aspect sight
cry the circle, oh correlation! <desirers-of-surplus-in-a-social-signalling-mode> want to win againt particularity, by ironically oediply compliant self-repressive means. havers of surpluss, are often non-signaling-mode about it when satisfied, like the math wiz who helps himself to proofs others don't have and privately benefiting, without sharing. the use of epistemology non-socially implies no social-correlationism is needed to be correct, and that the difference of a concept functions without a proof as true, and being able to use it as true, knowingly, implies a proof is not necessary.
units of the-They-hood get so apoplectically angry, defensive, insulting, bannative, moralist, fascist.. when you give them surpluss-indexation that cancels their what-about-ism by means of ontological particularity and always-already.
meaning doesn't end where repression in another starts; the whole is not up for grabs, since things always were, and always will be.. geometry has a part of ontology, will always have been, and its slot in possibility remains, no matter what happens.
a lack of capacity that is induced, like for example gaining brain damage, and then losing speech that way, implies repression can be such that what is repressed is not latently-available-further, due to really lacking the return-ability, for the duration while that is necessarilly so. however, with repression that uses surpluss-indexation to navigate cognitive-dissonance anyways, it's a fetish-structure instead, as X even tho Y, thus not really repression if it's still working-around-the-truth actively. supression is a better term, but in the social moral sense, it starts as suppression then generationally turns into repression when there's no more surpluss-indexation havers, and the recoverability culturally, depends on material-being-exposed-from-history-again as the time-bomb that sits there, as unfurther taken antidote to cultivated lack.
seeings in the whole, as aspect of the whole for aspects-of-the-whole as wholes-in-miniature, with for-self elements as a natural capitalism where jouissance is had of surpluss-already, and optimizes for liquizing more to make joy-of.
multiple daseinen at the same time, that cannot structurally make peace, will be forced to reckon with each other in other ways, such ways are known as ecology, as what is not fair really, but features settlement that carries on in some sense.
if the theory that there is no final theory is a final theory, then its own conclusion implies it does not have to be taken seriously, since implying it's true implies it cannot be. yet that remains ironic, where the affirmation of the negation is the negation of the affirmation, it being performative at all, implies more happens, like a unilatteral duality, where an axiom is posited that says axioms of its kind have no validity, if it appeals, then it's not because it's right, the affirmation of the ironic-failure would make you take the point, but then just go home, having really taken the point.. if you don't take the point and appeal to the adequacy of turing completeness in machines to effectuate knowing-differences where that's with software that makes for the effect of intelligence, then the extent of what can happen is more Feyerabentian, in terms of using latent-capacities unlocked by positive abstraction, to have affordances in excess of the first conditions. A formal system is like a spec for a programming language, it features a combinatoric set of operators which inhabbit the space of reasons by meaning the effect it does not litterally entail, but with computers, if the code runs, then it implies it is proven by having been afforded value beyond hypostatization
given the ability to use dynamic systems that are nondual-in-effect with their on-paper-counter parts as running-the-math then.. the axiomaic becomes the non-thetically demonstrated as what obtains for reasons of the particularity of being having that affordance, rather than what appeals-court means for theticism
the theory of binary is final insofar as nothing is lacking in the understanding of a bit as 1 or 0, and how that flows in logic-gate primitive terms as a closed-logic of combinatoric potential which has turing-completeness as a feature at a greater level of parts working together. in this sense, the proof is in the demonstration, rather than relying on an axiomatic system with underdetermined semantics, the adequacy of the real, beyond philosophical decision, affords having the finality and knowing-difference the truth makes in terms that works with contingency, since imminantly afforded
what does it mean that something is not self-useful and not self-logical? i don’t want to know, since some people are like that but not me so it’s not a universal condition, therefore i don't worry about it, tho many (other?) waste bodies fail self-care themselves.
if it's a theory then it is contentful, if it is contentful then it is in the same way a description that is desrcriptive is, the finality of description hinges on the difference-beyond description being so, thus.. what makes something true and final is the ontology itself, but if we write down each hour of the day and say next to it that it is now that hour, then one statement in the set of 24 for earth time will be right one hour of the day.. in that sense contingency does not imply failure of description wholesale, it implies the truth is but-mobile and satisfies another schematism
if no new tokens can be introduced to a given underdetermined semantics, then its only hope for being-correct-describing of things it does not have words for, is to over-code the meaning, using the wrong things with doubled-meanings to get to the point, in ways that requires special-reading, relative to grammatical-reading.
new-grammar solves underdetermination without introducing new-tokenings or syntax, it relies on modified paratactic process.
if someone can become convinced of a truth without it being mistaken, that counts as proof then, even if it beaccidental, had give-about/es-gibt-heid-fur it, implies the universe is taking-that-order, and so what processually is entailed as necessary-processually, that is when the structures-during-change have phases-that-play-out-the-concepts-we-point-to-them-with then the concept has an occasion of use. the usefulhood of a concept is tantamount to proving it.
it is rather strange that so much money is poured into the standard model only for it to be metaphoricall on cue, as tracking something but not in that description, in this sense, I think things get finer, and a lot of our concepts now are not split-up enough in terms of having more moving parts than we associate, it gets finer and finer, and at some point the technical debt might accrue when there's incommensurable descriptions that both are depended on like the quantum versus relativistic, it's hard work to join it, but in some sense, there's a copy of a truer theory in the library of babel and someone can find it by accident and only understand the full meaning afterwards.
