Rand through a Nietzsche filter

[seymourblogger]

Well chuttle he has answered you in detail today. Gulp.

"Chuttle"?? I that another another of your postmodernist typos?

Gulp

To whom does "gulp" refer? You mean that you have gulped, or that I would gulp?

I think Janet was just gulping her meds.

Daunce: dayaaaam! Well played, ma'm.

dancer? You mean the one with the platinum blonde wig? The tasteless decor in the house she is so proud of she posts pics of its tackiness? The dancer who dresses her doggie up in costumes all the time? Is this the dancer you mean?

[seymourblogger]

To whom does "gulp" refer? You mean that you have gulped, or that I would gulp?

I think Janet was just gulping her meds.

Daunce: dayaaaam! Well played, ma'm.

ITA. Brilliant reply, Carol!

dancer is soooooo brilliant! Who punched you in the mouth a long time ago dancer?

[Brant Gaede]

Well chuttle he has answered you in detail today. Gulp.

"Chuttle"?? I that another another of your postmodernist typos?

Gulp

To whom does "gulp" refer? You mean that you have gulped, or that I would gulp?

I think Janet was just gulping her meds.

Daunce: dayaaaam! Well played, ma'm.

dancer? You mean the one with the platinum blonde wig? The tasteless decor in the house she is so proud of she posts pics of its tackiness? The dancer who dresses her doggie up in costumes all the time? Is this the dancer you mean?

Go gulp some more.

--Brant

[Xray]

Nietzsche: Zarathustra's despair of the ETERNAL RETURN. No transformation there.

For discussion's sake, I'll take the Nietzschean premise (which you believe to be true I assume) and ask back: And how is this "Eternal Return" going to work without an underlying process of permanent motion and transformation?

Bottom line: the motion and transformation principle as such is unaffected by what results from it. It is just a permanently operating principle.

Transformation is what Foucault will analyze as the remnent of a belief in God.

Aah, this is where you are coming from. it would explain the difficulties you have with the term "transformation" in my posts.

It is true that for example in esoteric circles, people often speak of transformation in a psychological or mystical context.

So to clarify: I do not connote "transformation" with being elevated to a higher level, with reaching an ideal; I do not associate a religious context with it.

Transformation belongs to the dialectic. Reaching toward the Ideal, toward Heaven, or Heaven on earth.

See above. Not my point at all. The transformation I mean is "non-linear" (to use a term you are familiar with). It is an ever-ongoing process that can be observed in all existence.

And since there is no such thing as a standstill, I believe statis [=stasis] means standstill, eh. As Darren's comment on the Cambrian period read, "There are long periods of statis [=stasis] ." Then of course there are Events, irruptions, abrupt changes discontinuities,which is how evolution goes, not in a steady, smooth, historical progressive manner.

We only percevie this as stasis because our senses are tuned to function in a mesoscopic world. Therefore when we look at e. g. a table, we don't see any motion of atoms there.

Just as we cannot directly perceive many of the transformations that are constantly occurring in our bodies. Our body cells permantly die, new cells are formed, etc. That's what I mean by permanent transformation as a fundamentally operating principle underlying all existence, both organic and non-organic.

[Xray]

Nietzsche: Zarathustra's despair of the ETERNAL RETURN. No transformation there.

For discussion's sake, I'll take the Nietzschean premise (which you believe to be true I assume) and ask back: And how is this "Eternal Return" going to work without an underlying process of permanent motion and transformation?

Bottom line: the motion and transformation principle as such is unaffected by what results from it. It is just a permanently operating principle.

Transformation is what Foucault will analyze as the remnent of a belief in God.

Aah, this is where you are coming from. it would explain the difficulties you have with the term "transformation" in my posts.

It is true that for example in esoteric circles, people often speak of transformation in a psychological or mystical context.

So to clarify: I do not connote "transformation" with being elevated to a higher level, with reaching an ideal; I do not associate a religious context with it.

Transformation belongs to the dialectic. Reaching toward the Ideal, toward Heaven, or Heaven on earth.

See above. Not my point at all. The transformation I mean is "non-linear" (to use a term you are familiar with). It is an ever-ongoing process that can be observed in all existence.

