Heidegger and the....

links to G H's 2002 book   and a film here "Thinking the Unthinkable" about MH which I couldn't embed

both are fascinating.

A shed and a water trough
marked in time
where does consciousness flow

the tool I have
and the tool I can be
are not one

and the same Black Forest
I eat with my spoon
along with Rorty

saying This is in his eyes
the grimness of choice
besides a trivial pursuit

games, says Heidegger
are being inside the object
the trough, the water

a shoe opens the board
upon Monopoly and ply
advances forward

we are like that
you and i
nothing appearing whatsoever

that wasn't in consciousness
first, the birds sing along
and then recant

along the tired steps
Edmund wrote of thought
and the eidetic here

now, returning

LINK TO E.SNIPS from which Graham harman's powerpoint presentation

I couldn't get the actual audio. http://www.esnips.com/doc/25551256-1818-4b02-bf24-83dd6230d0a8/harman_delanda

but the slides did interest me, yello, pink and green objects in their own right, presenting an IDEA about Causality. For some reason, I can't yet see the full Harman picture, his view (if you like that word) is emergent (probably) in your own life anyway ("everything changes, you eat jelly roll" as Ginsberg sanf sangue this morning about RkJ and skeisis, i thought, well yes, there is a good reason anyway to make the distinguisher "bullshitter" and Sincere. It does make for more interesting reading. I could see something of the LSE from the Thames as I rounded through the park Embankment chomping on a donut, glimpsing the Eye of Cleopatras needle, sitting for a few hours between lectures about the rippling tides and formica contracts that were being arbitered nearby; I probably stank from circuitry of ambient train odour, qwick spurts of sweat necessitated by the churning intensity. The statue of a poet I stand in front of black great face, an inscription that moves me, the snoring intensity of grandeur backlit by the massive obsiloquence of Security breaches. LAterminals were in the paper; I saw one flashing through the undergrowth as I decided for coffee and not a beer. We were suited and booted round Planck length tables, the japanese girl particularly eloquent after three sips of white wine announces her phenomenology. A table of autiocratic didacteurs shifts over to make way for Melanie's finer features, and the table talk kicks off with an Ontology of Objects moving and being moved in slow motion through the plasma" "Causality, he saus happens when an image that is divorced from its Qualities" pouring a green pesto onto the bisqet as London traffic assemblage data comes to a temporary halt outside. I troll on up to the British Museum, confidently very certain that I've absorbed enough from the intellect for this century, and assuage my ears with the silence through the other side of wood doors, eighteen concrete steps and a MArble archway where I catch my breath beneath the radiant hexagons of the new sunlight. the auditorium's magnificent; and the great statues are where I'd left them, guarding the entrance to Ur, the great Sumerian epigrams and crystallographs carved out into sphynx and Lion; the great stories of Ashygryash, Idryssly await me

Further Notes Toward Object Oriented Ontology

Things are withdrawn objects. OOO is proclaiming this, NOT that we should favor solids over liquids. To accede to some nice compromise (“Things are kind of melty but also kind of solid”) is still to believe in reductionism, eliminationism and so on. Lava lamps are precisely somewhere “between” melty and solid.

I believe Graham and I are definitely rooting for at least a fresh look at stasis, but because we do this, it doesn't mean that we think things “really are” static or that we prefer solids or whatever. That would be a childish misinterpretation, along the lines of “You prefer blue but I know purple is better.” Or more precisely, “I prefer electrons to be orbiting quite a lot faster than you do, and that's a good thing.” (The premise being that we are all talking about different kinds of the same thing, which isn't the case.)

Quite the contrary: it's the lava lamp argument that suffers from superficial aestheticism. An aestheticism that it denies at a more fundamental level, since what really runs the show are machine-like processes, not colors and grooviness. (This is one reason, by the way, why lava lampers can't have Buddhism to themselves.)

If you want an ontology where aesthetics really does run the show, you need OOO. And that brings me to my final point. As I'm arguing in my book on causality, it's the lava lamp school that suffers from a static notion of time as a container—the lamp in which the lava gloops, as it were. OOO sees time as a feature of the sensuality of objects themselves. If you want stasis, go with the lava lamps!


Meanwhile, this theme :Why is it that doing everything twice keeps recurring as a theme: the Recurring Around Mimesis occurs here.

