Capable's Method

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Capable's Method

Postby Fixed Cross » Sun Jun 26, 2022 9:31 pm

This is a thread on the topic of the mind of Capable, as he revealed it to me in the duration of my correspondence with him.

I will start with a quote of the article he wrote on Kitaro. It is not so much what he says, the implications of which are infinite, but how he attacks a subject. I've learned from this guy that it is possible to not be Nietzsche, or Nietzschean, and still be a philosophic predator; Capable unites the worldly with the metaphysical predation, he surpasses thus a great deal of historical philosophers. The fact that Capable so swiftly fully understood my own supreme accomplishment, something which no other man has managed that I know, quickly evoked the question of what else he is capable of. Being more than ten years younger than I am it is logical that he had, in that time, from 2011 to say, 2017, his best, most productive philosophical years ahead of him. We fell out over Trump in the end, the whole phase of immersing in politics was less than ennobling, politics being politics - and every attempt here to explain what 'was the case' will be equally debasing - Capable always maintained a noble rage, which Sloterdijk sees as the foundation of consciousness. His yet ununfolded mind could naturally tolerate no lies at all, no trickery, none of that sort of thing, and he was not inaccurate in his prognostications, even though James S Saint was right as well, where the two of them are fundamentally incompatible thinkers as shown in a phase where Capable was investigating the merits of RM, a study I will never know the depths of but which ended in Capable's utter denunciation of the whole system as something that produces incredibly deep subtle errors, which vo can fairly easily indicate by the lack of the notion of subjective value as primacy to consciousness and thus to the experience of reason and this to all that goes by the name "Reason", but here I go again -- still the same old G -- James was right too in what would happen. But he got the reasons slightly wrong. Or he was just playing me. In any case, this thread is not about James S Saint but about the philosopher that presumably likes to hide in the capacity of depth for its own sake, which would be nature's abode. Here is a quote, from an early thread on the forum he built with his the help of his spouse, thanks be to her as for that, by the way.

I dont know if I will cone back to add to this thread. I want to, as there is a literal infinity right there for the grabbing, in the published exhibitions of Capable's Method. All that is of value, all that matters in philosophy and much outside of it as well (as what matters in philosophy is after all the world in its fullest sense) Weary Locomotive once said, is method. Here's a method of attacking a subject so as to extract value from it in the cadre of producing a philosophy of the future.

Note that the following is by no means the best writing Capable produced, it is simply one of the first ventures into a subject I had no knowledge of that I encountered. And everything that he wrote in these years is seething with life. The post makes references to and use of self valuing logic but simply as one would use a fork, which is not to eat soup.

All that follows this is a copy of post 1

CAPABLE ON KITARO
Tue Jun 18, 2013 2:29 pm

“I hold that the self is consciously active when it is interactive, and its interactivity is constituted in a dialectic of mutual negation and affirmation of self and other. Self and other, subject and object, are constituted in the individual acts of existential consciousness. These acts are self-originating and yet co-originating, too, as forms of dynamic, reciprocal expression. It is in this structure of biconditional, interexpressive, mutual revealment of self and other that an individual act is an individual act.”

...“[The biological world] exhibits this principle of self-expression; it reflects itself within itself. I articulate this difference [between the biological and the physical worlds] by defining the biological world as a self-transforming matrix moving from the formed to the forming, through the dynamic transactions of organism and environment. The organic realm constitutes a world that exists and moves through itself in this way. It is a process of infinite transformation through the dynamic equilibrium of organism and environment—that is, contains its own self-negation and self-affirmation within itself. This self-vectorial process constitutes the direction of time . . . The biological world thus has the form of a contradictory identity, possessing its own organic centers within itself and infinitely determining itself in and through these centers.”


Kitaro divorces the notions of space and time from each other, space being the dimension of immanence and extensivitiy, time being the dimension of transcendence and intensivitiy. Space being the realm of simultaneous existence, time being the realm of successive existence. The "physical" world is essentially the spatial world, while the biological world is the temporal world. Time is reversible in the physical world, while time is irreversible in the living, biological world. 


