PHILOSOPHICORUM ITINERIS AEQUALIS
NOTES, POETICS, TROUVAILLES, PHILOSOPHY, COMMENTARY, PHOTOGRAPHS, FILM, ART, ARCHITECTURE. E-MAIL: JEREMY.JAE.CELLMATRIX@GMAIL.COM
NOTES, POETICS, TROUVAILLES, PHILOSOPHY, COMMENTARY, PHOTOGRAPHS, FILM, ART, ARCHITECTURE. E-MAIL: JEREMY.JAE.CELLMATRIX@GMAIL.COM
Friday, 7 December 2012
Theogeny II [The Ideology of Change; an Anthropological Error]
Why, following a precise anthropological study of human aesthetics, should naturalism prevail over the spiritual form? Let us pause to consider this spiritual form. Just as I would qualify positivism as a deficient form in the totality of philosophy, so there exists a form that is exclusively spiritual, that is to say 'abstract' and of a purely mental quality. And hence I must declare, once and for all, that I cannot accept a spiritual notion that refers spirituality directly to material things and establishes an indivisible unity with them. From a purely anthropological perspective one must conclude that this kind of spiritual notion of indivisibility is as irresponsible as blind positivism. And just as much as positivism is considered a grounding for anti-philosophical 'brute materialism', the philsophical policy that the spirit is everywhere equal to material things does not promote spiritual people. Instead what you get is a coagulate of irrationalism, super-naturalism and psychic policy in support of regressive animal-empowerment.
It may assist in the prevention of further confusion to note that contemporary spiritual collectivism devotes itself to two conflicting notions. First, the inseperability of spirit and matter would be a gross misconstruction in the abssence of a religious God. Second, the universality of change in the universe would be a gross misconstruction without mind-matter dualism. Spinozoa himself had imagined the first axiom, however with specific theological reservations, and called it pantheism. But regarding the second notion, and grounded as a logical consequence of the first, he believed that nature qua the universe was immutable and thus could not undergo any fundamental or constant changes. Evolution however presuposes a series of transformations towards more advanced structures, in nature's language, life develops, grows, maintains continuous metamorphosis. Change on the other hand is a proverbial superstision today with no real commonality to evolutionary facts or theological principles. Once again, it is an anthropological problem we are faced with — change — with respect to evolution, is not one of nature's plans. Nature strives for heightened complexity, the advancement of life into more integrated, complex life, and, unless an evolutionary extinction is permitted there are no laws governing devolution or regressive 'change'. This change, considered in its progressive stages, seems to be complicated by all the various elements that belong specifically and inevitably to it.
That monstrous suffering, and that anguished look of melancholy, are the most obvious symptoms of that very fatality in which one can detect a necessity that is clearly anthropological. The characteristics noted with regard to the present phase of the world emphasize the cultural-historical difference between the primitive and the civillized human dynamo, and simillar characteristics are verified in all previous cultural and economic periods arround the world where such dynamics existed. To offer but one parallel: in the history of Greek statuary one can establish with chronological exactness the progress of the gradual dissolving of the element of melancholia, so dimly affirmed throughout the entire archaic period (the closed phase), until one arrives at a balancing-out of that lamentable quality; from the xoanon, monoform and hermetic, to the first freeing of a limb from the body, to progressive movement, and where expression is concerned, to the earliest statue that smiles, precluding classicism — and which attains the fulfillment of its organic and spiritual impulse. It is obvious to the historian to see this melancholic tonality of existence marked throughout the aesthetic milleux of antiquity. But we must also note that there is a similitude to be found between the spiritually detached inertness of the classical statue with the numerous mythical characterizations it displays in society, particularly those expressive nuances that represent the psychological dynamics in today's people. ....
........*********************************........
Why, following a precise anthropological study of human aesthetics, should naturalism prevail over the spiritual form? Let us pause to consider this spiritual form. Just as I would qualify positivism as a deficient form in the totality of philosophy, so there exists a form that is exclusively spiritual, that is to say 'abstract' and of a purely mental quality. And hence I must declare, once and for all, that I cannot accept a spiritual notion that refers spirituality directly to material things and establishes an indivisible unity with them. From a purely anthropological perspective one must conclude that this kind of spiritual notion of indivisibility is as irresponsible as blind positivism. And just as much as positivism is considered a grounding for anti-philosophical 'brute materialism', the philsophical policy that the spirit is everywhere equal to material things does not promote spiritual people. Instead what you get is a coagulate of irrationalism, super-naturalism and psychic policy in support of regressive animal-empowerment.