And since there is no such thing as a standstill, I believe statis [=stasis] means standstill, eh. As Darren's comment on the Cambrian period read, "There are long periods of statis [=stasis] ." Then of course there are Events, irruptions, abrupt changes discontinuities,which is how evolution goes, not in a steady, smooth, historical progressive manner.

We only percevie this as stasis because our senses are tuned to function in a mesoscopic world. Therefore when we look at e. g. a table, we don't see any motion of atoms there.

Just as we cannot directly perceive many of the transformations that are constantly occurring in our bodies. Our body cells permantly die, new cells are formed, etc.

I hope this clears up for you what I mean by permanent transformation as a fundamentally operating principle underlying all existence, both non-organic and organic.

[Xray]

dancer? You mean the one with the platinum blonde wig? The tasteless decor in the house she is so proud of she posts pics of its tackiness? The dancer who dresses her doggie up in costumes all the time? Is this the dancer you mean?

What "dancer" are you talking about??

[seymourblogger]

Nietzsche: Zarathustra's despair of the ETERNAL RETURN. No transformation there.

For discussion's sake, I'll take the Nietzschean premise (which you believe to be true I assume) and ask back: And how is this "Eternal Return" going to work without an underlying process of permanent motion and transformation?

Bottom line: the motion and transformation principle as such is unaffected by what results from it. It is just a permanently operating principle.

Transformation is what Foucault will analyze as the remnent of a belief in God.

Aah, this is where you are coming from. it would explain the difficulties you have with the term "transformation" in my posts.

It is true that for example in esoteric circles, people often speak of transformation in a psychological or mystical context.

So to clarify: I do not connote "transformation" with being elevated to a higher level, with reaching an ideal; I do not associate a religious context with it.

Transformation belongs to the dialectic. Reaching toward the Ideal, toward Heaven, or Heaven on earth.

See above. Not my point at all. The transformation I mean is "non-linear" (to use a term you are familiar with). It is an ever-ongoing process that can be observed in all existence.

And since there is no such thing as a standstill, I believe statis [=stasis] means standstill, eh. As Darren's comment on the Cambrian period read, "There are long periods of statis [=stasis] ." Then of course there are Events, irruptions, abrupt changes discontinuities,which is how evolution goes, not in a steady, smooth, historical progressive manner.

We only percevie this as stasis because our senses are tuned to function in a mesoscopic world. Therefore when we look at e. g. a table, we don't see any motion of atoms there.

Just as we cannot directly perceive many of the transformations that are constantly occurring in our bodies. Our body cells permantly die, new cells are formed, etc.

I hope this clears up for you what I mean by permanent transformation as a fundamentally operating principle underlying all existence, both non-organic and organic.

"For discussion's sake, I'll take the Nietzschean premise (which you believe to be true I assume) and ask back: And how is this "Eternal Return" going to work without an underlying process of permanent motion and transformation?"

Permanent motion and transformation rests on the assumption of continuity, continuous time. Yes?

The Eternal Return does not. The Event, coming from elsewhere, unpredictable, (no cause and effect premise) is discontinuous. Our perception of time as continuous is based on our language. Our language conditions our perception of reality. (Whorf and Sapir)

The Hopi language perceives "walking" as an infinity of discontinuous steps, not as a fluid movement of the body in continuous time. I forget the name of the verb form but it is in Whorf's book in the chapter on the Hopi language. You can experience this by doing inverted positions of yoga in a gym where people are playing basketball. The movement of their legs appears as a series of discontinuous movements even when they are moving very fast.

Have you checked daunce's facebook page yet? It's embarrassing that she doesn't even know how embarrassing it is.

[seymourblogger]

Well chuttle he has answered you in detail today. Gulp.

"Chuttle"?? I that another another of your postmodernist typos?

Gulp

To whom does "gulp" refer? You mean that you have gulped, or that I would gulp?

I think Janet was just gulping her meds.

Daunce: dayaaaam! Well played, ma'm.

dancer? You mean the one with the platinum blonde wig? The tasteless decor in the house she is so proud of she posts pics of its tackiness? The dancer who dresses her doggie up in costumes all the time? Is this the dancer you mean?

