Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: The Poets' Rebellion - Lautréamont and Banality

Expand Messages
  • Trinidad Cruz
    If I consider all facts to be synthetic, and any at hand assessment of a general physical functionalism to be both caused by and causal of synthetic facts
    Message 1 of 6 , Sep 2, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      If I consider all facts to be synthetic, and any at hand assessment of
      a general physical functionalism to be both caused by and causal of
      synthetic facts within the limits of a dynamic synchronization of
      synthetic facts such as a human species, I must consider that the
      synchronization is held to some limit by some synthetic situation, or
      there would be no human species. Classic existentialist distinctions
      like subjective and objective are inadequate terms for any
      consideration of this constraining synthetic situation; and
      propositions such as God on the one hand, or evolution on the other
      hand, even if they could be obtained within distinctions like
      subjective and objective, still assume to the idea of a universal
      functionalism assessable in some set of human mental terms. It is not
      that science or religion are essentially fallacious; they both simply
      attain to the narrow paradigm of their propositions. Both seek to
      achieve what is already being done - control the reaction of synthetic
      facts within the human condition in order to assess, understand, and
      facilitate some greater or better retention of the human condition
      through inter-reaction. Synthetic facts in relation to human
      assessment in mental terms are reactive. Human assessment itself is
      reactive, in fact, better described as inter-reactive with every
      synthetic fact within the constraint of the synthetic situation that
      is imposing the synchronization of synthetic facts that is its
      accessible assessable existence. It is more than likely that existence
      in human terms was arrived at serendipitously, but it is also
      unavoidable that those human terms can only exist within a
      constraining synchronization of synthetic facts in human terms.

      Metaphysics has always employed an analytical apparatus, that
      regardless of the field of proposition or definition, finds its edges
      of field, its out of bounds, or its placeholders to be propositions
      that are not definable such as: absolute nothing, or absolute
      desolation. There are several things wrong with this approach to any
      metaphysical propositions. At the outset there is an assumption to a
      whole that cannot arguably exist - it may exist, but its existence
      cannot be supported as there are no arguments for its existence that
      are not fallacy. I may argue that any "something" exists; but I would
      be perpetuating a fallacy to argue that any "something" and even more
      ridiculously all "somethings" that are arguable in human mental terms
      are defined out of, or in contrast to, a field of, or a backdrop of
      "everything" or "nothing". It may prove to be so, but it is absolutely
      not arguable in human terms toward any actual meaning. It is far more
      likely that any "something" I may argue for is picked out for and by
      my human situation in its constrained situation of synchronization;
      and the backdrop against which the "something" is comprehensible in
      human terms is only a "something" that is not comprehensible in any
      human mental terms. It is better to argue that existence for humans is
      within a constraining synchronization of synthetic facts; experienced
      and analyzed because of, and within that constraining synchronization;
      against a backdrop, or contrast, of what is more than likely synthetic
      facts outside of that constraining synchronization and so beyond any
      human capacity for experience and analysis. The only absolute of any
      importance in metaphysics is: what can be argued without fallacy. All
      this in consideration; the issue that concerns me is the constraining
      synchronization of synthetic fact that is my existence; because I fear
      our species is bent on self-extermination these days. If Maldoror
      finds poetic terminus in mating a shark; it is in an attempt to escape
      the constraint of human analytical terms and consequences. For me this
      would be tantamount to mating a neo-con in a fit of rebellious
      depression. If I am human; if I am at least in step with my
      constraining situation; if I seek to preserve and/or develop it; I
      would mate a socialist.

      Trinidad
    • Mary Jo
      Not me. I d mate with Isadore Ducasse. Depressed rebels are the legitimate sons. That s the beauty of absurdity. MJ ... If Maldoror finds poetic terminus in
      Message 2 of 6 , Sep 2, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Not me. I'd mate with Isadore Ducasse. Depressed rebels are the
        legitimate sons. That's the beauty of absurdity.

        MJ

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Trinidad Cruz" <TriniCruz@...> wrote:

        If Maldoror finds poetic terminus in mating a shark; it is in an
        attempt to escape the constraint of human analytical terms and
        consequences. For me this would be tantamount to mating a neo-con in a
        fit of rebellious depression. If I am human; if I am at least in step
        with my constraining situation; if I seek to preserve and/or develop
        it; I would mate a socialist.
      • Aija Veldre Beldavs
        ... wonder if classifiable as an existential act is that of 39 yr. old Brooklyn rumanian lifeguard Mariuss Mironesku who with his body shielded a baby sand
        Message 3 of 6 , Sep 6, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Mary Jo wrote:
          > Not me. I'd mate with Isadore Ducasse. Depressed rebels are the
          > legitimate sons. That's the beauty of absurdity.
          > MJ
          >
          > "Trinidad Cruz" <TriniCruz@...> wrote:
          >
          > If Maldoror finds poetic terminus in mating a shark; it is in an
          > attempt to escape the constraint of human analytical terms and
          > consequences. For me this would be tantamount to mating a neo-con in a fit of rebellious depression. If I am human; if I am at least in step with my constraining situation; if I seek to preserve and/or develop it; I would mate a socialist.
          >

          wonder if classifiable as an existential act is that of 39 yr. old
          Brooklyn rumanian lifeguard Mariuss Mironesku who with his body
          shielded a baby sand shark, too young to threaten humans (too young to
          mate with as well), taking it out to sea and safety, after a crowd of
          75 - 100 attacked and beat it...? :)

          aija
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.