The Racism of Rocks.

The Racism of Rocks.

It has recently come to my attention this fact: I don’t like black women.

I do not know WHY this is a fact. And just to be totally clear: I like black People. I like PEOPLE who happen to be women who happen to be PEOPLE – who are black. But not black women. Hm.

Well if it’s any consolation: I do not really like Russian or other Slavic women as well. I guess that you can’t go too close or too far; you have to be just right. And I must say: MY goldilocks zone is very, VERY wide.

But I’m not one of those GUYS who goes about saying: Oh, I can’t HELP but to be racist because it is in my genetics. That is none sense. There is nothing in human nature that makes us intrinsically racist. Just by saying “human nature” we all ready are affirming the humanity of the other. So how could we then use that to deny it? One would have to say: Well those sub-humans are less racist than I. And in THAT case can you really tell who is human and who is not?

Unless the sub-humans were MORE racist. Or it is not peculiar to human nature. Look! Rocks can be racist too. Ever noticed how igneous does not occur where sedimentary dwells? I WONDER WHY THAT IS.

Dm.A.A.

Meditation.

Meditation.

In practical life, thought is used just as a crutch, a means to an end, and meditation is necessary to remind the calculating mind to rest.

Yet where thought is an end in and of its self, meditation is a hassle. True meditation, in its pure form, occurs to the man of depth only once the thoughts he has ALLOWED TO RUN THEIR COURSE (as in Taoism) have settled. If he knows that he is meditating, he is not meditating. The Nothingness that he has been THROWN into has been subsumed in SOMETHING. Meditation has become not an end in and of its self, the natural converse of thought for its own sake, now seen (though not by the meditator yet, thank fully) as no longer the transcendent OPPOSITE of thought but rather its imminent corollary.

Western dabblers who forget that the Western mind is historically of sharper intellect (Jung writes of this with profound respect notwithstanding to Easterners in his critique of The Secret of the Golden Flower, explaining that the Taoists had non-intellectual and may be even surpassing forms of Intelligence, but he described the Eastern intellect as comparably “childish” to Western intellect*) would do well not to use meditation as a means to an end. As Gibran wrote, he who favours one guest over an other loses the favour of both. So it is with the twin guests of thought and non-thought.

*To accuse him of hegemony is ridiculous. It is like what feminists do when they condemn “passive” depictions of women. Passivity is only rejected by virtue of the same patriarchy that they claim to oppose, and so it is that to describe one’s intellect as childish is an affront only made mortal by a culture that, as Jung demonstrates, has all ways EXCELLED and thus REVELED in the Intellect.  The argument is only circular because the conditions are circular; both parties are responsible for it. Jung proves that our over-valuation of the intellect came from our excellence in using it; the opponent proves, by one’s affront, that the excellence led to its over-valuation. The argument is semantic and self-referential by nature.

Dm.A.A.

Anti-psychiatry: Why Freudian Slips are NOT Give-Aways.

I just yelled "You ARE old, Pumpkin!" after expending some energy to talk to Mother, though voluntarily this time.

At first I thought to make a be-laboured joke, saying, "Not you, Mom,"

And then I realised:

The only reason that I considered that alternate possibility and meaning was because the first clause could have been miss-Heard to have the meaning.

So when the Freudians attack us for our unconscious slips, it is only because the mind deliberately tries NOT to say all the wrong things[(] that we said that.[)]* So when they attack us for our "true meanings" they are in FACT exploiting the weakness of a tired and exhausted, anxious mind, faced with judgement, to discern everything that it WANTS to say from every thing that it wants NOT to say. The latter is a direct reaction to the questioner, and nothing else.

* After the thought, it is parenthetical. Parenthetically after the thought. Dans cors dans coeur.

Tourette's would thus be an intense surrender of the tight-rope walk.

Dmitry.(!!!!!!!!**)

** not quite contextual, for you asked me to follow up UNINTERESTING things with exclamations.

[[Dm.A.A.]]

Reservations. But not ABOUT my theiry. Rather on the conversely that prove it.

Something is defined in being reserved.
Something is defined as being reserved.
Something is defined by being reserved.
Being reserves defines it (some thing).
Something defines being reserved.

A defines B.
Though as stated previously:
A is defined by B.

Where A = Something.
And B = Being reserved.

Something defines Being reserved
Though as stated previously:
Something is defined by Being reserved.

Did I write that properly? On an organic level errors are theoretically possible.

Dm.A.A.

Interlocutor:

Interlocutor:

“ iv.      i and ii imply that I am crazy. (a + b = c.[But what is c here? Is it that I am crazy? Either states that I am crazy given certain conditions that they share in common. Does the one (i[a]) depend upon the other (ii[b]) to make a point ([c])? Demonstrably yes. 13 proves 14 and 14 proves 13. [But do they depend upon EACH OTHER to PROVE C? Well if both are an expression OF C, in a Heidegerrean way, then yes. And C depends upon them as its manifestation.] But we must go through the cycle to see it this way. How do they depend upon each other, though? Is it not RATHER that ii and iii combined imply i? Demonstrably this is true as well. One is left wondering if in fact all warrants are hegemonic and hierarchical, based upon a naive epistemology rooted in tradition, that ignores that all reasoning in the absence of a Domineering Logos (Watts, Derrida) is circular because Life is one of mutual interdependence, mutual arising, and cyclical nature (Watts.).)