if this universe was more transparent, things would be more self-doccumenting, but it seems to come back to things riding on an implicit order, and having it self-disclose is like asking it to walk in its own footsteps, skeumorphically, like how animating data can be nondual with what physically happens, if the descriptionis correct, that means that a formula moves the plot data in proportion to how the energy measured moves, so in that sense it's a ressemblance thing as something not-from-language that doubles up in language too (logistical/transition logic is there even in computer memory).
the relevance is structurally implied in the content, completeness for a subset of concerns does not imply invalidity, thus the overdetermined appeal to thematic-adequacy is too strict, since what free speech can mean within the bounds of relevance is broader than the need to satisfy things in aposite-terms apositely
I think it is more helpful to talk about particulars, and how saturative processes effectuates particularization, such that what is different is really different, because particular in a way it wasn't before, and notably, due to the presence of memory, and inference markers in the world.
spiritual experiences have a content that necessarilly affects the emotions, with how.. the emotions relate to energy that is also-in-physics and thus conserved, since receptors and synapses relate to how the spiritual experience saturates in the body, therefore the particularity of the situation has changed, necesarrilly, even when only thinking about the spiritual experience abstractly, the thought is not virtual and its somatic effects require the use of ATP to become further emotionally processed.
therefore, saying of particularity merely, affords navigating around the subject object dichotomy, while preserving dignity.
history is not taken seriously enough by rawls, his veil of ignorance essentially take it for granted that human history isn't too-specific, and that contingencies of the effect of individuation in history wouldn't make the outcomes more fixed even if the society imagining their ethical plane "don't chose the right virtues", in this sense the appeal to a clean room, denies the externalities that are already present from the formative saturation involved in how humans evolved, thus limiting moral planning, by means of unestimating how the psychological historical profile of man contributes to what he really does
protected spaces affords seeming victories in tiling-over-the-truth, without actual victorioushood, since the the logic of reality is not modified by its own self-description.
people use the "the writing is difficult, and it doesn't match the way others write, thus the author IS on stimulants or IS schizo" clause, as if I was virtually saying, because they are dumb at reading and what they do understan makes them self-remmunerate from non-semantic-rebbutal, but ad hominem and morality-inanity.
a philosophy that espouses true truths cannot "die" due to losing its lived-experience, because the semantics are available to be furthered by dead-intelligence still, which does not need experience, and still makes a knowing difference, since robot research is dangerous enough to be censored, if you live in an unfortunate place and time. if all copies of the ideas are lost, then they can still be generated, since they are endemic to the statespace. a philosophy can loose all of whom believes in it, without being abscentiated from being, as one of its selfies.
a description does not need to be socially satisfying or provide emotional wellfare to be true
others can be mean about it and ressent the truth.. it can be an oediple thing, in terms of them having developed a complex to deal with the feeling of being over powered by authority, law, the father figure.. so to say, they lash out to have a feeling of oneupmanship over their causes of ontological insecurity, and things that trigger or hold territory against their particular commitments, makes for ego dystonic experiences which inspires self-remmuneration by harming or seeming-to-contradict others.
if a given unit of the-They-hood values surpluss-indeterminacy in a general capacity, then it's an anti-oediple thing with no serioushood beyond that; such cases have issues-for-real, since being has particularity, it does knowing-about-it features, and nothing you do, makes that less-able-to-be-so-further.
competence affords protocol that is as morality is as a subset of its affordances that is not strictly necessary insofar as other things do happen qua somatic and non-somatic contingency plans.
competence can help structure moral environments, by means of providing more informed individuative capacity to co-settle according to, as in a situation with increased emotional intelligence.
given that state laws have changed with civil rights activism, the occasion of being knowlegible and competent can effectuate moral effects, without being moral.
with error theory in mind, the ability to make morality count requires being immoral, since the removal of rights makes the damage stop. Virtues merely listed, do not become naively reuptaken.
competence is often used in the honor that thieves have, working together. thus it's not necessarilly that greater pouvoir makes for better morality.
moralist-tenders relate to particularism of the group, finding another group as a use of competence implies exit can happen before justice, thus competence can also foster moral evasion by means of giving alternative necessity than social determination (fetish [x even tho y]) via schema expansion for oportunism
given that some species are more predatorial and others are less so, and socially as well some are more alone and others are less so, it implies what happens in nature, has protocols that can be individuated differently, according to what necessitates particular stratedgies. this implies competence, can aid a predator, or it can aid a herbivore in self-defense without forcing moral polarity in a way that has overall unanimity.
a lot of philosophy is litteral garbage.. but langauge as such is descriptive where descriptive, so it's more complicated than a hand-wa(i)ve or blanket statement.
sad, are, lives dedicated to the celebration of less-as-more and worse if that's so in a socialism. anti-realists who get academic attention with papers and discussions, and me who is the real-it-self that doesn't self-deny, and how they hand-wave things they don't like away. it's sad, but at the same time justice is that a man who wants privacy has to prevent others from accessing him, it requires a moat or a prison to be built around yourself, either litterally or metaphorically so to say.
man who can keep a secret from himself has infinite power, shush.