The “absolute contradictory” identity of the self involves the contradiction between “the many and the one”. The self, attempting to reconcile its biological element with its physical element (its world and socio-history) is thrown into the contradiction between the many (the physical world of reversible time and distinct entities existing in space) and the one (the biological world of irreversible time and unique self-expressing entities existing in time). Human acts express themselves, the biological self-identity from which they arose, but they also express the world, and therefore through human consciousness the world exhibits “both a spatial and a temporal character”... “As an order of simultaneous existence it appears as a form of self-negation, and yet it is infinitely occurring in its temporality. Affirming itself in its temporality, it transcends its own spatial character by being a creative transformation.” The temporal unity of the biological being across time, from the perishing of one spatial moment to the next, gives this living being its creative-transformative character; even as it is always perishing, it is also always being reborn. And it is out of these "biological centers" vectoring together through time which the conscious self emerges as the self-expression of the operations of these centers and by their continuity in the world.



This leads into a perspective that is at basic not unlike Parodites’ daemonic consciousness: 

“In human consciousness the world is bottomlessly self-determining and creative, a transformational process which has the form of the contradictory identity of space and time. I refer to this self-forming, creative world as the self-determination of the absolute present. I hold that it is only in this dynamic form of contradictory identity that we can truly conceive something that moves by itself and is self-conscious.” 


And as he continues, we can see how this also adopts and moves into a perspective along the lines of what value ontology proposes: 

“The dynamic reciprocity of objective and subjective dimensions comprising the act of humanly conscious expression is monadological in this existential sense. It is unintelligible as the mere action and reaction of physical objects (that is, grammatical subjects in the framework of theoretical judgment). It must be the expression of a self-determining and self-conscious act that simultaneously reflects the world as a unique perspective of the world. When I say that the conscious active individual exists in a structure of dynamic expression, I mean precisely this. That I am consciously active means that I determine myself by expressing the world in myself. I am an expressive monad of the world. I transform the world into my own subjectivity. The world that, in its objectivity, opposes me is transformed and grasped symbolically in the forms of my own subjectivity.”


We see how he arrives at what we have called self-valuing. He also situates this self-valuing within the larger “objective” world that in its physical dimension (its spatiality) both opposes and also conditions the valuing self. From the vantage of the world itself, human-like consciousness’ are created in order to give the world greater expression and depth, to (re-)interpret the world constantly in terms of a dimension which is foreign to the physical world itself, the dimension of the organic, of irreversible, unique and absolute time. The active consciousness expresses the world through itself while it is expressing itself through itself; the contradiction of the one and the many, subject and objects. Both the world and the self-consciousness take on a contradictory character: the world takes on the character of temporality, which is otherwise entirely foreign to it, while the self-consciousness takes on the form of spatiality, of simultaneous physical existence, which is foreign to the temporal condition of the self. 



Kitaro grounds religious experience in the ideation of God, God being the principle by which these two contradictions can meet each other and thus may enter into productive relation. Human experience of the eternal is grounded in our understanding of death, of the inevitability of the total oblivion of form, which of course includes us, and in this insight the experience of eternal life is also born at the same moment as this is just the intimate and endless novelty of understanding and creativity, which has been named, among other things, philosophy. 


Against Kant’s transcendental forms of the understanding, Kitaro maintains that “content without form is blind, form without content is empty” and he locates here a principle of conscious growth and over-growing progression toward higher forms and orders of experience. He grounds this, quite simply, in thinking. The “thinking subject” arises as a representation of the essential contradiction of the self, as that which “cannot become an object of itself”, the operation is indelibly linguistic, the production of semantics and grammar. The term "grammatical subject" is a tautology. The self makes objects of its experiences but it cannot make object of itself, it cannot self-grasp and self-identify because its objectification and identification are situated in a reciprocal biconditional relation that can never become resolved or grounded, but remain always an irresolute chaos. This irreconcilability, this juxtaposing into contrast of incommensurate elements of conscious experience, this is what we experience as "thinking". Kitaro's absolute time of the self-determining act is also an absolutely divided moment, a space which cannot be entirely transferred into the dimension of temporality, and a time which cannot entirely be translated into the dimension of spatiality. Kitaro therefore defines the thinking subject in the negative definition as that part of the active consciousness which is unable to be made object of by our (objectifying-semantic) consciousness itself. 

And yet, despite this insight, this purely negative definition does not suffice for Kitaro, and he wishes to proceed with a positive designation, wherein he finds a principle of conscious expansion: 

“We can say that the self exists as the point where that which cannot become an object in one dimension becomes an object in another dimension—perhaps some higher dimension”. 