                                                             v.      14(i): If I am not sane, I am crazy.

                                                           vi.      13(ii)*: If I am not sane, but I believe myself to be, then I am crazy.

                                                          vii.      Since 14 all ready implies that I am crazy, granted that I am not sane, then my not being sane is sufficient to my being crazy in 13, regardless of whether or not I believe my self to be.

                                                        viii.      14 thus implies 13.” This makes no sense to me.

Speaker: Well, it is quite obvious.

You might have miss-read the bracketed statement to be an unwarranted assertion from whom I derived deductions in v through viii. Yet that is by your force of habit as a reader. In fact if any thing the obverse is true: The bracketed statement contained the deductions from v through viii, input after the fact, and hence* in bracketts. Bracketts indicate that I put this in as a second thought, usually.

Now, of course deductions and warrants are synonymous. When I made that claim it was not its self an unwarranted assertion; you just read it that way because you had not yet seen the entire picture. By the end I am sure that you will agree with me. But it is not even that my reasoning DEPENDS upon pretending this to be the case. Like I said, I meant this non-dual statement (that warrants are deductions, and that it is arbitrary how one treats them, as one or the other) as an APOLOGY for having even tried to define what is or is not a warrant or deduction. It was purely for YOUR consideration.

*Try not to cling to the semantics here.

Interlocutor: So you are saying that the bracketed statement (A) is warranted by v through viii (B).

Speaker: In a manner, yes.

Interlocutor: But you ALL so claim that B could just as easily warrant A.

Speaker: That is correct.

Interlocutor: And the bracketed statement (A) all so states that good reasonings are circular.

Speaker: Many of them, yes.

Interlocutor: And THAT is circular! Because A, then circular reasonings are good. You could call that C. And because C then A. I mean: Supposing I agree to what you said in brackets. Then I should all so believe that v through viii are not only warrants for A but deductions too, so they do not need warrants. But that is OKAY because everything is circular any way!

Speaker: Yes.

Interlocutor: What the hell???

Speaker: It’s trippy. Yeah.

Interlocutor: But what if I DON’T accept that? What if I refuse to accept A until you prove B?

Speaker: Then you are being will fully ignorant. For all is cyclical. Yes. A warrants B. B warrants A.

Interlocutor: But how does A warrant B?

Speaker: B warrants A. That we have established. A claims that all reasonings are circular. So A warrants B as well. And that is a circle. Which proves that B is true*. So A is true. So all reasonings are circular. So that this is a circle ought not to bother you. It all works.

Interlocutor: But if all reasonings were circular then this would go on infinitely!

Speaker: Actually it only ends the moment that you complete the circle.

Interlocutor: Only?

Speaker: I mean merely. Look. All reasonings are circular. If you go straight long enough you end up where you were. Only what leads to infinite regression is refusing to complete the circle. You keep going further and further on a line. THAT goes on forever. In theory only though. Because you might find that sooner or later your own most dearly prized linear narratives bend in on their selves as well. So just breathe out and accept the snake that eats its own tail as your condition where thought is concerned.

[Note what happens here. In fact every thing in brackets is not even an argument but I thought. They are not even related to one another in a binding way; parts of them could be true and parts un-true. Yet the Interlocutor sought a weakness the moment that the Speaker began his second paragraph, generously (on the part of the Speaker). The Interlocutor sought to exploit this generosity by attacking the circular argument. Yet by so doing he trapped his self, because he acknowledge all of the bracketed statement as ONE FACT. So by a kind of judo the Speaker was able to use that fact mathematically to prove its self.]

*Because A warrants B, but all so because this is a circle. Though the latter is not direct. If the circle is established to be valid, though, then that would directly prove A to be true. All so, speaking grammatically rather than mathematically, the full stop might be dropped to say “And that is a circle which proves that B is true,” as the prior sentence had all ready established, though the Interlouctor is still tentative to accept it because he is still waiting for B to be proven true as the starting phrase (ironic, considering that this is precisely what has just been proven.).

Dm.A.A.

Dm.

Kraziness. A Krazy Mess.

1.       Crazy is to be defined as not knowing that one is crazy.

2.       If I admit that I am crazy, then I am not crazy.

3.       By so doing I contradict my self instantaneously.

4.       My sanity there fore depends upon the contradiction.

5.       My insanity, in order to be acknowledged by me as a fact, depends upon contradiction.

6.       If I claim that I am sane then I cannot know it for certain to be true.

7.       Sanity cannot depend upon certainty as a pre-requisite.

8.       I can only be certain of my sanity if I believe in my own insanity.

9.       To believe myself to be some thing that I am not must therefore be sane.

10.   To believe myself to be some thing that I am not is all so to be insane.

11.   The prerequisite for sanity is delusional pretense.

12.   The prerequisite for insanity is delusional pretense.

13.   If I believe myself to be sane, but this is not true, then I am crazy.

14.   If I am not sane, then I am crazy.

15.   If I believe myself to be sane, but I am crazy, then I am crazy.

A.      15 is a circular reasoning. (a x b = b). This seems to suggest that either a is 1 or b is zero.

B.      15 is the conclusion from 13 and 14 in relation to one an other. (a + b = c.)

C.      14 can all so be a conclusion from 13. (a = b.).

a.       13: a(-a)=b

b.      14: -a=b.

