Will. Machinery. Solace.
Jun. 24th, 2008 12:19 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wolven7"We are but cogwheels in the Machinery of the Universe and it is... an unavoidable consequence of the laws governing tht the pioneer who is far advanced of his age is not understood and must suffer pain and disappointment and be content with the higher reward which is accorded to him by posterity." - Nikola Tesla in a letter to J.P. Morgan
Before I continue, let me ask you a question: Could you respond, here, if you feel you "get anything," from my talks about magic, and the will?
Nine Inch Nails - [Vessel]--- What I'm asking, here, is what is the benefit to you, for me to keep talking about these things? I know the benefit to me, as I always do better talking or writing these things out than just going over them in my head, again and again.
Anyway.
Connecting principles.
I believe in the Will. Generative, directive, that primal drive to Exist and to Perform. To Be and to Do. (David Bowie - [Segue - Ramona. A. Stone / I Am With Name]). Seien. Machen.
Mindless Self Indulgence - [Due]--- Anyway. The Will, i believe, expresses the primary universal force, that drive to be something rather than nothing, the Let There Be, as I've said, before. But I also believe that the universe operates within rules and parameters. I do not believe that they are as static and rigid as many think. (Ego Likeness - [Funny Olde World]). I think the flexibility and mutability of reality is up for debate.
But no matter my core beliefs, no matter what you think or believe or find to be "true," you have to ask yourself "How?" How does something ocme from nothing? By what means does something become "complex enough?" How does a cluster of Nothing become an explosion of itself into Something?
Dethklok - [Face Fisted]--- Because, at base, we can say that a profusion of nothing in nothing is == a complexity of infinite variablity, all interacting at once. A proposition which allows not just for this universe, but for every universe, ever, and none, at all, all at once. Again, as I've said, before. As D.T. Suzuki said, for his entire life. And Heraclitus. And so on. I say it, for thousands of years, with subtle changes and variations-- important, but subtle-- as my perspective changes. Meaning the universe's... Whatever.
But we can still ask how. We don't have to ask why. We can call it a meaningless question, a useless bleating of nothing. It may be an error, but we can do it. But we can always ask about the mechanics of the thing we used to explain something else. We can always seek a further explanation.
Ego Likeness - [Burn Witch Burn (Angelspit Remix)]--- Every time we thought we'd reached bottom, that we knew what there was that made up the universe, we realised that there was another layer. Another level of abstraction between us and what we could really understand about the universe. And don't you fucking say it's "math."
I will not rest in this world, i swear to whatever god keeps you safe and warm in your darkest, deepest, most frightened moments, until every single fucking person recognises that mathematics is a conceptual schema by which we investigate the universe, and that the phrase "Two plus two equals four" is a meaningless proposition until we frame, understand what we mean by each of its components, and give them names. An equation is a tautology, meaning that it tells us nothing new about the universe. Do you know why that is? Because we defined the terms, already. There's nothing to investigate. The very act of rendering an equation makes it pointless and useless. But that's not my point. My point is that it is by no means some magical, mystical, "universal language."
Wine, Woman & Song - [I'll Tell My Ma]--- If we ever meet an extra-terrestrial intelligent species, I hope they communicate in nothing but constantly-shifting colours and smells. Maybe that'll finally fucking learn us.
Anyway. Fiat: That will is the basis of the universe. (Nine Inch Nails - The Great Destroyer). How? By what means does the will self-generate? Or am I missing my own point?
Is the self-referential generation the literally ultimate answer, encompassing all answers, and all possible permutations of answers? If so, don't you feel a little empty? A little meaningless? A little like there's a yawning, churning, toothy void at the centre of you, waiting to swallow everything you are and mean? No? Good.
Because the point is that there is such a thing as perspective, and no matter the infinite, streetching nothingness, it is the infinitesimal, pinpoint of somethingness that is varied and awaiting your doing something with it.