This is indeed profound. Although he does not seem to draw the furthest implications from this, he locates a principle by which the self, trapped within its own impossibility for self-objectification and self-knowledge, is thrown at the junctures of this subjective interruption into alternate dimensions, from space to time, from time to space. From one purview within conscious expression to another, as the forms of this expression shift from one moment to the next. Where the conscious self meets an impassable wall it does not halt, some aspect of its experience always re-configures and escapes toward a new dimension of expression, is thrust into itself again endlessly as into a new avenue of its own self-expression. The negative condition of the self, its irreconcilable contradiction is also therefore understood to be also the condition of this progressive expansion of consciousness, its continual transformation into what which it presently is not. Transpositional logic is what Kitaro calls the logic of this contradictory consciousness existing as time within space, as space across time; objects within a subject, a subject as objects; and the thinking self which lies at the junction between the need for objectification and the threshold of impossibility of self-objectification. And of all this takes place within the temporal field of meaning of human world-history which gives rise to the possible forms in which our conscious acts ultimately take shape. The biological is always partially physical-spatial, but more so it is always noetic, teleological and dynamically reciprocal with its objects, cast outside of time... Kitaro again: "Self-conscious being pertains to noetic self-determination. Our conscious being has meaning in this framework. Each conscious act appears as a self-contradictory center of the noetic field of predicates. Reflection is nothing other than the self-reflection of the noetic field within itself. Our conscious acts are grounded in such a standpoint. That is the basis on which we are self-conscious and moral."

The wider "noetic field" being that out of which individual organic self-determining centers rise and take shape, are colored with character and meaning. The irreconcilability of this self-determining active consciousness takes place within a wider noetic-teleological stage of human world-historical meaning, and is in fact, according to Kitaro, nothing but a particular manifestation of this field at a given point within it: 

"It is in the historical world-time of the absolute present that the monads form the individual expressions of the world. They are both self-originating and co-originating in the matrix of the absolute present. Our own activities as microcosms of the world may be thought to constitute unique events in world-time while simultaneously representing the Ideas as the world's self-negation (that is, self-expression) in world-space. Our activities thereby acquire universality and value. Conversely, the Ideas, as the world's own expressions and values, entail a negation of negation: they are affirmative, actual, self-forming, and at the very least always have moral significance. That is why our activities in the historical world are always, and in various senses, both ideal and actual. The self-conscious world of each individual human self is a self-determining monadic world; but as such, each self is a self-expression of the historical world. Therefore each self-conscious world is a momentary vector of historical world-space, which mediates its own objective self-determination within itself, and infinitely determines itself through its own process of self-expression."


Kitaro succeeds as developing a rational understanding of the basic structure of consciousness and of the structure of this consciousness' mutually-conditioning relations to the world, both to the physical world of objects as well as to the human history-world of ideas, values and meaning.


And finally, further to the above:

All life arises from the fact that it transforms itself by containing its own self-expression within itself. It is first biological and instinctive in a spatially-predominant way—that is, it possesses itself as a form of self-negation. It becomes historical life as it becomes concrete in a temporal dimension—as a self-affirming form within a transforming matrix. In historical life there is always this dialectic of affirmative and negative: the former is the material world, the latter the world of consciousness, in the transpositional structure of the contradictory identity of matter and form . . . I articulate the world of consciousness, which phenomenology defines in terms of intentionality, as the self-determination of the temporal dimension of the world, having this transformative structure of the identity of contradiction. Life-structures that contain the perspectives of the world within themselves, as structures of the world's own expression, may be regarded as instinctual in the predominantly spatial sense, but as conscious acts in their temporal character. Again, they are self-conscious structures in that they are co-originating expressions of the world . . . Reason itself is nothing other than a self-determination of the temporal dimension that always has the character of being a predicate that cannot be subject. We are rational in the self-determining predicate, or universal. Reason functions intentionally, as something temporally, consciously, and immanently enfolding the grammatical subject—that is, the object—and as having its own self-immanent telos.


*All quotes taken from Nishida Kitaro's book Last Writings: Nothingness and the Religious Worldview
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
The Wheel - The Tree
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 11997
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Lightning

Re: Capable's Method

Postby origami » Sun Jun 26, 2022 10:43 pm

Poor boy. He really had a thing. But he did nothing with it.

