Wednesday, April 4, 2018

Dispersion of what is Relentless as Captivation by what is most New
Revolution as Thoughtlessness

Image result for weimar photography


It may be difficult, almost impossible, to truly shed light on this relationship through the texts of Aristotle that 
have been handed down to us. But just the same it remains indisputable that Aristotle lets the two of them be 
rooted in one another. The oneness of being is therefore rescued not only over and against its manifoldness 
but precisely for it; rescued in the sense of the word as it was understood by Aristotle and Plato, to let something 
stand out as what it is, to not let it slip away and be covered over by the babble of common opinion for which 
everything is equally beyond question. 


Αριστοτέλης hears language which tells him form and substance are the same, for those who speak of 
epistemology they are several. This separation is not Christian as such, yet, at the same time it is a theological 
development under the medieval world of European Christendom. What development, what emerging is, 
remains obscure. This touches us as much in our several and factional committed actions, in the clamour 
for power to say what is universal, as in the very attempt to think the being of beings as the history of being. 
It is precisely because Kant says correctly that Metaphysics is not a heading inserted arbitrarily by later 
compilers of the work of Aristotle, that the (subject) matter is a difficulty. 

Correctness means one discards the vague and simple knowing of sameness by one who is part of a 
community of knowers. Iki is (manly) elegance (never wholly removed from its conection to brutality)
 as distinguished from the foppishness of a pink-shirted dandy, a Robert Louis Stevenson, 
such men of flâneries are not chiefly libertine nor profligate, the Barnard College writer  
Ariana Reines readily produces the judgment: “Baudelaire, a mama’s boy.”, 
Salvador Dali with his Armadillo and antipathy to what is normal for the sake of being against what is normal. 
A transformation of the vector of mere snobbishness towards what is Modern. Chus Martinez, 
in the "contemporary", raises or peruses the animal as what is "universal" according to the law 
of the equalization of difference, of the destruction of the norm(ie) as
the holding sway of a universal law of versicolour niche beings. The translation, which is also, and at the same time, a 
interpretation, Iki, Chic, is correct in that the chic is what is revolutionary as a new 
form of revolving. That means modernity is inked with the wet press of awareness of what is the same. 

The status quo as change is a notion of modernity, for instance as upheld by Groys. However, it is 
just the rhythm of this change that is revolutionary. What is correct in this translation of Iki is not that 
it grasps any of the community concern of the Japanese world before it became a culture, alongside the 
other cultures (one speaks, e.g., of Chinese Civilization and of Chinese Culture, of Adolescent Culture, 
but not of Adolescent Civilization [except by simile].), but rather that it shows that this modernity was 
drawing towards Japan from within, so far as we can just now speak of a within and an outside as we 
have long done without evading thoughtfulness. Aristoteles, when language speaks, hears nothing of 
this enfeebling division of what revolves and revolution. 

The word form means the natural kind. Form (forma, from morphe) is opposed to symbol (sumbebekota). 
When it comes to man it is the interpretation of the symbol. This is basically the sense Kant retrieves 
(without ever being able to reach what he would retrieve) when he says “Kingdom of Ends”. 
A telos is an end. If one takes a wild plant and cultivates it one ‘educates’ the plant in its true and proper life, 
in the older sense. If one uses the plant against its telos, for example as dry brush to start a fire, one uses it 
“simply as means”. What is peculiar about form is Aristotle thinks form formally, where Plato (and Socrates) 
do not yet take this up and think through it to a conclusion as an answer to the division in thinking between 
those who take up the side of the symbol, i.e, irrational or empirical history, and those who take up the side 
of the idea, i.e., the natural kind as the source of motion and intelligibility for man (i.e., for the concept). 
Symbol and idea become hule ( “matter”) and form. Thought at the same time in the same thought, as 
the solution to the extreme views. 

When we understand what is almost alien, the syllogistic sense of form, is for Aristotle, the same as the 
sense of form of a chair, that a chair is "for use," we come towards a world where thought comes easily. 
Where envy even of the genius of Plato as what is unique is impossible—for thought is still in the 
bubble of its first enunciation. The question of the division of the discipline of rhetoric into its 
three parts moves in another way, insofar as it makes the form a stem for parts. What is crucial, 
rather, is the sense in which the incorrect derivation of inference from a mal-formed syllogism is thought. 

Modernity is small because it looks further to what is remote and to the hugeness of what is “micro”.  
Our objective in what follows is to think how phusis and idea, which Aristotle thinks as ousia and energia,  
draw toward the thinking of being and beings. Modernity, dromo-logic, Deleuze, the attempt to draw 
towards what is nomadic as what is still greater empowering of power which is the overcoming of 
“will and reason”, soar to the inmost essence of science as stock of deployable reality, real, the effective. 
For Aristotle everything is larger. A two-handed sword, made to slaughter, can cut the head of a Gorgan 
apart to the ears. Between the shoulders the heart is still full of steadfast resolution. However this revolt 
of the organs against the brain, yields the view that the neurons are everywhere, and that the empty body 
is what is the same. The Genetic Circle overcomes everything modern in the enfeeblement of 
thoughtlessness. And its bubble world which commits to what is new as what is best.

We must clarify, in what follows for the Methodos (which is thought’s track), how this question differs 
from the modern war of educations. And the rhythm of revolutions which abnegates the scope of the 
range in what it feeds perseverance in the resistance of false goals. 

No comments:

Post a Comment