It may assist in the prevention of further confusion to note that contemporary spiritual collectivism devotes itself to two conflicting notions. First, the inseperability of spirit and matter would be a gross misconstruction in the abssence of a religious God. Second, the universality of change in the universe would be a gross misconstruction without mind-matter dualism. Spinozoa himself had imagined the first axiom, however with specific theological reservations, and called it pantheism. But regarding the second notion, and grounded as a logical consequence of the first, he believed that nature qua the universe was immutable and thus could not undergo any fundamental or constant changes. Evolution however presuposes a series of transformations towards more advanced structures, in nature's language, life develops, grows, maintains continuous metamorphosis. Change on the other hand is a proverbial superstision today with no real commonality to evolutionary facts or theological principles. Once again, it is an anthropological problem we are faced with — change — with respect to evolution, is not one of nature's plans. Nature strives for heightened complexity, the advancement of life into more integrated, complex life, and, unless an evolutionary extinction is permitted there are no laws governing devolution or regressive 'change'. This change, considered in its progressive stages, seems to be complicated by all the various elements that belong specifically and inevitably to it.
That monstrous suffering, and that anguished look of melancholy, are the most obvious symptoms of that very fatality in which one can detect a necessity that is clearly anthropological. The characteristics noted with regard to the present phase of the world emphasize the cultural-historical difference between the primitive and the civillized human dynamo, and simillar characteristics are verified in all previous cultural and economic periods arround the world where such dynamics existed. To offer but one parallel: in the history of Greek statuary one can establish with chronological exactness the progress of the gradual dissolving of the element of melancholia, so dimly affirmed throughout the entire archaic period (the closed phase), until one arrives at a balancing-out of that lamentable quality; from the xoanon, monoform and hermetic, to the first freeing of a limb from the body, to progressive movement, and where expression is concerned, to the earliest statue that smiles, precluding classicism — and which attains the fulfillment of its organic and spiritual impulse. It is obvious to the historian to see this melancholic tonality of existence marked throughout the aesthetic milleux of antiquity. But we must also note that there is a similitude to be found between the spiritually detached inertness of the classical statue with the numerous mythical characterizations it displays in society, particularly those expressive nuances that represent the psychological dynamics in today's people. ....
It may assist in the prevention of further confusion to note that contemporary spiritual collectivism devotes itself to two conflicting notions. First, the inseperability of spirit and matter would be a gross misconstruction in the abssence of a religious God. Second, the universality of change in the universe would be a gross misconstruction without mind-matter dualism. Spinozoa himself had imagined the first axiom, however with specific theological reservations, and called it pantheism. But regarding the second notion, and grounded as a logical consequence of the first, he believed that nature qua the universe was immutable and thus could not undergo any fundamental or constant changes. Evolution however presuposes a series of transformations towards more advanced structures, in nature's language, life develops, grows, maintains continuous metamorphosis. Change on the other hand is a proverbial superstision today with no real commonality to evolutionary facts or theological principles. Once again, it is an anthropological problem we are faced with — change — with respect to evolution, is not one of nature's plans. Nature strives for heightened complexity, the advancement of life into more integrated, complex life, and, unless an evolutionary extinction is permitted there are no laws governing devolution or regressive 'change'. This change, considered in its progressive stages, seems to be complicated by all the various elements that belong specifically and inevitably to it.
That monstrous suffering, and that anguished look of melancholy, are the most obvious symptoms of that very fatality in which one can detect a necessity that is clearly anthropological. The characteristics noted with regard to the present phase of the world emphasize the cultural-historical difference between the primitive and the civillized human dynamo, and simillar characteristics are verified in all previous cultural and economic periods arround the world where such dynamics existed. To offer but one parallel: in the history of Greek statuary one can establish with chronological exactness the progress of the gradual dissolving of the element of melancholia, so dimly affirmed throughout the entire archaic period (the closed phase), until one arrives at a balancing-out of that lamentable quality; from the xoanon, monoform and hermetic, to the first freeing of a limb from the body, to progressive movement, and where expression is concerned, to the earliest statue that smiles, precluding classicism — and which attains the fulfillment of its organic and spiritual impulse. It is obvious to the historian to see this melancholic tonality of existence marked throughout the aesthetic milleux of antiquity. But we must also note that there is a similitude to be found between the spiritually detached inertness of the classical statue with the numerous mythical characterizations it displays in society, particularly those expressive nuances that represent the psychological dynamics in today's people. ....
........*********************************........
22/7 (ナナブンノニジュウニ pronounced "nanabun no nijyuuni") or shortened as ナナニジ (pronounced "nananiji") is a Japanese digital seiyuu idol group. The project is described as "Idols Who Cross Dimensions"
How Pi was nearly changed to 3.2 - Numberphile
Squaring the Circle
- watch
Zeno's Paradox Numberphile https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7Z9UnWOJNY
The world is a notion - PAPAJI