Too much of a need to be relevant. He should have seen that he was iambiguous's crystal castle archenemy, accepted it, and wrotens philosophy.

Instead he joined the fad of a political movement he did not understand. He believed Marx when he said philosophers are only relevant if they influence politics.


Most of his notes, I find amusing, are terrible postmodernist shit. But he was able to digest it somehow and produce actual philosophy, which you can count with your hands the people that have done that. Basically only Tectonics, as far as the tradition and discipline that is philosophy is concerned, and some even deeper shit that cannot possibly fit into any tradition.

I guess he felt lonely, who can fault him.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Capable's Method

Postby origami » Sun Jun 26, 2022 11:38 pm

I already dislike myself, because you are impossible to talk to. but this

A system which is able to make sense must be an incomplete system, just like a nonentropic system must be an open system.


Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, Wby Jakob Milikowski » Thu Feb 25, 2021 3:20 am obsrvr524 wrote:But their "ontology" is based on measuring a lot of things then assuming an average as the "quantum". They ignore the details and build their entire ontology based on group categories - "everything we measure has an average quantity of energy - so everything is made of quanta of energy".They have to know that they have just made a convenience for calculating the typical size of small things. That is not a complete picture of reality - it is a crude estimate for ease of calculation (similar to dividing all people into political groups - regardless of their individuality - it serves the planners and manipulators).That is what I had inferred from what is taught by wikipedia and such. But after I read Bohr I understood that the step-wise buildup is inferred from spectral data. Quanta on the subatomic scale interact with each other in a way that does not produce gradations of energy in the way that a smooth increase would prescribe, as it does on Newtonean scales; the bottom line is that smooth scales are a matter of averages. Accuracy shows reality to be anything but smooth; it is rather jagged. I do believe you interpret too much humanities into the sciences. Jakob Milikowski wrote:I did not say AO holds that the world is homogenous. I indicate that affectance, as a criterion, is homogenous. That is not in AO. AO states the opposite - that homogeneity is impossible in the real world.I just said that that is not what I meant. The criterion is homogenous with itself on a level (math) that VO's criterion is not. The calculatability of real order in terms of quantity is not a given. And that leads to the fact that any "quantum" cannot be homogeneous inside - so what is inside each quantum?You are presuming it is the same in each quantum. But by referring to it as a quantum we simply mean that it is a presence in a system.Formally, there is nothing inside of it that isnt made explicit by its role in the system.Whatever is in the quantum but not observed in terms of a system, is logically inscrutable, yet it may in stand forth in larger systems.RM presumes to be able to designate that role in advance on a categorical, scale, but I say it can not be done, for the following reasons;In mathematics thus also in RM,1=1.But that presumes that "1" equals "1" and nothing else. That is, a sign without content.To me, 1>0<1', and onward >0<1'' and so forth, would be required to do maths with VO.Whatever "1" is meant to designate in the universe, thus whatever holds ontological value, is more than just a number. "1" can never apply to the universe if it is truly and fully equal to another instance of "1",This is not merely theoretical but practical. If we apply the integers to hydrogen atoms, protons, or electrons for example, that is, units of which we know that they have the same mathematical values in terms of their mass and their charge, then it appears that we can not hold 3 atoms in the same framework as we can hold 2 atoms. With every added integer, a new system occurs. A system of 2 atoms is in turn not the same as a system of 1 atom. Only a system of 1 atom is equal to that same system, but this is fully tautological and may serve no sneaky function inside a true system. I thus reject "A"="A" as a philosophic premise, just as I reject "tree" = "tree". I can only concur that hydrogen atom'>(no atom)





Incompleteness 0L6qlbQ


< hydrogen atom''.
meaning: a hydrogen atom is as much more atomic mass than zero as another hydrogen is.

They are not equal to each other, and any representation of than as such is guaranteed to disregard or misapprehend their function in a system.