Nine Inch Nails - [Meet Your Master]--- But that assumes a dualism, doesn't it? A fundamental 0 vs. 1 proposition. Again, maybe this misses the point. Maybe that "vs." is it... I don't know. I honestly have no clue, but I think that a perspective that allows for generation of the will in and out of nothing is one that will be more fulfilling, remembering that the yawning nothing is the fertile and generative potential something from which everything created itself.
That kind of thing.
I take a kind of solace in that balance, myself, but i don't know how helpful it is, how useful.
Nine Inch Nails - [The Four of Us are Dying]--- Thoughts?
Before I continue, let me ask you a question: Could you respond, here, if you feel you "get anything," from my talks about magic, and the will?
Nine Inch Nails - [Vessel]--- What I'm asking, here, is what is the benefit to you, for me to keep talking about these things? I know the benefit to me, as I always do better talking or writing these things out than just going over them in my head, again and again.
Anyway.
Connecting principles.
I believe in the Will. Generative, directive, that primal drive to Exist and to Perform. To Be and to Do. (David Bowie - [Segue - Ramona. A. Stone / I Am With Name]). Seien. Machen.
Mindless Self Indulgence - [Due]--- Anyway. The Will, i believe, expresses the primary universal force, that drive to be something rather than nothing, the Let There Be, as I've said, before. But I also believe that the universe operates within rules and parameters. I do not believe that they are as static and rigid as many think. (Ego Likeness - [Funny Olde World]). I think the flexibility and mutability of reality is up for debate.
But no matter my core beliefs, no matter what you think or believe or find to be "true," you have to ask yourself "How?" How does something ocme from nothing? By what means does something become "complex enough?" How does a cluster of Nothing become an explosion of itself into Something?
Dethklok - [Face Fisted]--- Because, at base, we can say that a profusion of nothing in nothing is == a complexity of infinite variablity, all interacting at once. A proposition which allows not just for this universe, but for every universe, ever, and none, at all, all at once. Again, as I've said, before. As D.T. Suzuki said, for his entire life. And Heraclitus. And so on. I say it, for thousands of years, with subtle changes and variations-- important, but subtle-- as my perspective changes. Meaning the universe's... Whatever.
But we can still ask how. We don't have to ask why. We can call it a meaningless question, a useless bleating of nothing. It may be an error, but we can do it. But we can always ask about the mechanics of the thing we used to explain something else. We can always seek a further explanation.
Ego Likeness - [Burn Witch Burn (Angelspit Remix)]--- Every time we thought we'd reached bottom, that we knew what there was that made up the universe, we realised that there was another layer. Another level of abstraction between us and what we could really understand about the universe. And don't you fucking say it's "math."
I will not rest in this world, i swear to whatever god keeps you safe and warm in your darkest, deepest, most frightened moments, until every single fucking person recognises that mathematics is a conceptual schema by which we investigate the universe, and that the phrase "Two plus two equals four" is a meaningless proposition until we frame, understand what we mean by each of its components, and give them names. An equation is a tautology, meaning that it tells us nothing new about the universe. Do you know why that is? Because we defined the terms, already. There's nothing to investigate. The very act of rendering an equation makes it pointless and useless. But that's not my point. My point is that it is by no means some magical, mystical, "universal language."
Wine, Woman & Song - [I'll Tell My Ma]--- If we ever meet an extra-terrestrial intelligent species, I hope they communicate in nothing but constantly-shifting colours and smells. Maybe that'll finally fucking learn us.
Anyway. Fiat: That will is the basis of the universe. (Nine Inch Nails - The Great Destroyer). How? By what means does the will self-generate? Or am I missing my own point?
Is the self-referential generation the literally ultimate answer, encompassing all answers, and all possible permutations of answers? If so, don't you feel a little empty? A little meaningless? A little like there's a yawning, churning, toothy void at the centre of you, waiting to swallow everything you are and mean? No? Good.
Because the point is that there is such a thing as perspective, and no matter the infinite, streetching nothingness, it is the infinitesimal, pinpoint of somethingness that is varied and awaiting your doing something with it.