Go gulp some more.

--Brant

Gulp. Happy now?

[Xray]

The Hopi language perceives "walking" as an infinity of discontinuous steps, not as a fluid movement of the body in continuous time. I forget the name of the verb form but it is in Whorf's book in the chapter on the Hopi language.

Back in my student days, I was quite impressed by Whorf's book (I have it in German translation), but his "linguistic relativism" is quite controversial; as for his theory re "time" in the Hopi language, it looks like he got it downright wrong:

http://en.wikipedia....stic_relativity

For example, Ekkehart Malotki's monumental study of time expressions in Hopi presented many examples that challenged Whorf's interpretation of Hopi language and culture as being "timeless".

Malotki, Ekkehart (1983), Werner Winter, ed., "Hopi Time: A Linguistic Analysis of the Temporal Concepts in the Hopi Language", Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs (Berlin, New York, Amsterdam: Mouton Publishers)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Have you checked daunce's facebook page yet? It's embarrassing that she doesn't even know how embarrassing it is.

This is embarrassing?

On what planet?

Looks to me like Daunce has a token Facebook account, just to say she has an account, with hardly any effort at using Facebook for anything.

But to a petit bourgeois busybody with nothing to do...

Michael

[seymourblogger]

The Hopi language perceives "walking" as an infinity of discontinuous steps, not as a fluid movement of the body in continuous time. I forget the name of the verb form but it is in Whorf's book in the chapter on the Hopi language.

Back in my student days, I was quite impressed by Whorf's book (I have it in German translation), but his "linguistic relativism" is quite controversial; as for his theory re "time" in the Hopi language, it looks like he got it downright wrong:

http://en.wikipedia....stic_relativity

For example, Ekkehart Malotki's monumental study of time expressions in Hopi presented many examples that challenged Whorf's interpretation of Hopi language and culture as being "timeless".

Malotki, Ekkehart (1983), Werner Winter, ed., "Hopi Time: A Linguistic Analysis of the Temporal Concepts in the Hopi Language", Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs (Berlin, New York, Amsterdam: Mouton Publishers)

Well I studied with the brilliant Michael Silverstein of Chicago. He was the one who discovered mother-in-law language and spoke about 13 different North American Indian languages. MIL sounded like spitting as it had no vowels.

The verb form I was reaching for earlier is durative as in English pas, present, future, etc.,

Sorry haven't read your book but I'll take Silverstein's reading of Whorf over anyone. He was brilliantly mesmerizing, mezmerizingly brilliant.

I am certain many many interpretations can be put on the table. As many interpretations as there are hungry academic careers.

More ping-pong gals and guys. Come play.

[seymourblogger]

Have you checked daunce's facebook page yet? It's embarrassing that she doesn't even know how embarrassing it is.

This is embarrassing? On what planet? Looks to me like Daunce has a token Facebook account, just to say she has an account, with hardly any effort at using Facebook for anything. But to a petit bourgeois busybody with nothing to do... Michael

Petit bourgeois! Now that's a funny name-calling comment!

[seymourblogger]

The Hopi language perceives "walking" as an infinity of discontinuous steps, not as a fluid movement of the body in continuous time. I forget the name of the verb form but it is in Whorf's book in the chapter on the Hopi language.

Back in my student days, I was quite impressed by Whorf's book (I have it in German translation), but his "linguistic relativism" is quite controversial; as for his theory re "time" in the Hopi language, it looks like he got it downright wrong:

http://en.wikipedia....stic_relativity For example, Ekkehart Malotki's monumental study of time expressions in Hopi presented many examples that challenged Whorf's interpretation of Hopi language and culture as being "timeless". Malotki, Ekkehart (1983), Werner Winter, ed., "Hopi Time: A Linguistic Analysis of the Temporal Concepts in the Hopi Language", Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs (Berlin, New York, Amsterdam: Mouton Publishers)

And x-ray don't you just love the Hopi intentional verb form. You use it when you wish someone or something well. This does not mean you are required to do anything, just that you wish it well. A tree, a cat, a person, etc. Such a lovely way to think and perceive.