This means that vo can work with an indefinite amount of systems, known and unknown, without distorting logical procedure; it means that whatever occurs as certainty is fully local, based in empirical truth, what actually happens, conscious experience; it is therefore not a metaphysics. It is a method without prescriptions of any kind, other than that the subject must be able to be interpreted as existent. Strangely enough, there are laws, limits emanating from this requirement. Such as, for example, that units fitting in any system may not be infinitesimal; because infinitesimals do not amount to systems like integers do.as I described above; they do not bring about interactive paradigms, thus no increase in dimensions, thus no fractals, no "chaos".
Chaos is the order that exists between orders.
An hermetic instance of VO logic stands amidst the chaos as a source and coordinator, a master signifier, in whose terms his surrounding may be coherently understood, but in whose terms another master-signifier may not necessarily be understood. One MS merely equals No MS to the same measure as the next MS. They do not compute with each other, therefore do not equal each other in terms that apply to either one of them.

This is, incidentally, why 1 is not a prime.
A prime must have 2 signifiers; "1" and themselves. In "1", the second signifier is only a formal derivative of the first. So between the lines of what is instantly explicit,
1 is not a mathematical object in the same way that the primes are.
Strange atractors are consequences of properties that are not instantly explicit, but become manifest only when a system takes on a certain degree of complexity.
The increase of complexity is never so great as when 1 is added to 1; from there on the complexity sometimes slowly increases, then suddenly quadratizes, perhaps becomes infinite for a while until it is reduced into a structure next; the only consistency there is in increase of complexity with increase in units, is consecutive 'beauties' of signifiers. 'beauty' is how we apprehend a truth, a Thing, which carries a chaotically unfolding range. In mathematics, the primes are the beauties and the range is the range of primes, which is undecipherable in other terms than in primes.


Is good. I see it. I will forgive the romanticism about chaos. and, bien sure, the problem of what constitutes a prime has not been solved, probably for the same 1 is not a prime issue you bring up.

The paper I quoted to you once explains how to a large extent this is being done, specifically this part "strange atractors are consequences of properties that are not instantly explicit, but become manifest only when a system takes on a certain degree of complexity." The reason they are able to postulate any amount of dimensions, including one, to make a seemingly strange attractor or whatever coherent in a system.

It is more than pleasing to know it wasn't all talk and you do understand science. for the same pathetic reason you ar impossible to talk to, I doubted it.


What can be done about this? Fuck knows. But a true critic cannot keep his mouth shut.

Ideas: you do not actually escape formal homogenity of abstraction. Not only with your main postulate or whatever, but in things like fractals (the fact of fractals) and chaos (defined laughably in terms of order).

It doesn't really matter. Science is not like philosophy, it permits mistakes. The point about locality is the important one, this is the true kernel of your insight:

If we apply the integers to hydrogen atoms, protons, or electrons for example, that is, units of which we know that they have the same mathematical values in terms of their mass and their charge, then it appears that we can not hold 3 atoms in the same framework as we can hold 2 atoms. With every added integer, a new system occurs. A system of 2 atoms is in turn not the same as a system of 1 atom.


What it does to the system is the true science, what a true scientist is concerned by. And I sat some minutes decanting this thought and it was good.

Maybe you have no choice but to become much more serious about professional science and write papers that explain the thing. If you drop the romanticism, you can do it. When I say this I obviously mean first spend 10 years getting up to date. A good test would be if you can understand every single thing in that paper I quoted. But what man can truly compel another man to a course of action?

The insight is valuable.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Capable's Method

Postby origami » Mon Jun 27, 2022 12:04 am

Romanticism only attracts idiots.

search your feelings and shit, you know it to be true.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Capable's Method

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Jun 28, 2022 12:47 pm

The issue of what primes are, you mean, how they occur, by what laws they occur? Well but that is what they are, the fact that there is no prior law to their occurrence. They are, in a real sense, utterances of duh law, which is almost the oppositie to the laws of mathematics itself. I know, this might as well be gibberish. Let me put it another way. They show that the numerical universe isn't god, or creator, or primal substance. The numerical universe meaning the platonic, ideal, symmetrical, orderly, even 'scientific' - in the sense of the scientific ideal of intelligibility - it shows that the universe is more um, 'demonic' than that. Its like the snake in the garden of perfection, the string of primes.

Pi, on the other hand, is much simpler. It is the 'mandala', the square in the circle, or vice versa.

About Capable, I just assume he's occupied now with something more useful than trying to function in something as ridiculous as a 'philosophical brotherhood', which goes agains the very truth that vo discloses and that primes represent.