Nine Inch Nails - [Meet Your Master]--- But that assumes a dualism, doesn't it? A fundamental 0 vs. 1 proposition. Again, maybe this misses the point. Maybe that "vs." is it... I don't know. I honestly have no clue, but I think that a perspective that allows for generation of the will in and out of nothing is one that will be more fulfilling, remembering that the yawning nothing is the fertile and generative potential something from which everything created itself.
That kind of thing.
I take a kind of solace in that balance, myself, but i don't know how helpful it is, how useful.
Nine Inch Nails - [The Four of Us are Dying]--- Thoughts?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-06-25 02:11 am (UTC)I get new perspectives, and new ideas. Ideas that, most often, conflict with my own. Ideas that force mine to stand up and justify themselves. Ideas that, after weeks after week, day after day, I still spend large portions of my day thinking about because they nip at my core beliefs and make me question every last ounce.
I guess you could say I get self-correction, to the greatest extent.
I also get to try and see through your eyes, to look past MY associations with words like "magic" and "meaning", and what those words point to conceptually, and I get to try and see how your world operates, and what the framework for reality is. Where the clusters of energy build into persons and what interactions they make, and through your eyes I get to try and see how there might be a driving motivator at the cluster level and below.
I get to see the world differently, check it all against what I know, and assimilate those parts which I find to be correct.
Even if I reject every idea you put forth, I expand my understanding not only of you, but of ways of constructing concepts, ways of using words to express my own ideas, and ultimately ways of understanding the world, as I gain new perspective on the way OTHER people frame their words, their world, their concepts.
Do I agree? Fucked if I know. I think I get hung up on words and miss concepts when it comes to your discussing magic. Do I get something out of it?
Yes.
no subject
Date: 2008-06-25 02:32 am (UTC)Very well said, sir.
no subject
Date: 2008-06-25 04:06 am (UTC)Next, I agreed with you on the mathematics thing long b4 I ever knew you existed. The notion of a "universal language" based on symbols and processes that humans created to study the universe has always rung a tad bit arrogant, circular, and nonsensical to me since about 1993.
Nextly again, I get the benefit of being exposed to a part of your pysche. being allowed to read your unadulterated thoughts on magic allows me to debate myself and to better be able to defend or condemn you. I am not sure I would personaly call that a benefit, but it is something I appreciate. I like being able to read someone's passionate thoughts about a subject I will probably never agree with them on. It is...fascinating? to be able to experience such fanaticism about something I am positve is the opposite of what is being exhorted.
Did that make sense?
And I take that back. Not opposite necessarily, but different. I enjoy the ability to know that while I agree on the fundamentals, I don't agree on the details, but even so, I can see how strongly you agree with yourself on the details and I like to see that you are sticking to your guns and finding new ways to do so while also finding new ways period.
no subject
Date: 2008-06-25 05:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-06-25 04:20 pm (UTC)This digs into my primary mode of defining reality, to pick apart the definitions and using them to construct. So I can say that X=(X/4)+(3X/4), but I'm still not saying anything.
Huh.
Given that one of my goals is to help lift the veil, I'm definitely interested in what you have to say.
Aaand... it's go time. Seriously. Can magic be shown to counteract or reverse entropy?
no subject
Date: 2008-06-25 05:40 pm (UTC)The more we combat stagnation, the more we increase entropy.
But what can we do with the information, once we've spread it?
Magic spreads and uses information, just like any other process. But it relies on the manipulation of perception, to do it. So.
Yes and No.
no subject
Date: 2008-06-26 01:48 am (UTC)Interplay grows things, yes. Even if I don't respond, simply because it seems like we sit here nodding at one another most times.
But that assumes a dualism, doesn't it? A fundamental 0 vs. 1 proposition. Again, maybe this misses the point. Maybe that "vs." is it...
The 'versus' is the important part. The interplay and the surface tension, the blurring and the sharp contrast, because it's not the things themselves, or the lack of things. It's the places where they interact, the edges, that define.
no subject
Date: 2008-06-26 02:15 pm (UTC)And the place where they interact doesn't have to be a Vs. place, is I think where my extremely rambling brain was trying to go with that... That there can be generative conflict without wanting to negate the existence of the Other...