Some thoughts around that…

HERE is a repost of a recent post by ALT Exploit, that I commented on.

and here are..

Some thoughts around that: Chaos itself is a thought construct, of the same character by which we might say that we are able to intuit truths of the universe. But we should be careful as to what we impose versus what we intuit.

It would seem that the issue is whether or not we are able to form or otherwise have a link to this functioning universe by which to be able to come to true concept-experiences of it. In other words: Can we trust what we intuit?

Without going into all the facets involved here, I skip to the punch:

If the universe as a totality is outside our concept of function, either finite or infinite (for these too are intuited), then it is possible that the universe functions in such a manner to allow contradictions; this would seem to be the case since we also intuit contradictions but our usual manner is to reject the resultant contents of contradiction; we say that there is no content within contradiction. It is possible, though, that the universe has contradictions that hold content.

It would seem then that if this be the case, due to the fact that the possibility has been intuited, that we can also have a knowledge of the content of contradiction. This content could then be understood as a kind of field, perhaps of the sort of ‘subtle form of non-locality’, as actual wave understood in its waviness, but one that does not then reduce or have further interactions (as a function) with other waves, other fields (Im totally expressing my layman ship of physics ;)). For, the interaction between such fields would then itself be another field exclusive from the derivative two except in as much as we develop another function; each instance implying a whole could probably not be understood outside of its particularity (particle), what Francois Laruelle might call ‘corpuscular’.

Wave as wave (qua) would seem to denote that there is a possible universal structural operation that develops a thinking being (human) as part of its operational function that functions primarily ‘within’ contradiction, within the event whereby particles arrive, as such sustaining and recording the unfolding of random occurrences of particles as a sensibility, a history. Similarly, due to the non-local aspect of wave functions, but also quantum entanglement, there are also possibilities of being human that do not fall ‘into’ the necessary particle designation of contradiction, but that, by real definition, exist in a state that is ‘different’ than what most human beings reckon as human.

The possibility of this discrepancy thus might be evident in certain religious figures, but also philosophical figures, such as Hieddgger, Badou, Derrida, Delueze, Wittgenstien, Laruelle. For these authors evidence a certain irreconcilability that they sustain even while contradicting themselves through the common discourse.

Advertisements

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