Imagining a World Where we Can't Juggle

IS it that the throw in the dice picture is visualised differently to a juggler? As Meillassoux's thrown dice emerge into my mind, the dice with the million faces that are always landing the same way up has made me think of a universe where the balls thrown never enter the juggler's hands, I reverse my own way of thinking about learning in order to apprehend the moment where philosphy pitches into my lived imaginings about juggling; as I had intended to think about juggling a specific number of balls, as in learning to juggle the key is in the throw, it becomes clear that I can't transpose philosophy's use of dice (or should i say one philopher's image) or is that the point (the object is the image of the man throwing the numbers? onto my own pre-conditions about intention, ontological as they may be, the balls need to be thrown to the same place every time  to be a juggler. So having established the disconnect in the juggling metaphor, i can now process through contingently to mind maps; maybe therre is a connection there? it seems clear already that READING is a key to the present conditions of thinking and learning as we find them. We have mentioned, more than mentioned Meillasoux's impact, and as HArman and others suggest, we deserve to be the recipients of the use of this new word, correlationism. So when it's obvious to an outside that the inside's thinking on this is subalterm difference enters in between the asked original questions and intentions, is to say: it's not for no reason that I threw out my Husseurl for a dialogue with Joyce's interior object, Derrida, where three Yesses were proclaimed with far more vocality and vociferousness than had been said before. When Joyce's objects became Derrida's voices, something had been implied at n minus 1 dimensions that had proceed as method in order to establish the multiple. {Robin Lovgren. Juggler. Posted this today from his summer 2009. The nice swimming pool catching my eye at first as much as the juggling itself. It's a timeley line of a post as yesterday it was announced that "Seven is the New FFive Ball" meaning, in juggler's Land anywway there has been a threshold leap. More of that later. But for now? It's just this video is so sharp, you can't not say something about it somewhere; as with all good things, it is always just a sort of surprise...when and where being moved to write happens. And as it just so happened that Graham's post this morning was precisely about this subject, it got me to thinking again. 4a.m thinking. January 2011, coming across this video. Titles. Thanks.

                 [cont]...  In a way, I'd rather be sleeping

[LATER}

These were then, as now, no more the mumblings of a variegated cow, or a weed (or should I say a mere weed amongst rhizomes) no, these were real thought processes at the time of that condition of Being, where, I was pleased to read, we were happy being what we were becoming, knowing that we were contingent upon being what we were not.


"thesis notes"......

Only much later did the question of reading arrive, coming as it did fast in the Wake of understanding how the brain prefers to learn: the power of Humanity's most effective learning mode (Buzan) not lost on Derrida, nor any of the previous conditions or intentions either were lost on language theory departments. Enter the Literary Condition and the advent of the new kindled book reader, and the questions seem greater to weigh in on the side of understanding learning and Reading, when these ojbjects are before us it is necessary to see that they exist. A you Tube Video, a Scribed text, a blog, a hard cover book, a walk in the park, a cup of tea, are all necessary Learning conditions that still need to be awakaned as the ontological precondition to learn. Here, Metzinger's narratie is more than apt a guide. The voice alone striking and metaphoric, writhing and rising in an absence of thought and ideas. Where is the phenomenal self Model? What is it when thought as an only inside of consciousness, where that inside thought by Steve Lehar and the model that fills the vomumetric gap with a perceived figure of form just imagines that it is there. this is the principle of higher learning and speed reading, maximised at this time by the technological synthesis of environemtn and thought as well as the the environment that has been coming into Being. This s why the maps are important at n+ dimensions (as the maps don't interfere with the method of n minus one dimensions, nor does juggling). The Portolan Maps are a merely "way in" to a sea of thinking about brains, maps and images we make of what we are thinking. More than once I have looked stunned at an emergent mind maps qualities, and seen the brain environment learning (the clouds) emerge in the dark night of a yesterday that turns out to be a contingent linearity,, as our experience merges into amodally perceived questions about time as we experience its fluctuations; absorption into the moment? or envisioned as the artist's descent into sdomething plastic, an alterior real of objects is implied, seen never and rarely felt, but implied to descend into (every ascent is really a descent, hoolds the MAyan Metaphpor of cloathing open, as indeed the rags of the aztecs have left us with a conundrum: could it be that the calenders were constructed but not seen? Was it possible that the preconstructive and bicameral environment (at the level of the seen and experienced) was so radically different then, as Jaynes propsed?) Were the pyramids built unconsciously? And what the hell have saturn and jupiter got to do with all  of this. Are they only metaphors for the juggler, as balls in the air, once so accurately thrown that they arrived, somehow into an eternally recurring trajectory where the five planets are juggled and the juggler moves so slowly in space that his rotation outlasts the ability of any one observer to see the actual roatation. What does actually happen when one lllaid turns to the other and says, Hey Hector? What about my strory? The last word on that, narratizatiion, as Jaynes says is that it is a feature of consciousness, that the Ancients didn't Narratize as such, still (I think) needs to be thought through, because as everyone surely now nows and knows now that that meeting Cortez had (and By! Cortez! I mean by that that full and complete assemblage that is ALL that CORTEZ was,is and still is to be proclaimed as metaphor par exapple, absolute noun, appender of all modifications, carrier of all tranlocative and nontranslocative nows to arrive at El Pasideo, or wherever the multiple organisms of landing arrived with its tentacles, networlds, kipping in its shutters round Olde new england later, only much later, swalling the entirety so copmpletely into another world , such that more language and letters had to be allowed to drop in, such was that intensity, that radical acceptance that YES we knew it wasn't necessary to have or make a new language into an order to say something new, but that it was a necessary radicalisation of creative contingency and being to accept that that had to happen at the level of the text; it just has to, it hasn't completed its genesis by a long shot (that is for sure) and it holds, absolutely, something radical and new as it had promised in nits origins, as Becket well knew, though would eventually think intself into Being what it actually is knowing that it was in its own Age of Dsicovery, all layers of every word added and calculated for overtones and double referents of accidental meanings where something, for real, can't be imagined (for any good purpose) any other way than what it actually is. As Graham says in the closing paragraphs and pages of Prince of Networks he writes, philosophyand none of it all, not even our thinking proceeds or is understood by only "arguments, proposition, explicit reference, tangible qualities." That once understood that the logical proof for this or that can't be given first (and needn't be) the way is cleared for us to render and rhetroic, and wouldn't that be celebrated by a few nt with us today to hear. Long live the multiple, for sure, is and was its rejoinder, and long live too, the propsed next staep, after the cleaqring of the five balls, to the introduction of two and the externalisation of mathmatics itself, the 5/7 as has been propsed. Sewn up for the juggler i the universe that doesn't catch but only throws.... and as we're not in that universe, but as we a re in this one where we proceed on principle that the catch takes care of itself, we have established therefore a universe that we are in where indeed it is possible to so accurately throw the dice repeatedly that it would and does (I think that's the most important thing) that it does actually come same number up every time; or right side up in a kind of top down qwarky kind of way, as I think my friend TMT would say. And because of that, I'll post this damn fine video again.