D.      C.a. and C.b. are warrants *for* C, grammatically.

E.       C.a. and C.b. are deductions FROM C, mathematically.

F.       13 can all so be a conclusion from 14.

a.       Warrants: (this is an arbitrary sign-post, for all warrants can be deductions.)

                                                               i.      14: If I am not sane, I am crazy.

                                                             ii.      13: If it is not true that I am sane, then I am not sane. (this is linguistically implicit, though perhaps more sophisticated charts will include what is grammatically implicit as a separate numbered assertion.)

                                                            iii.      13 can thus be expressed as: If I am not sane, but I believe myself to be, then I am crazy.

                                                           iv.      i and ii imply that I am crazy. (a + b = c.[But what is c here? Is it that I am crazy? Either states that I am crazy given certain conditions that they share in common. Does the one (i[a]) depend upon the other (ii[b]) to make a point ([c])? Demonstrably yes. 13 proves 14 and 14 proves 13. [But do they depend upon EACH OTHER to PROVE C? Well if both are an expression OF C, in a Heidegerrean way, then yes. And C depends upon them as its manifestation.] But we must go through the cycle to see it this way. How do they depend upon each other, though? Is it not RATHER that ii and iii combined imply i? Demonstrably this is true as well. One is left wondering if in fact all warrants are hegemonic and hierarchical, based upon a naive epistemology rooted in tradition, that ignores that all reasoning in the absence of a Domineering Logos (Watts, Derrida) is circular because Life is one of mutual interdependence, mutual arising, and cyclical nature (Watts.).)

                                                             v.      14(i): If I am not sane, I am crazy.

                                                           vi.      13(ii)*: If I am not sane, but I believe myself to be, then I am crazy.

                                                          vii.      Since 14 all ready implies that I am crazy, granted that I am not sane, then my not being sane is sufficient to my being crazy in 13, regardless of whether or not I believe my self to be.

                                                        viii.      14 thus implies 13.

*expressed by cross-reference to iii.

b.      Deductions: (this is an arbitrary sign-post, for all deductions can be warrants.)

                                                               i.      14: –a=b.

                                                             ii.      13: a(-a)=b.

                                                            iii.      This means: a is equal to 1. Unless –a were equal to 0. A negative cannot be zero. Unless zero is defined grammatically as THE negation. Mathematically, then, a = -a = b = 0.

                                                           iv.      Because – 0 = 0.

It begins to look as though Sanity and Insanity are the same, from the perspective of Logic. Lucid Reason must note its limits then, unless Insanity is just a Sign assigned by a Signifier to a Signified (Foucault.) It ALL so looks as though I can never be insane subjectively, but only in the eyes of the Signifier. Yet since the signifier claims to pass judgment upon my Soul, defining Sanity as something that depends upon my “not knowing that I am crazy”, this seems contradictory on the part of the Signifier, for now insanity is defined in TERMS of my subjectivity again.

So we have to either abandon the notion that “crazy people do not know that they are crazy”, which was our initial premise here, or we must note that logic has little to say of the distinction betwixt Sanity and Insanity.

Please re-view and re-vise. If it is not redundant to say that, for vise means to view.

Dm.A.A.

Mother's Madness.

Mother's Madness:

Yep. It is official. Mother is crazy.

There is no further point
In providing systematic
Arguments.

Explaining how waving me away
When you are on the phone and
I am asking you to walk

The dog is poor
Communication
Theory.

How approaching me later
Not just to tell me that you
Walked the dog but to

Condemn me for even
Asking is poor conflict
Management.

How the tone of aggression
Even offering me dinner
Was to be noted as
Troubling. As though

You did not really Want to
From the pit of your
Heart but felt obligated to
As though I were
Mussolini.

And how no:
Hypocrisy is not when I treat you
The way you treated me
(But better) but

When you accuse me not valuing
Your space whilst intruding on my
Own within the same breath

(That you call me hypocritical.)

No. I think the evidence was that
After I got back from my hour
Long walk with Pumpkin
My beloved. The most sane
Member of this house.

The one you threatened to
Throw out when I got back from
Los Angeles.

Just like every other night
For five years that I walked him
Since I went 'crazy'

And actually started
Doing things. Allowing you
More leisure that from dwindling pride
You would not take.

The argument that broke out
Was over a plastic bag
Of trash that I thought
I might turn to treasure

Since you did not need it.

And my skin still feels the spot
You slapped me time

And time

Again.

Dm.A.A.