I used to think of you that way when you talked about fear and horses. My halo effect, Hawthorne Effect, for you for that, has dissolved however.

You can make 3 more posts until 11 March 2012 - 03:38 PM. This restriction is in place until you have 99648 more approved posts

What do you want to bet that when I post this one I won't have 2 more. And the cukers don't roll over like minutes either. Type A MSK.

Boo-Hoo.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Seymourblogger,

I just now figured out what bothers me about you.

It's the effect I get when I see a bad comedian tell bad jokes and I know he knows he's bad. I feel embarrassed for him--or more specifically for seeing a member of my species doing something like that.

In your case, I see a person who lies through her teeth, knows she lies, knows everyone else knows she lies, and is comfortable doing it.

It's embarrassing to see a human being do that.

What's worse, I don't think you can help yourself.

You do it because you can't not do it.

Whatever...

At least now I know what has been nagging at the back of my mind and I won't be bothered about it any longer.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

But to a petit bourgeois busybody with nothing to do...

Petit bourgeois! Now that's a funny name-calling comment!

Apparently, she doesn't think the busybody part is name-calling...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Seymourblogger,

I just now figured out what bothers me about you.

It's the effect I get when I see a bad comedian tell bad jokes and I know he knows he's bad. I feel embarrassed for him--or more specifically for seeing a member of my species doing something like that.

In your case, I see a person who lies through her teeth, knows she lies, knows everyone else knows she lies, and is comfortable doing it.

It's embarrassing to see a human being do that.

What's worse, I don't think you can help yourself.

You do it because you can't not do it.

Whatever...

At least now I know what has been nagging at the back of my mind and I won't be bothered about it any longer.

Michael

It wasn't so obvious until you restricted her to five a day. Then all the interesting and even seemingly good evaporated. Shame on you for spraying her with water!

--Brant

"I'm melting! I'm melting!"

[Xray]

And x-ray don't you just love the Hopi intentional verb form. You use it when you wish someone or something well. This does not mean you are required to do anything, just that you wish it well. A tree, a cat, a person, etc. Such a lovely way to think and perceive.

I used to think of you that way when you talked about fear and horses. My halo effect, Hawthorne Effect, for you for that, has dissolved however.

It is quite easy to find out what what lies at the root of it: you projected into my post about "Young Man Afraid of his Horses" something that was yours, not mine: you label the act of "wondering" as belonging to the "Order of Seduction" (which you prefer to be in, as opposed to the "Order of Production"), and since I had "wondered" why a chief had this odd-sounding name, you placed me in that preferred Order of yours as some kind of philosophical "kindred spirit".

But since I don't happen to think in terms of these categories (and this finally became obvious to you as well as the discussion progressed), your disappointment and anger about not being able to find a philosophical Nietzschean/Foucauldian/Baudrillardian kindred spirit here is showing. Your sudden personal attacks on poster Carol can be interpreted in that context as well.

In addition to "badmouth" an OL friend of mine, you are trying to instill in me a feeling of guilt about not having fulfilled your philosophical expectations, which you conceive as my having let you down in some way, and answer by 'retracting' your feelings of well-wishing. It's simple as that.

I'm dealing with his kind of stuff day in, day out in my job, Janet. The phrase "I'm not your friend anymore!" is monnaie courante among kindergartners, who often use it when the other child refuses to do as they wish.

But behavior that reflects the psychologcal immaturity of a five-year-old is not likely to "cut it" (to use a favorite term of your guru Foucault) in a philosophy forum.

Another comment about the Order of Production/Order of Seduction thing:

You say that the dialectic (which resides in the "Order of Production" belongs to the "world of opposites".

But the very act of creating two opposing "Orders" (Pr. vs Sed), is an act that belongs to the world of opposites as well.

So without being in the world of opposites, such categorizing could not even have occurred.

[Xray]

Permanent motion and transformation rests on the assumption of continuity, continuous time. Yes?

The Eternal Return does not. The Event, coming from elsewhere, unpredictable, (no cause and effect premise) is discontinuous.

The evidence is not on Nietzsche's side. The cause end effect premise applies to all historical events. While several causes can come into play, there is no such thing as a-causality in these events.

