Klax: A Formal Proof

Tue, 07/14/2009 — Doctor Vink

Proof by transposition:

Assumption: If there is time for Klax, it is the nineties.
Assumption: In any non-90s time, there is no time for Klax.
Assumption: There is now time for Klax.

Therefore, it is the nineties.



Thu, 02/26/2009 — Fasteriskhead

"No, no. Look, I think you're misunderstanding Hegel's point here. It's not just that we can just suddenly break through these kinds of limitations all willy-nilly. That's not what's going on. The thing is, in the very moment we understand such a limit as a limit we already step beyond it, having also posited what's on the other side. So we've already gone where we thought we couldn't go. Hegel's point isn't that doing this develops something completely new. Instead, you can only understand this sort of overstepping of the boundary if the overstepping being and the boundary overstepped are already spirit."

>>


Sun, 01/18/2009 — Sak

Why is our body, for us, the mirror of our being, unless because it is a natural self, a current of given existence, with the result that we never know whether the forces which bear us on are its or ours -- or with the result rather that they are never entirely either its or ours. There is no outstripping of sexuality any more than there is any sexuality enclosed within itself. No one is saved and no one is totally lost.

--Maurice Merleau-Ponty

Intermezzo: Heidegger Pitches a Mystery/Thriller

Tue, 09/20/2005 — Fasteriskhead

"The fundamental role of Dasein is that he must bring Being out of retirement... for one last case. Being (that is, Lieutenant Mike Being of the 35th precinct) must confront a mysterious murderer always defined by his towards-deathness within a dangerous game, a strifing strife if you will, of concealment and unconcealment where Being must in the end bring himself to light if he is to bring his adversary to justice. Meanwhile, Dasein (Lieutenant Jim Dasein) finds himself thrust into his own existential loose cannon-ness, even while he must also find himself defined by his recognition of his partner (Being) as always already being-too-old-for-this-shit."

(at this point in the pitch Marty is quickly hustled out of the room)


Thu, 08/04/2005 — Fasteriskhead

When I confront a human being as my Thou and speak the basic word I-Thou to him, then he is no thing among things nor does he consist of things.

He is no longer He or She, limited by other Hes or Shes, a dot in the world grid of space and time, nor a condition that can be experienced and described, a loose bundle of named qualities. Neighborless and seamless, he is Thou and fills the firmament. Not as if there were nothing but he; but everything else lives in his light.

...The human being to whom I say Thou I do not "experience." But I stand in relation to him, in the sacred basic word. Only when I step out of this do I "experience" him again. Experience is remoteness from Thou.

The relation can obtain even if the human being to whom I say Thou does not hear it in his experience. For Thou is more than It knows. Thou does more, and more happens to it, than It knows. No deception reaches this far: here is the cradle of actual life.

Bokosuka Theology

Mon, 12/06/2004 — Fasteriskhead

In our lives we begin to have some sense of the possibility of a universal milieu that, for lack of a better name, we might term "Bokosuka Wars." But how, one wonders, shall we move from this initial abstracted perception of what could be to a radical coming forth of "Bokosukaness" in our very lives? The problem must be approached from two directions.

We begin from the assumption of Bokosuka Wars as an omnipresent sphere of unity that is everywhere and composes all things. We are, all of us, both the White Knight and the purple soldier that only moves horizontally. Initially we rebel against the idea of the all-encompassing universal power of Bokosuka Wars; ironically, recognizing the very ubiquitousness of our subject tempts us to drift towards nihilism! We begin to ask ourselves, Well, if that's true, what's the point? If everything I do, and moreover everything I could ever possibly do, exists within the span of "Bokosukaness," then where exists any difference in the world? Does it matter, ultimately, whether I am confronted by "Wow! You lose!" or "Bravo! You win!"? In the first, what have I lost? In the second, what have I gained?

>>

Jacques Derrida, 1930-2004

Sat, 10/09/2004 — Fasteriskhead

From the moment that there is meaning there are nothing but signs. We think only in signs. Which amounts to ruining the notion of the sign at the very moment when, as in Nietzsche, its exigency is recognized in the absoluteness of its right.

©2004-2010 The Andore Seven