All I have to remember is that down at the bottom of every person is what is down at the bottom of me—a salmon made of mercury light fighting hard against the current; and if it swims maliciously, swims self-woundingly, remember, ah, yes: were I but that salmonsoul, all would seem cruelly necessary.
A poetic freedom will come to us last of all liberties:
To whoop our wings against the air; to curse bullets into villains; to pronounce an arm around a lover's neck and pray our tongues into their ears; to tell toast into turd, rock into rose—to recite god from the sky and hum him back into the babbling river or hymn him into the smelting fires.
__
i wonder what you could do with emerson's emphasis on 1 and the dual emphasis you hear in other theologies of 1 and 0
James
1 and 0?
__
yeah
the creator and the void
the dick and the vajay
blumenkraft and schlangekraft
James
division, eh?
__
aye
some would say he is missing something
sartre, for example
sartre is big on including negation
in a sea of notbeing, being grows
James
__ why is there something instead of nothing?
__
james, i mean you might look at the existence of anything at all
as implying that our conceptions of existence as binary
like, nonexistence being some sort of possibility
is faulty
and that nonexistence is impossible
and not, as folk ontology has it, some notion that nonexistence is somehow more likely or even possible
James
in a 0 and 1 world, 0 is still a slot
__
what if you're privileging something
what if 1 and 0 are slots for one another
James
like figure/ground reversals
__
you could just call a dick a filler for a vagina as well as you could call the vagina a slot for the penis
yes, their mutual presence is paramount, neither alone matters
James
where is this vagina nothingness then?
__
maybe its unwheredness is as important as being's wheredness
that is one of the baddest-ass words i have ever coined
James
i pondered the 'd' for a while
__
makes it a participle, i think
James
nothingness's unwheredness is important for?
__
for whatever reason you inquired about its complement, being's wheredness
James
that is, nothingness's unwhereness is important for whatness.
__
i do not think i follow, precisely
James
whatness being the essence of something
for some reason whatness feels like matter to me
__
surely it is
howedness being energy
maybe even force-carrying particles
whennedness and wheredness both obvious
wait wait
whennedness is what the universe has
whenness is that which whats and hows have
James
but whens have whats as well
__
i am not sure, they may interhave one another
robert anton wilson points out that i cannot give you an object eternally
i can only give you an object in a specific time and place
hence, matterenergy and spacetime are not even separate
there is no referring to any thing as it is without giving coordinates in all four of those
no such thing as spacetimeless matterenergy or matterenergyless spacetime
James
except abstract things
which perhaps don't have coordinates
like, say, whatness and whenness themselves
__
abstract things!
you fucking platonist
those are names we humans use
the whatness and whenness are aspects
not essences
James
i suppose it would be hard to 'give' you whatness
__
abstract notions are just patterns within consciousness
consciousness perhaps being one last component of matterenergyspacetime
James
a requirement, perhaps
__
or maybe in this blather we stand on the cusp, like the world looking into the 20th century
five components of that-which-is-all!
hah!
reality will surprise you!
space is a name of a genus with dozens of species!
there are thirty types of consciousness and time is actually two separate things!
James
what
__
okay, well
James
what are the species of consciousness
what are the two components of time
__
i don't know, i am speculating wildly about the fundamental nature of reality
so you know, in physics, they thought at the end of the 1800s that they more or less had figured it all out
just a few loose ends
then a bunch of crazy experimental outcomes and theories fucked everyone's brain in half
James
including conception?
__
not including conception
i don't know what their stance on that was, but I think they presumed they didn't need to look to physics for the solution
that is what i would bet, at least
James
i mean the first question of something and nothing
__
oh, that one
no, but i think we stand in the same boat as them
as that's concerned
James
your answer still applies—they didn't need to look to physics for the solution
__
right
and so i here tie up reality into a nice little bow
this system of matterenergyspacetimeconsciousness
curtailed into being by its own impossibility of notbeing
James
i'm seeing consciousness as a prerequisite to the others
__
you can see that if you want
but i think that is a big assumption
James
i mean we can't rule it out
__
we can't rule out any of them being prerequisite to the others
you consciousness-centrist
James
lol
well that's the more interesting take as i see it
__
meh, i think it's a matter of taste whether it's more interesting
five which are one, or four which are one, which is one
James
since it's usually assumed that consciousness comes late in the development of the universe
__
only buttholes think that, james
James
then i propose consciousness to be the complementary nothingness of something
__
that's a little more fun
but i can still call matter the hole of the universe
James
consciousness is the ground in which the figure of the universe dances
__
MATTER is the ground in which the figure of the universe dances
but that is a beautiful phrase, james
i still think you can do it with all of them, though
and it takes a different scent or flavor each time
like, how clean-cut is the guy who thinks space is the ground
James
thanks. you kind of have to hold one constant to observe the others
__
and how nerdy the one who thinks it's energy
how mystic the one who thinks it's matter
how tripping the one who thinks it's consciousness
and how wise the one who thinks it's time
ymmv
wow
what a great party question
"of space, time, matter, energy, and consciousness, which is the ground in which the figures of all the others dance?"