Nietzsche conceived of himself as a prophet, and he was right on some major issues; for example, he predicted: "There will be wars such as have never been waged on earth.."

But these wars (like all wars) were not a-causal.

[caroljane]

Have you checked daunce's facebook page yet? It's embarrassing that she doesn't even know how embarrassing it is.

This is embarrassing? On what planet? Looks to me like Daunce has a token Facebook account, just to say she has an account, with hardly any effort at using Facebook for anything. But to a petit bourgeois busybody with nothing to do... Michael

Petit bourgeois! Now that's a funny name-calling comment!

Seymour is confused, not for the first time. I did open a facebook account, egged on by a cousin, and after a short while became overwhelmed and stopped going there and now I have forgotten the password. I do not however have a platinum wig or a dog, dressed or undressed, and I live in an apartment , not a house.

As to gulping, she said on Solo that she was in a medical study that I presume entails swallowing medicine. Or maybe they are injecting her.

[seymourblogger]

And x-ray don't you just love the Hopi intentional verb form. You use it when you wish someone or something well. This does not mean you are required to do anything, just that you wish it well. A tree, a cat, a person, etc. Such a lovely way to think and perceive.

I used to think of you that way when you talked about fear and horses. My halo effect, Hawthorne Effect, for you for that, has dissolved however.

It is quite easy to find out what what lies at the root of it: you projected into my post about "Young Man Afraid of his Horses" something that was yours, not mine: you label the act of "wondering" as belonging to the "Order of Seduction" (which you prefer to be in, as opposed to the "Order of Production"), and since I had "wondered" why a chief had this odd-sounding name, you placed me in that preferred Order of yours as some kind of philosophical "kindred spirit".

But since I don't happen to think in terms of these categories (and this finally became obvious to you as well as the discussion progressed), your disappointment and anger about not being able to find a philosophical Nietzschean/Foucauldian/Baudrillardian kindred spirit here is showing. Your sudden personal attacks on poster Carol can be interpreted in that context as well.

In addition to "badmouth" an OL friend of mine, you are trying to instill in me a feeling of guilt about not having fulfilled your philosophical expectations, which you conceive as my having let you down in some way, and answer by 'retracting' your feelings of well-wishing. It's simple as that.

I'm dealing with his kind of stuff day in, day out in my job, Janet. The phrase "I'm not your friend anymore!" is monnaie courante among kindergartners, who often use it when the other child refuses to do as they wish.

But behavior that reflects the psychologcal immaturity of a five-year-old is not likely to "cut it" (to use a favorite term of your guru Foucault) in a philosophy forum.

Another comment about the Order of Production/Order of Seduction thing:

You say that the dialectic (which resides in the "Order of Production" belongs to the "world of opposites".

But the very act of creating two opposing "Orders" (Pr. vs Sed), is an act that belongs to the world of opposites as well.

So without being in the world of opposites, such categorizing could not even have occurred.

They are not opposing Orders. They bleed into each other.

I've taught kindergarten. No Montessori or Waldorf for you x-ray. Or Emmi Pikler.

I have had experts inside my head. You is an amateur hon.

We are not talking about friends or wannabe friends. Just that I thought you might be someone interesting to talk with if you could intuit something like that, however you managed to do it or explain it to yourself.

I can't explain things to you, keep discussing and arguing with you. Give you a crash course in thinking you don't want to begin with. Go argue with darren. Now there is someone who has a mind and uses it.

[seymourblogger]

Nietzsche: Zarathustra's despair of the ETERNAL RETURN. No transformation there.

For discussion's sake, I'll take the Nietzschean premise (which you believe to be true I assume) and ask back: And how is this "Eternal Return" going to work without an underlying process of permanent motion and transformation?

Bottom line: the motion and transformation principle as such is unaffected by what results from it. It is just a permanently operating principle.

Transformation is what Foucault will analyze as the remnent of a belief in God.

Aah, this is where you are coming from. it would explain the difficulties you have with the term "transformation" in my posts.

It is true that for example in esoteric circles, people often speak of transformation in a psychological or mystical context.

So to clarify: I do not connote "transformation" with being elevated to a higher level, with reaching an ideal; I do not associate a religious context with it.