Damn, the violence I caused by fucking negating the very essence of vo in trying to institutionalize its development beyond myself. Absurd.
And yet here you are, showing you've understood the mathematical direction it gives. You and Capable, 2 men who've understood at least some kernel of it.

But what fucking use is that?

One needs only to look at Capable's chess style by the way to see that his mind is utterly refined. Still I am the darker one. When there was light it found me and named me. Philosophy starts in the very utmost darkness, where also the primes are 'determined'. In precisely nothing.

so maybe Ill just be content to let the world bumble on without knowing its ground. That'll be my private cosmic joke.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
The Wheel - The Tree
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 11997
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Lightning

Re: Capable's Method

Postby origami » Tue Jun 28, 2022 1:02 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:The issue of what primes are, you mean, how they occur, by what laws they occur? Well but that is what they are, the fact that there is no prior law to their occurrence. They are, in a real sense, utterances of duh law, which is almost the oppositie to the laws of mathematics itself. I know, this might as well be gibberish. Let me put it another way. They show that the numerical universe isn't god, or creator, or primal substance. The numerical universe meaning the platonic, ideal, symmetrical, orderly, even 'scientific' - in the sense of the scientific ideal of intelligibility - it shows that the universe is more um, 'demonic' than that. Its like the snake in the garden, the string of primes.


Not gibberish at all. Making perfect sense.

Fixed Cross wrote:Pi, on the other hand, is much simpler. It is the 'mandala', the square in the circle, or vice versa.


This seems fair. I don't claim to have broken the problem of primes. I just know that it hasn't been broken, if nothing else, on the strength of what you say about 1.

Fixed Cross wrote:About Capable, I just assume he's occupied now with something more useful


That is a very pleasing thought. In philosophy, he is terrifying.


Fixed Cross wrote:something as ridiculous as a 'philosophical brotherhood',


No, I think it was a noble try. The whole excercice speaks well of you. As in my previous opinion, I believe its downfall was romanticism. But that has no bearing on the merit.

Fixed Cross wrote:But what fucking use is that?


Arrogance aside, this is the question. For the first time, that it has an answer is not clear, which is scary. If I suggest you study profesisonal physics for 10 years, it is not because I do not understand the implications of the question.


Fixed Cross wrote:One needs only to look at Capable's chess style by the way to see that his mind is utterly refined.


This one does hurt to admit. Hurt as it may, it is his philosophy when unburdened by agenda which really drives the point home.

Fixed Cross wrote: When there was light it found me and named me.


You are a dope rapper, of that there can be no doubt. Consider that romanticism has never sneaked into your rhymes, and to the extent that it ever did, is the only thing that brought them down notches.

Fixed Cross wrote:Philosophy starts in the very utmost darkness, where also the primes are 'determined'. In precisely nothing.


I'll dismiss this as the postmodernist notes which disgust me, but which I understand all too well produce greatness.

Fixed Cross wrote:which incidentally will be the name of my thirteenth album.


I hope you have worked on that flow problem. If the problem was that you were not capable of flow...

Fixed Cross wrote:Shit, I may be impossible to talk to, but I sure as hell enjoy the way you talk.


'S cause I'm an original G.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Capable's Method

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Jun 28, 2022 4:19 pm

It wasn't a problem of flow, it was a problem of pathos, of attitude, as you often expressed, and this is the very same problem of romanticism.

It has to do with the pitiful impulse to extend sympathy, pity even, which is why it is a vice, to humans in general. Which is absolutely contrary to the coldness that gives me my philosophic edge and much of my virtue.

But yeah. I addressed it and, given the success with some young estimable women from around here at least partly resolved it by completely submitting to it beyond rap, into song, and from there back into rap. Im no longer the angry rapper. I never really was by the way, I always needed my cuzzins rap for that. I dont know if you will like my songs. I made an angry rap recently, when I talked to a girl who has lived in Houston, and Brooklyn near where I have lived, and with whom I was able to share the consciousness of America, with its limitless heights and dangers, which is lacking everywhere else in the world. The heights are laking everywhere else. No country has the formula for it. Anyway she said she hated Kanye but loved Nas and then we started talking. I went home and make aan angry, 90s rap and it is good but - not anymore what needs to be said, expressed, not anymore for this world. Neither for me. Rap is all sexual now. I wasn't there yet, not refined (cynical) enough for that, 3 years ago.