The notion of performative utterances was introduced by language philosopher J. L. Austin. According to his original conception, it is a sentence which is not true or false but instead 'happy' or 'unhappy', and which is uttered in the performance of an illocutionary act, rather than used to state something (Austin originally assumed that stating something and performing an illocutionary act are mutually exclusive). [1] Other writers (Eve Sedgwick, Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Judith Butler) use the term, too, but in quite different ways. Contents: 1. Origin of the term 2. Austin's definition 3. Distinguishing performatives from other utterances 4. Are performatives truth-evaluable? 5. Sedgwick's account of performatives 6. Examples (mainly of explicit performative utterances) 7. Performative writing 8. References 9. See also 1. Origin of the term Although Austin had already used the term in his 1946 paper "Other minds", today's usage goes back to his later, remarkedly different exposition of the notion in the 1955 William James lecture series, subsequently published as How to Do Things with Words. The starting point of the lectures is Austin's doubt against a widespread philosophical prejudice, namely, the implicit presumption that utterances always "describe" or "constate" something and are thus always true or false. After mentioning several examples of sentences which are not so used, and not truth-evaluable (among them non-sensical sentences, interrogatives, directives and "ethical" propositions), he introduces "performative" sentences as another instance. 2. Austin's definition In order to define performatives, Austin refers to those sentences which conform to the old prejudice in that they are used to describe or constate something, and which thus are true or false; and he calls such sentences "constatives". In contrast to them, Austin defines "performatives" as follows: (1) Performative utterances are not true or false, that is, not truth-evaluable; instead when something is wrong with them then they are "happy" or "unhappy". (2) The uttering of a performative is, or is part of, the doing of a certain kind of action (Austin later deals with them under the name illocutionary acts), the performance of which, again, would not normally be described as just "saying" or "describing" something (cf. Austin 1962, 5). For example, when Peter says "I promise to do the dishes" in an appropriate context then he thereby does not just say something, and in particular he does not just describe what he is doing; rather, in making the utterance he performs the promise; since promising is an illocutionary act, the utterance is thus a performative utterance. If Peter utters the sentence without the intention to keep the promise, or if eventually he does not keep it, then although something is not in order with the utterance, the problem is not that the sentence is false: it is rather "unhappy", or "infelicitous", as Austin also says in his discussion of so-called felicity conditions. In the absence of any such flaw, on the other hand, the utterance is to be assessed as "happy" or "felicitous", rather than as "true".How To Juggle: the traffic light"

When the change accurred.accrued (it acrured HERE). Ref to the Traffic Light....pink hyperobjects, withdrawing, and object Balls (which arn't THE object), I couldn't resist the OOOvertones and the semantic polyvocalism of this trick. As an oject in itself (there is withdrawness to me); but as I peruse my consciousness space where I am looking is at my own balls! (surely this reaches into the heart of worthy new metaphors that might replace Navel (Oooorange) gazing (Maz Planck telescope notwithstanding) the object can lead to silent complaints. (Hence my oject). However Metzinger makes his point, his qwuestion from the western perspectival consciousness (which as delanda shows is design oriented) and as Spengler hinted, is spatially consituted (could S[engler not have gone far enough) leaves (fall from trees) the great ecological divide (that essay on Two Cultures) the way non linear space opens up, and time. Ah time. Makes me think Metzinger, and conclude it wont hurt to read the book, but my routes blocked temporaily. What did I write in my journalle cette matin? Comme, avec le temps, ilya seulement l'enspace; ilya seulement le conception du spatiel qui est la moment quand l'object jamais disparu. To Oject, of course, to Buddhists, is self referentialized; however, as TM says, now withdrawn. The shoes I have bought months ago are not the same shoes i wear now. The event of shoe buying, then, amidst dear flip flops, ladies in waiting and the sweet smell of socks was nothing tantamount to anything; what was real then in the shop were the previously withdrawn objects I was then wearing--those other shoes--which now i am not wearing; either way, the object was the event, not the shoes. A case, I am sure, that will be made again and again as the Buddha noted, best not to be too attached to those objects you see. And now to embed another object (this you tube video) "a rose embedded object video" where the ideal next trick i shall perform may or may not be the traffic light model with or without its signifiers as to when to stop and go... (we all slide across the red sometimes, and we all take a left without signalling. Same with seat belts) but as we're all perfectly capable of driving. ...(actually the driving metaphor is one made good use of in Juggler's Circles (3 ball cascade is the driving)...to the movies, alas perhaps another time. Meanwhile, the traffic lights I am thinking of, sea encrusted and toned with Victorian panache (down the bottom of London Road) where Kings Cross meets latent Imperialism and the new affect is made Cosmopolitan by a sunshine state, you can find me juggling there

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. 

It's not that Derrida is Wrong or Was Wrong

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35559811/Future-of-Hegel-Plasticity-Temporality-and-Dialectic-Derridahttp://dazhastings2012.blogspot.com/2011/01/background-assumptions-about-juggling.html

DAturn and Jupiter