Reconciliation in contradiction. 

If we can agree that all negotiation takes place within a theoretical realm bounded by nothing on one hand and self exultation on the other, then it is possible to see that this is really the basis of contradiction against which we find truth in reality. 

If we take the next sensible step we might see that this condition, these parameters, occur within every moment of contradiction, such that every instance of contradiction contains or otherwise represents not one of these parameters but both of these parameters, that indeed this is what contradiction is; that is to say, wherever we find a contradiction we find the negation that is nothing as well as the assertion that is The self-aggrandizement of individual assertion. 

The conventional route would have it be that these parameters are essential objects in themselves or represent essential conditions of the discourses that arrive at either of two states. The quantum, on the other hand, would see that both of these states indicate a single situation. Yet it is within this single situation that we no longer have a conventional estimation of the matter at hand; in fact we can see this situation as a moment of a kind of non-locality  and or quantum entanglement, A sort of Gateway, portal if you wish, through which we have a marker of distinction that tells of the orientation of the approach upon the moment. For indeed if we say that it is a single situation, then we move no further then to situate a one against another, which is to say indicate the moderate conventional reality were all negotiation occurs against that foundation of contradiction by which we find the truth of reality. ( isnt it Aristotle that defined for us contradiction ?) 

Whereas some people would call for a kind of transformation, occurring through a sufficiency of discourse where a particular communication can allow a transversal of this moment, I am not confident that such a transformation can be made through a correctly appropriated discourse asserted by another. The key here, The pivotal understanding concerns this ‘by another’, because so long as this kind of conversion is held onto as a potential involved in a real negotiation of reality, The contradiction as an indication of what is truly real will always validate the incipient faith of that agent that is commuing with or otherwise communicating through the transv cendental clause. 

An example through analogy that I often use concerns computer engineering. At no time will I ever be a Computer scientist. Never in any case that is possible will I ever learn how to or know how to build an iPhone from scratch. And not just learning, not just the amount of education that I would need in order to build an iPhone from scratch makes it highly improbable that I would take that route, but the fundamental make up and of who I am and which amounts to not only my physical structure, psychic or mental manifestation aptitude or attitude, but the sheer and overwhelming fact — and I emphasize fact — that I am this existential situation that is inseparable from itself through any sort of knowing meaning or potential of essences , makes me as a capacity to one day or any time or place exhibit the ability to build an iPhone from scratch, insurmountable. One would say that I appear to be arguing my limitation, that I’m closing off the possibility of infinity, The potential involved in just the sheer unknowability of what is unknown. But I am not doing that; I am stating facts. Facts, as elements by which reality occurs , do not adhere to some potential of reality. There is no reduction of one to the other; only in reality can I reduce the situation of me never being able to build an iPhone from scratch to the limitation I’m placing upon myself in reality. I may very well one day decide I want to learn to build an iPhone from scratch and be able to indeed accomplish this feat. But the fact of the matter are that I will never do so. The contradiction inherent in this situation reveals ones orientation upon objects. This orientation cannot be decided upon through some sort of essential ability to make choices, where to come to some meaning of discourse that suddenly alters my perception A reality. Once orientation has to do with their factual basis in existence. So it is by this factual basis that we can come to the Marxist analysis and indeed the very notion of capitalism involved therein. The whole concept of hegemony is based in the segregation of facts from real experience. It is in this situation that colonialism has meaning, through which oppression take shape, because what are we really talking about but the power of the majority over by minority to the extent that the minority is so marginalized that it is taken as common to not exist. But indeed it is in the last instance that we find this exit stencil constant that demands a divergent from the conventional norm; we find The insistence over the need the absolute mandate over the opinion,  of a partition in the understanding of our human situation. 

Advertisements

One thought on “Reconciliation in contradiction. 

  1. Pingback: Truth & Actuality (02) – dwmasten

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s