Definition is a Craft in Itself

Life itself is not an apparition, by definition.Performance is the primary apparition, by the function of social consciousness.

Every act of a performance is quintessentially liminal, at the edge of category, because every experience is unique by degrees (the logarithm) of complexity.

Thus, behavioral syntax, the unique interface between mind and environment, as a potentially unfiltered, still composed, output of life’s performance, naturally pushes the boundaries of categories.

It follows, we can define a scheme that adopts traditional categories of experience, yet supports the emergent, liminal quality of behavioral syntaxes.

This scheme is an extension of the zeroeth, and primary apparitions:

A hierarchical tree of categories approximates points in the liminal space, much like rational numbers approximate irrational numbers between natural integers.

This definition allows for the “counting” process to begin at any category, and proceed by layers of categorical prominence.

In contrast, a sophomoric interdisciplinary scheme of definition would formerly place the union of two behaviors at equal prominence; whereas, it is clear that two modes of behavior cannot average into a new activity, but one subsumes the other, becoming more nuanced. Hence, we derive a hierarchical scheme.

Of course, this method assumes we are dealing with a finite ontological scheme, a system of categories. From this point of view, the ontological scheme asks, what sort of behaviors are possible? Our own language, with Greek, Latin, and Germanic, among other roots, deals with a finite set of root categories from which to derive new words, and thus categorical schemes. On this basis, we prove the limitations of language in practice, solidifying our thesis of perpetual categorical approximation of raw experience. In this new sense, we speak of another level of approximation, first within a set categorical scheme, and then within all possible categorical schemes within our linguistic reach.
Here is the potential for behavior syntax to push, to pull as a gravitational force against categories, to break and force new organizations, reassessments of linguistic syntax. In my own case, it is not ironic that I write in a liminal fashion, because this activity simply denotes a close interplay between behaviors and linguistics. The act of writing, if I may use a well defined category, is both a deconstruction, and synthesis. In my own theoretical model, this performance of writing is an experiment in communication; since my original purpose was to contact John Wilson, after seeing him in person, whilst not being able to establish a communication. Because I am considering the effectiveness of my communication, while also synthesizing new ideas, and refining older ones, we can say this is an act of creation. What apparitions are at play? Philosophy, Art, Science?
Given your implicit recognition of this paralogistic process of definition, we choose that which is most relevant to the communication. For our purposes, we are expanding the reach of artistic practice; therefore, we may choose Philosophy, with a tertiary apparition Drawing, on the resources of Linguistics. A performance of philosophy, using the linear capacity for motion of drawing in neural circuits using the medium, or space of linguistic terms. This is a mere approximation, a representation. Definition is a craft in itself.

The Ethic() and the Spirit()

(…/The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Spi…) Belief transcends economic rationality; [religion] is a domain of human cognition that governs behavior systematically [a sociological view]. This effects what economic systems are viable under a shared set of beliefs. This is the reason wars are fought over religion: since the control of a society, through an economy, is based upon morals set forth by the [religion]. Religion herein is not a discrete set of rules written in a holy book, it is functional development of human cognition, manifest in the homeostasis of a tribal society; e.g., a set of social behaviors that delineate “us” and “them”. This goes to say: atheism, agnosticism, new-ageism, protestantism, catholicism, jihadism, etc, constitute competing morals, and in effect competing economies. We are currently under the mass influence of Protestant capitalism, which has shifted to an Atheistic capitalism; further, in an existential turn we find truth in the individual: a new-ageism, which enables the idea of technological transcendence; viz., transhumanist mormonism, and generally transhumanism with a belief in a singularity of consciousness. We are blindly building a future of machine automation, spending years of our lives connected to devices wholeheartedly, not because it is rational, but it is the course of action that most aligns with our society’s shared moral code.

All this goes to say: we must first assess the morals of our self and our society, instead of turning in a circular manner towards theories of capital, when determining the swiftest course of action towards a Just and flourishing world.

Furthermore, any such progress is due to the aggregate convictions of individuals who place their moral code before social gains. It is not ‘earn now and contribute later’, because it is the moral basis of action right now that has an exponential effect on the determination of the future society. We progress at any rate because regardless of natural social forces, groups of individuals commit themselves to the ideals of beauty and compassion, to cultivate seeds of a paradigm that will be able to flourish in the future. This is in effect how I personally have ever been able to grow into new ways of understanding the world, sharing ideas and actions with others. It is a new kind of [neo] communism, like the ethics of old Russian farming communities (akin to that of Alyosha Karamazov, except compelled on an anthropocene scale (, with the motives of capital production in full swing.