And yes your point about 10 years of brushing up my science has been noted, Ive been making beginnings with that for a while. It may be the only way to get the fun back into philosophy. Fun being the experience of undiluted power.
Last edited by Fixed Cross on Tue Jun 28, 2022 4:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
The Wheel - The Tree
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 11997
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Lightning

Re: Capable's Method

Postby origami » Tue Jun 28, 2022 4:25 pm

Well, we certainly are happy to hear that. Because we are unsure what ou mean when you reference anger and song, we continue to brace ourselves, but are hopeful.

Fixed Cross wrote: It may be the only way to get the fun back into philosophy.


Well, for God's sake, it would definitely be the kind of fun that transcends fun. Scientist crack. The juice.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Capable's Method

Postby origami » Tue Jun 28, 2022 4:26 pm

Like look, it's like racing cars. Yes, it's fun, but you can't really call it fun.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Capable's Method

Postby origami » Tue Jun 28, 2022 4:28 pm

Just take it seriously. If you're gonna at all.

Rap and with pussy and all, no disrespect, maybe you're super over it.

But it's there.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Capable's Method

Postby Arcturus Descending » Tue Jun 28, 2022 4:32 pm

Capable was or is a philosophic god. lol
Wherever he is, I do hope that he is well, happy, content and living out his purpose still.
Last edited by Arcturus Descending on Tue Jun 28, 2022 4:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
BE MELTING SNOW. WASH YOURSELF OF YOURSELF.

YOU WANDER FROM ROOM TO ROOM
HUNTING FOR THE DIAMOND NECKLACE
THAT IS ALREADY AROUND YOUR NECK!

DANCE UNTIL YOU SHATTER YOURSELF!

THERE IS A VOICE THAT DOESN'T USE WORDS. LISTEN!

LIFE IS A BALANCE BETWEEN HOLDING ON AND LETTING GO!

LET SILENCE TAKE YOU TO THE CORE OF LIFE!
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 16008
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: Capable's Method

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Jun 28, 2022 4:34 pm

origami wrote:Well, we certainly are happy to hear that. Because we are unsure what ou mean when you reference anger and song, we continue to brace ourselves, but are hopeful.

Yes cause you see, I couldn't turn back. I has to either give it up or continue it, push it to and through its consequences.
Of course Im still angry, and music always is anger, just very well used anger.
Reminds me of what a girl said about birds, that they're just angry little dinosaurs. The "just" really got me. Oh, they're just angry dinosaurs. Thats all.

Fixed Cross wrote: It may be the only way to get the fun back into philosophy.
Scientist crack. The juice.

That kinda is the juice, isn't it.


Hmmmm.

okay okay. (Ivanchuk intonation) okay okay.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
The Wheel - The Tree
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 11997
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Lightning

Re: Capable's Method

Postby origami » Tue Jun 28, 2022 4:37 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:Reminds me of what a girl said about birds, that they're just angry little dinosaurs. The "just" really got me. Oh, they're just angry dinosaurs. Thats all.


This is excellent.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Capable's Method

Postby origami » Tue Jun 28, 2022 4:39 pm

The jungle.

Wonder what Ivanchuk would do in the jungle.

My advice at this juncture is to keep them separate.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Capable's Method

Postby Arcturus Descending » Tue Jun 28, 2022 5:03 pm

Fixed Cross,

Reminds me of what a girl said about birds, that they're just angry little dinosaurs. The "just" really got me. Oh, they're just angry dinosaurs. Thats all.


Birds do sometimes seem like the cutest little dinosaurs but not angry ones. Have you not ever heard them early in the morning delightfully lol chirping their little heads off, (no angry symphony)flying around, landing, hopping around like they own the Earth, being still and just gazing ahead wondering what is going on within their minds? That is not anger; that is contentment.

We observe things how we ourselves are experiencing them.
BE MELTING SNOW. WASH YOURSELF OF YOURSELF.

YOU WANDER FROM ROOM TO ROOM
HUNTING FOR THE DIAMOND NECKLACE
THAT IS ALREADY AROUND YOUR NECK!

DANCE UNTIL YOU SHATTER YOURSELF!

THERE IS A VOICE THAT DOESN'T USE WORDS. LISTEN!

LIFE IS A BALANCE BETWEEN HOLDING ON AND LETTING GO!

