can, if defined as gloriously complex rip across the mind, gathering numerous elements to itself. The springing off point for this passions will then be an idea, whose consequence the passion in thought to be. The idea is the essentially removed from the process itself; and everything is merely attributed to it (as h point of owning). If one extended the vivacious contiguity to include this point everything would shift, as the idea which causes and the effect it ‘products’ were seen as radically different or even opposed.
Or, the contiguities of the external dominate, and all passions are lost down the maze of link and counter link. Every feeling is then pitched across all others and never allowed to make lasting demands of its own. Passion is thereby frozen within a single inactive idea (the art and science of ‘Do nothing’). Passion thereby at once losses is peculary power to hold the mind, and yet all the same warps vivacity. The world is never as it might be in reality, but is rather as the differing passions-treated-as-vivacities would make it. It is an intricate highly detailed, portrait of a world (or an entire society), and yet not the world in which anyone actually does (or even could) purely live.
Death sits in both these cases, which jolt one out of either one world and into another owning and possessing or the threadbare myth): Where death arrives as a borrower or relative or even guest. Alternatively one can be out of all world together:- and into a parallel world where death sits quietly, and yet is hard to fathom or find (for all we know it is there).
In the hands of these ‘rival’ or faux principles, so be at a point, to be finite is caught up with a problem of finite being, and so with death, Each therefore only attempt to tackle what it is to actually have existence from the perspective of the identity, that so very desperately craves its own degree of reality. The point, the being finite of the mind, becomes then a Me who is finite (and so bound be death),
The alternative returns to the very spatial point of first reference. What if, the question might be asked, my goal is not the self (and so death) so much as vivacity itself.: What if the problem passions solve is the problem of articulating then within vivacity, without the two constricting each other. How one might allow a conjoining of intensity and vivacity that is not the shot gun marriage of these other principles?
Three clear options exist.
Firstly one might understand passions, and there unties, and giving one a local place in the world. One will then at any one time be caught up in a sequence of passions, all subltity interlinked with one another; all subtly caught into each other. The subtility itself will then become the facet of the principle. It does not o
look to simply construct the complexity within a myth of contiguity (understood an any manner or form), but rather articulates it, is different stories and different narratives the links it feels resonate between different passions. At this point, it faces a complex, and yet very necessary error. Passion need not be telling quite the same story and vivacity. Passion will then either look always to place a story within a great unity or else, to finish the story of, and defined a new passion in that finishing. Passion therefore demands (in a way vivacity simply never would) a perpetual presence. It will tend, is the story teller does not think about those other quite it links of the mind, to dominate the entire show. And yet the real skill of the story teller lies not in the happy ending, but the sense that those ending only work as the change the reader in odd new ways. The story is the always twisted into having new legs of its own (beyond the noisy world of passions), legs that ultimately allow the passions to articulate what they are within the context of the story (even if all property and ownership might be lost in the process). Stories sing when vivacity eludes the world of passion, and is allowed to be that which it always was – the power to interlink thought (and their passions and the ability to move from sequence of impressions to an idea (which the binds up those impressions into a new marching context.
If storytelling stitches its own passions slowly into the world of passions, then space articulates passions as point within the vivacity. To look of a map is then to see a plain where deep scarred lines of thought are mapped out within the mind. The mind: passions established, broad highways, or dangerous juncture points; or bridges to be loathed or cherished or narrow pass roads into another life, or water resonant with another’s memory. Or again, passions can be thought to reside in a central point or ruined house, forbidding door, or hot square in more foreign hands, within which a passion is crystallized . passions therefore map out an intense and inter-linked space; in which their branching out are thought, and rethought. And yet, this existence clearly has a second dimension. Each impression, each perception is caught up as mesh quite beyond it – and potentially at lest opens on other world, and other paths. To Go for a walk, or a journey, in the name of a passion, is then to be caught up in elements that were quite unexpected (for all the byways were already there), and might take one to very strange places indeed. Each impression is sprocket of passion (which feed of images) as much as it for pure ideas. Or even better, each impressions, is even as gripped in a passion weaving other elements into that weaving (and opening up the space to other passions): A dimension which will eventually mole itself out.
Finally the great inventor, is the positive avatar for identity the inventor is not a man who feels prides or passions in the world, beyond that is his invention. He has no business sense therefore, and no drive to make money (and so perplexes circumlocution, and is looked down on by the owing elements). His very existence to those to desire to own what they possess (who endlessly bambozzel him). That is, the inventor open up a gap between owning, as what he always his skill (and the pride that follows that skill), but what he possesses is constantly shifting , and he invents, and reinvents what he possess, and making no demands up it. Each idea thereby becomes provision, as it is creative. It leads to further experiment, an they to further ideas; while is the role of the passions to protect the experimenting mind.
Passion therefore force the mind to facedown the complexity of the world into which it tumbles. The mind have numerous choices at this point- numerous additional principles, which partially compete, as they drag the hind into very dark palaces. The problem however then requires one to develop the second set of principles, which keep hold of the vivacious element articulate so carefully in the first set (and thereby prevent it being drowned in empty fancy or death). These extra principle either attempt to arbitrate a complex exchange between the passion ad the impression, the intense and vivacious, a move which is somewhat perilous, as the passionate can so readily claim as its own what should belong to the vivacity (and do so in the name of death). Death might stalk this endeavour, and yet there is always beyond that death a change or a reprieve – that is that even in an apparent end another story might be written. Or again one can attempt to orchestrate a world of intense passions, and the paths the delve into the mind from the vivacities that actually do the delving. Form this perspective the mind remains constantly able to recover other says to link the passions, and so other roots, to the is so carefully maps. Death itself is by and large thereby split up. On the one hand there are the shallow deaths of intense passions, who come and go in time. On the other there is something quite other than death; which forever schemes in the noise another reality, beyond living and dying, a reality in which the same feelings might be so different deployed (or caught). Or once again passions might, is the guise of pride (or self or empty love enfold the mind in a protective coat (as if it was it father), allowing the vivacities in the space so allowed to perform a silent creative magic all of their own. ‘Death’ or the very power to do nothing becomes in this final option almost useful. It registers the gap between being something, and what that being then posses. This gap, is simply left gapingly open (who does not own as one possess) and a wealth of creation flows in..
Principles are no simple creatures therefore. They resonate across a mind that has no option but to always finds itself full in someway; and yet has no idea (as in sight) about what that fullness involves (as sight is always full). The represent therefore the very real attempt of mind to devise differing sense of being full – with elements that are simply given. The problem with that giving, and the mind is provokes or indeed the world which appears to be provoking is too readily mistaken for the reality itself, a mistake at once necessarily (passions will not be containble without identity); and yet problematic (is makes claims of impressions) and restrictive (it makes a vital concession in death). Additional principles are then requires to allow that this collapse is not something simple. All these complex additions articulate a mind as a passionate entirety, and yet do so in a way that does not occlude in identity its communal aspects. To Go or a journey, or listen to a story, or even invent, is also to be caught up with others. These others indeed are necessary to by definition of there to save vivacity from the welter of passion – a point that is complex in itself (and must form the topic for the next two essays).