Transformation belongs to the dialectic. Reaching toward the Ideal, toward Heaven, or Heaven on earth.

See above. Not my point at all. The transformation I mean is "non-linear" (to use a term you are familiar with). It is an ever-ongoing process that can be observed in all existence.

And since there is no such thing as a standstill, I believe statis [=stasis] means standstill, eh. As Darren's comment on the Cambrian period read, "There are long periods of statis [=stasis] ." Then of course there are Events, irruptions, abrupt changes discontinuities,which is how evolution goes, not in a steady, smooth, historical progressive manner.

We only percevie this as stasis because our senses are tuned to function in a mesoscopic world. Therefore when we look at e. g. a table, we don't see any motion of atoms there.

Just as we cannot directly perceive many of the transformations that are constantly occurring in our bodies. Our body cells permantly die, new cells are formed, etc.

I hope this clears up for you what I mean by permanent transformation as a fundamentally operating principle underlying all existence, both non-organic and organic.

You need to get up on present day physics and particles. Non-continuous universe. Events no cause and effect. Just consequences. It seems cause and effect were like a map we human invented to lay over the historical world. It doesn't fit anymore.

But hey, if you like it, keep thinking that way. Nothing wrong with that, says Seinfeld.

You're psychologizing has a name. Freud called it Wild Psychoanalysis. I call it pop psychology. But then an education degree is not the best for arguing in the areas you stumble into here. I was there. I know how inferior an education degree and/or certificate is. It takes a lot of studying to climb out of that brainwashing.

It's never to late to start.

[ThatGuy]

Seymourblogger wrote: "You need to get up on present day physics and particles. Non-continuous universe. Events no cause and effect. Just consequences. It seems cause and effect were like a map we human invented to lay over the historical world. It doesn't fit anymore."

Seymour, it's interesting to hear this from you, in light of your previous answer to my question to you about physics and philosophy:

ThatGuy, on 30 January 2012 - 03:34 PM, said:

Seymourblogger: "Somehow I don't think you wanted this."

Thanks for taking the time to answer. What I wanted is to see how you reconciled your theories with that passage, since you say Rand's fiction is Nietzschean in nature (versus her non-fiction). (As far as your claims, while I'm not versed in Foucault, Baudrillard, or DeLillo, the ideas I recognize from the crossover of quantum theory into artistic theories, as described in ART AND PHYSICS: PARALLEL VISIONS IN SPACE, TIME, AND LIGHT by Leonard Shlain.The Rand quote about circles and lines goes against the postmodern trends in art of compression and non-linearity, and the book shows how art in general progressed as scientific theories progressed, so, even if one disagrees with postmodernism, the trend itself can't be ignored.

When you say that we are "no longer in linear time," are you speaking of the effect of quantum physics on thought? Is that related to your claims about other's responses to you being of 'the dialectic?" Your writing style and train of thought seems to be similar to the "quantum" influence in art, manifested as "compression", overlaying many trains of thought on top of each other ("read through,"). (Easier to convey in visual art, but harder to translate in writing, since writing is more "linear" by nature...)

Thanks in advance.

Seymourblogger: "I am not conscious of physics in this, only a few examples Baudrillard discusses as a non-expert. I am pretty bored now with linear fiction and linear movies, Altho movies can get away with it with jump cuts. But the really fine ones are not usually linear at all. To get involved with long arguments for this and that the way I am getting stuck here is my own fault.

[seymourblogger]

Seymourblogger wrote: "You need to get up on present day physics and particles. Non-continuous universe. Events no cause and effect. Just consequences. It seems cause and effect were like a map we human invented to lay over the historical world. It doesn't fit anymore."

Seymour, it's interesting to hear this from you, in light of your previous answer to my question to you about physics and philosophy:

ThatGuy, on 30 January 2012 - 03:34 PM, said:

Seymourblogger: "Somehow I don't think you wanted this."