LET SILENCE TAKE YOU TO THE CORE OF LIFE!
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 16008
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: Capable's Method

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Jun 28, 2022 5:07 pm

Arcturus Descending wrote:Capable was or is a philosophic god. lol

Damn right. I mean, that's true. I get carried away by all this joviality.

Wherever he is, I do hope that he is well, happy, content and living out his purpose still.
So do I.

Arcturus Descending wrote:Fixed Cross,

Reminds me of what a girl said about birds, that they're just angry little dinosaurs. The "just" really got me. Oh, they're just angry dinosaurs. Thats all.


Birds do sometimes seem like the cutest little dinosaurs but not angry ones. Have you not ever heard them early in the morning delightfully lol chirping their little heads off, (no angry symphony)flying around, landing, hopping around like they own the Earth, being still and just gazing ahead wondering what is going on within their minds? That is not anger; that is contentment.

We observe things how we ourselves are experiencing them.

In Chinese medicine, anger leads to joy.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
The Wheel - The Tree
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 11997
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Lightning

Re: Capable's Method

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Jun 28, 2022 5:10 pm

origami wrote:The jungle.

Wonder what Ivanchuk would do in the jungle.

My advice at this juncture is to keep them separate.

Keep what separate?

Ivanchuk is a jungle. No joke. All great chess players are that, capable is a jungle on the surface resembling a machine. Fucked up to stand in front of. Ultimate American.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
The Wheel - The Tree
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 11997
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Lightning

Re: Capable's Method

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Jun 28, 2022 5:12 pm

Capable wrote the hardest raps Id ever read. Then he deleted them. I just cant think that not not every day s his life he is in sone way producing world-altering agony.
Last edited by Fixed Cross on Tue Jun 28, 2022 5:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
The Wheel - The Tree
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 11997
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Lightning

Re: Capable's Method

Postby origami » Tue Jun 28, 2022 5:13 pm

Fine, have it your way.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Capable's Method

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Jun 28, 2022 5:16 pm

origami wrote:Fine, have it your way.


No. What? That is the very essence, does existence exist or is it an abstraction.

Why do you trivialize this?
It is the cause to all the subtlest of errors, like RM, and Relativity, which both do not count with the quantum as a quantum (an amount, thus something of something) to not understands recognize this.

Because the problem of calculating the actual truth increases literally infinitely when you do calculate with the actuality of it. Hence why Nietzsche is dynamite and Einstein is a violinist.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
The Wheel - The Tree
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 11997
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Lightning

Re: Capable's Method

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Jun 28, 2022 5:19 pm

Like, why does a quantum exist as that particular unit? "Magic", actuality, falling into place, some inscrutable capacity dictated by some measure; like a prime is actually.

Magic is always the unexpected reality of something, the unaccountable reality. Einstein, to put it cynically, takes the magic for granted and capitalized on it with a grand economy. Bless his soul. Of course he recognized the magic-ness of it all - but not the actual procedure of it. The dice-playing. I cant believe he thought that god doesnt play dice. God is a game, or decently understood as such.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
The Wheel - The Tree
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 11997
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Lightning

Re: Capable's Method

Postby origami » Tue Jun 28, 2022 5:21 pm

Don't try to take shortcuts with me. Take it to the quantic analysis thread.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Capable's Method

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Jun 28, 2022 5:25 pm

origami wrote: Take it to the quantic analysis thread.

I knew you were gonna do that. But that is the actual essence. The reference frame is power; QE fuckin D.


And I won't be taking shortcuts (notational style) if I do this whole juice thing for real. And maybe I will here, or in your thread, at that.
On the other hand maybe I will - and Im really not taking shortcuts, just speeding through the matter, like pretending Montreal is actually paved with real roads, yet still not driving a Ferrari.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
The Wheel - The Tree
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 11997
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Lightning

Re: Capable's Method

Postby origami » Tue Jun 28, 2022 5:27 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:And I won't be taking shortcuts (notational style) if I do this whole juice thing for real. And maybe I will here, or in your thread, at that.


That's fine.

Fixed Cross wrote:On the other hand maybe I will


That would be a waste.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Capable's Method

Postby origami » Tue Jun 28, 2022 5:28 pm

I'm not your father, man, and I'm not the law. I'm just telling you some shit.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Next

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users