The question remains: what is the moral basis of our collective actions? How can we ‘engineer’ our religious brain to enable the economic solutions of a diverse neocommune-capital socio-scientific-idealism based in the impetus of beauty and compassion? Maybe the Common Good is enough of a starting point. Clearly, it starts with open science publishing, open source software development (luckily we are in the start of a golden age), conversely: an open internet, sustenance of our biosphere–all the way to ensuring that children are fed and educated (they are the keys to the future! This is the fundamental component, caring for children means caring for the future, not just ourselves.), and existing cultures can thrive with technologies of their choice (E.g., Amistics, as in the Amish: via, Neal Stephenson’s novel “Seveneves”).

If we don’t figure that out, maybe our elite-controlled-machine-overlords will finish the job of imperial colonial globalism, and in the process possibly rid of the world America, or at least our sovereignty, and any other free nation in a repeat of the systematic eradication of the tribes that came before us. We are part of a system that does not know how to stop killing, and it will subdue parts of itself to achieve an end by any means necessary, as it coerces its moral basis: in this case, it is a social-darwinism teetering towards a transhuman-darwinism: “if you don’t keep up with the developments of technology, you will be left behind, and it will be painful” is the moral code here. Perhaps as evidenced by drone warfare, our hyper-intelligence agencies will algorithmically subvert or destroy, according to the latest coordinates output by artificial intelligences. Perhaps a homogenized and systematically controlled world is better: there is less conflict, we can engineer animals into biologically alive food units, build agro-skyscrapers, go for a swim in virtual reality, before taking a shuttle to the moon to witness the ice-age on a grand scale. Of course, what use are humans, then? It’s a valid question for transhuman-darwinism. In fact, I’m sure there’s an economically rational position for human capability outside of factory production of objects, a bit like factory production of human abilities for machines to automate. There is a cubicle, where you can eat living cubes, and produce cube-like thoughts, for a grand cube-terraforming of planet earth, into a giant cube-computer that can perceive the cube nature of reality. That’s quite dull. We should all read Hermann Weyl’s “The Open World”…/0918024706… . Because the world is meant to be diverse, we can have cubes and mysterious spiral knots of mind-spacetime continuum, and in fact they compliment each other. What I mean to say is, technology is a product of our [religion] as is our economy, and with a proper outlook, we can build with nature instead of paving right over it, and that includes the nature of humanity.

When you see, what is looking?

high dimensional vortex

, ghost. distill spirits into science. ask you my name you say in mirror symmetry. rising non-linear wave! but a coolness in reflection, stable for the beast whose particles mismatch; slow wave, rise, upon rise, deaf to the impact of your sound, till overtones hint: godspeed. reduce genes in groups, abstract likenesses, self in superposition, super-man before pheno-man. battle before time, and surf this damned wave air flow fires ‘neath netherworlds I come from.

merely infinite, calm of the most high, lend me words to speak at the limit. of applied paradigm. modality, modality, reduct and infuse, gentle speech, silence; vibrations of cancelling possibility, a plane now sphere I traverse, we commend, they askew, god forbid, death to death to, pieces of peace come at the price of price and such: birth to birth to ideas of ideas, the philosophy of philosophy, meet new physical conditions for an economic economy based in–yes, mirror symmetry, projected like a sphere into hyperspheres, not unlike a cube into hypercubes, bubble mind-body expanse of spirit; modality, modality, lending nuances to the direction, orthogone, projected, encoded: Hegelian alien, meet my mismatched particles.

How far will you go to find your answers?

that is a quantum question. There is a potential field, which shifts as parts collapse, and expands accordingly from a sphere of mind onto an infinite plane of implications. How far will I go to find my answers? I’m still figuring out what this question means to me. Most glaringly, I am willing to dive into the jungle of technology (language let it be natural (philo-lingual body moves, monkey)) and the social entrepreneurial world (in search of a pattern) in search partly for enough capital leverage to dedicate myself fully to the explicit face of pure ideas (meaning, unveil). Although, in the process, philsophies are tested, refined, redefined; the mind grows lean with lumbering efforts, periods of efficiency. Love is in the mix; multitudinous, multidimensional outreach (conjecture, diagramming infinity along single dimensions, glyph), strength of mind, not strength, listening to the spirit move through us; time a crux (mind’s abstract expanse (feel the equation)); again, the quantum question of whether to be, and I am so in a single, fell gesture from words long (form words), not lost; I call them vast. Lets smarts flex against confines (par-cours, pressure release (fear is the mind killer)).

Loops on end oh loops on end, a thousand for roses whose sweet blossom, please the mind sweet roses, loops and sweet roses. Oh Monolith, deep in deep of time, underneath toes whose walk’s without notice; Yet to be is wonderous, wanderous. For wont of sight have it stolen; strike spotted fields in loops on loops on loops, rigorous loops and loops and loops. Sweet roses, taste again. Hallowed time, echo, like vast spirits gained abreast, deep breadth. Bury me any way that speaks like sweet roses in time.