Thanks for taking the time to answer. What I wanted is to see how you reconciled your theories with that passage, since you say Rand's fiction is Nietzschean in nature (versus her non-fiction). (As far as your claims, while I'm not versed in Foucault, Baudrillard, or DeLillo, the ideas I recognize from the crossover of quantum theory into artistic theories, as described in ART AND PHYSICS: PARALLEL VISIONS IN SPACE, TIME, AND LIGHT by Leonard Shlain.The Rand quote about circles and lines goes against the postmodern trends in art of compression and non-linearity, and the book shows how art in general progressed as scientific theories progressed, so, even if one disagrees with postmodernism, the trend itself can't be ignored.

When you say that we are "no longer in linear time," are you speaking of the effect of quantum physics on thought? Is that related to your claims about other's responses to you being of 'the dialectic?" Your writing style and train of thought seems to be similar to the "quantum" influence in art, manifested as "compression", overlaying many trains of thought on top of each other ("read through,"). (Easier to convey in visual art, but harder to translate in writing, since writing is more "linear" by nature...)

Thanks in advance.

Seymourblogger: "I am not conscious of physics in this, only a few examples Baudrillard discusses as a non-expert. I am pretty bored now with linear fiction and linear movies, Altho movies can get away with it with jump cuts. But the really fine ones are not usually linear at all. To get involved with long arguments for this and that the way I am getting stuck here is my own fault.

I am only conversant with the latest experimentation in physics. I do know that they are in a quandary at the moment in particle physics. The changes in positive and negative, and the attraction of opposite charged particles is consistent with Baudrillard's Fatal Attractor. I have written about the WTC Towers as Fatal Attractors http://guerrillablog2.blogspot.com/2011/09/remembering-9-11-memorial-on-10th.html

Quantum physics on thought, chaos theory in mathematics, abrupt events in evolution, Kuhn's Logic of Scientific Revolutions, and certainly Picasso's cubist period and Pollack's tremendous influence, as well as Warhol's "cut" into art history Discourse. DeLillo's Cosmopolis is not a linear novel, and films have been non-linear for a long time. But it has been Nietzsche's genealogy opposed to a progressive, continuous, historical analysis and Foucault's extension of Nietzsche's genealogy into all aspects of human behavior that has undercut linear time. The Hegelian dialectic is yesterday's Discourse, but that's all there is here. On my blogs are links to more advanced blogs on this topic where I read and comment. The Relative Absolute, etc so if you go to my blogs you will see them on my blog list and can follow them. There are some amazing writers and thinkers in this area in art, and especially film, videos, books, well so so much.

Here I have been limited to 5 comments a day because well, because of what I say, the attacks I get, and the fun I have in replying to idiots. The software will not let me edit now once I post, If I click on the quote but change my mind, that counts as a comment, and so it goes as Vonnegut says.

But I got darren from here and solo, so it was worth the time and trouble. See some of his posts at my blog http://aynrand2.blogspot.com Also there you will find a lot of comments from curioushairedgal who lives in Bosnia and read Nietzsche in a cellar while bombs were going off all around her, each one maybe her last. Nietzsche: words written in blood are not to be read, but learnt by heart.

In April Zizek's new book on Hegel will be out. He is reading our present world through Hegel and Lacan, saying his book is more Hegel than Hegel. It is being awaited with held breaths.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here I have been limited to 5 comments a day because well, because of what I say, the attacks I get, and the fun I have in replying to idiots.

Seymourblogger,

This is inaccurate.

You are limited to 5 posts a day because you act like a troll, behave in an immature manner and have tried to hog the forum with it.

Michael

[Xray]

I've taught kindergarten. No Montessori or Waldorf for you x-ray. Or Emmi Pikler.

I'm familiar with these pedagocic concepts. What's your point?

You need to get up on present day physics and particles. Non-continuous universe. Events no cause and effect. Just consequences. It seems cause and effect were like a map we human invented to lay over the historical world. It doesn't fit anymore.

Can you name one historical event where cause and effect played no role?

But hey, if you like it, keep thinking that way. Nothing wrong with that, says Seinfeld.

You could not survive for one day in our mesoscopic world if you did not think and operate in terms of cause and effect.

You're psychologizing has a name. Freud called it Wild Psychoanalysis.

No psychoanalysis (wild or not) was needed for such a simple issue. Plain old common sense and some intuition were enough.