Tuesday, July 3, 2018 🌌
First, there is mathematical truth, which is the truth of “propositions”. . . And then there is the chaos of non-cognitive truth, which can’t even really be talked about because the only way that we can know it is by experiencing it. . . Then finally, there’s another kind of truth, which is in the domain of the mind.
Tuesday, June 26, 2018 🌹
When I pity her, I think it’s because I realize just how small, weak, and pathetic she must have been feeling at some given moment if she felt that the only way that she could find satisfaction in life was by manipulating the people around her emotionally and psychologically. And I realize that she had been lost and confused herself all that time, and perhaps even in the moment of her death. Those were her thorns. Most roses have them.
Tuesday, June 19, 2018.
I suppose that I am just a “backwoods” academic like Kant, or perhaps I am just more simply “unequal to the task of carrying out very abstract processes of reasoning without the assistance of intuition.” Whatever the reason, I just simply cannot not think that an essential feature of geometry is that it depends on the notion of a “conceptual space”of some kind — whether it is a flat and consistent conceptual space, or a curved and/or irregular conceptual space. And what is “conceptual space” if it isn’t itself just the logical interpretation of an essentially non-linguistic experience of ‘the existence of nothing’ — ie, of the emptiness that exists between the material things which exist in “physical space”?
Tuesday, June 12, 2018.
Despite all her faults, she was my mother, and we shared some intimate moments, and having been a sensitive child, I remember loving her a great deal once. I remember her being the love of my life, just because she was “my very own adult-person,” unique among all of the other adult-persons in the world. And if the loving feeling itself didn’t last, the memory of being in that feeling did, and does, last.
Monday, June 11, 2018.
But if Heidegger meant the sort of nothing that is more like “formless matter” that is yet untouched by the mind — ie, the “Nothing” that was also spoken of by Parmenides — then I wouldn’t say that this ‘nothing’ is metaphysical. It is the opposite of the metaphysical. It is purely physical. It is the physical in its most raw and purest and most unadulterated mode of existence. And I would say that this latter kind of ‘nothing’ is more like virgin matter than that it is beyond matter; it is what Hesiod would have identified as ‘Chaos’. It is the most concrete thing of all, even though it is a ‘nothing’ because it is yet to be recognized by the mind as a ‘something’.
Saturday, September 16, 2017
In the stories of old, the cosmos is different. In the stories of old, even Zeus (who is also called “Mind” by some) bends and acquiesces. Thetis is said to have forced a nod from Zeus by tugging on his chin. And Zeus is not immune to Aphrodite’s powers, nor is he above the appraisal of Hera or the judgments of the fates. The pantheon of polytheism requires a balance between powers which is not always found in the cultures with the tyrannical history of your typical kingship. These latter are the ones that are eventually overthrown — if not in name, then in actuality. What lasts is not a monotheism, but a polytheistic pantheonism. It is the way of Zeus, for he does not “rule” as a basileus, does but as a god does among fellow gods. That is aletheia, for whatever it’s “worth”.
Thursday, August 31, 2017.
What sums up this day?
ALEA IACTA EST.
That’s what I learned in Latin class yesterday.
Wednesday , August 30, 2017 🌊
But if this is right, then this is still interesting — because if I were to want to realize a certain sort of theoretical world — namely, a world with an environment that would be more helpful/beneficial to a certain sort of subject, like a Socratic subject, a healthy subject — then, I suppose that the best way I could do that is by looking to that subject as my guide to building such a world. And, if I had such a desire/aim to build such a theoretical world, I think that my goal would be not to change my healthy subject, but simply to accommodate the world to my subject. I would want to realize a world in which whatever my healthy subject found pleasant, would be guaranteed to benefit her as well.
Tuesday, August 29, 2017 🔥
I think that empathy involves actually relating another person’s current experience with one’s own past experience — and so ultimately, empathy reminds me of my own past experience and my own emotional response is regarding my own past experience and not the other person’s. On the other hand, sympathy is when I relate my past experiences to imagine what the other person is now experiencing. But in sympathizing, I am not now dwelling on my own past experiences as I am doing when I am empathizing. I simply use my past experiences to justify, support, or understand what the other person is now experiencing. And so, I think that this is the key difference between sympathy and empathy. [At least, in my experience, it is.]
Thursday, July 27, 2017.
Also interesting: for Descartians, it looks like the conditional statement is the Judeo-Christian God. If this is true, then believing in the conditional statement is what it is to believe in the Judeo-Christian God.
But why the Judeo-Christian God? What does Hesiod’s genealogy and Parmenides’ method have to do with Judaism and/or Christianity? Why can’t you believe in Hesiod and Parmenides — or a conclusion of Euler diagrams, or Euthyphro’s polytheistic view, for that matter — instead of the Judeo-Christian God?
Monday, June 12, 2017.
And so, it is this fact that Socrates knows that he knows no-thing that proves that Socrates’ questions are necessarily sincere. That is, they are not rhetorical questions. They’re very genuinely questions.