i think i will ask real wise guys that one
James
i want to go to your kind of party
it's nice to think of time as flowing through objects instead of vice versa
__
mmm, that is lovely
James
time is a river that passes through us
__
oh wow
if you hold it as energy
you hold it as pure action
all things occur through its immutable actionness
James
energy's actionness?
__
there is only one actionness
and it fills the universe and all things move through it
even time
in this way, we see a "who"
is actually a subcategory of "what"
James
action just the product of matter energy and time
__
and that the questions are actually what, how, where, when, why?
if you hold consciousness still, things occur because they are compelled by desire to occur
or aristotle would say, because they love
the fire goes to the top because that's where it loves being
and the stone to the bottom for the same reason
James
i don't like subsuming who into what
__
well TOO BAD
holding whereness constant is boring almost to the point of tranquility
James
or see how that follows from holding actionness constant
__
it doesn't follow from holding actionness constant
i began a new thought
whos just being whats is a pure declaration on my part
feel free to alter it and create a new system
James
i'd rather refine this one
__
what is your next proposal?
James
that who must be around to instantiate what
__
why does whatness need instantiation?
James
because it can't be observed otherwise
__
ah, you need whoness to get the difference between whatness and howness off the ground
James
whatness needs to be observed to exist as whatness
__
that is to say, to collapse the eigenstate
or whatever
and whoness is distinction from whyness
albeit both seem to have something special to do with humans
or neurons, i should say
James
whoness could collapse the eigenstate between e.g., whenness and howness, OR to collapse the eigenstate between something and nothing
__
anyway, notice how many parts of being there are
being is parted
unbeing is unparted
that would be making whoness the ground, i guess
which i think we do a lot of the day
whoness being the ground is just day to day life
HOW LIKEST THOU THESE APPLES?
in the beginning, there was only one whoness
the nonunbeingness
James
whoness is usually the ground. but when whoness contemplates whoness, it is also the figure
__
when whoness contemplates whoness, this is called praying
the primordial whoness, for whatever reason, split itself into another who, and then that one into two
and gave these whos the power to create more whos
James
subject to natural selection
__
right
anyway
this is a sweet theology
i've never had theology be a subset of ontology before
usually it's the other way around
James
so now we have a diversity of whos, a kingdom of whos
__
ah, five kingdoms or something, right?
or has biology advanced since like the 90s
two domains
James
how do whos mate?
__
maybe the partedness is the whoedness
and that they mate just by parting
the who was the first part of being
oh i get shivers
what beautiful imagery
both the first component and the first split of unbeing into being
like two cells pinching apart
but now we are in danger of making every what a who
well, maybe that's okay
i think that is just called panpsychism
James
maybe every creation of a who also creates an an unwho
or an antiwho
__
what is an antiwho?
that which seeks to rejoin the parts?
an adversary?
James
it's a who's parallel in unbeing
__
i toldja
unbeing don't got parts
if we do that, we just end up with two mirrors
we gotta hold the void the void the void
the void has a nility
James
the unbeing parted into being and unbeing
but only being parted further
__
naw, dawg
i mean, okay, maybe
but
a nility is even stronger than a unity
the nility of the unbeing is a much bigger deal than the unity of being
which is because being is not unious, it is parted
but the void is nilited
oh, i've come dangerously close to saying "nothingness nothings"
"Das Nichts nichtet"
James
but you are saying nothing parted into nothing and something
__
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/evans_nothing_nothings.htm
naw
i think all the somethings of something
are parts of it
and that nothing is unparted
James
hmm im reading that essay
__
this guy argues back toward emerson's ONE
i still say we detect the whiff of unbeing on all ways of viewing the world regardless of the aspect we're holding constant
this guy has a small imagination
he insists on holding whatness constant
or maybe it's howness
or maybe it's time
that is, whenness
but it's not the peace of whereness, nor the joy of whyness
and nothing so blase as whoness