Sarbi

I'm reading Gilles Chatelet, and some of his introductory thoughts w.r.t. mobile abstractions, measures of virtuality, and spatium, are compelling. But then he attempts to do some philosophy, taking basic dynamics and motion equations as a priori. I'm constantly thinking - Why?

The writing style of the popular 19th century political economist has a raw moving energy, that I don't find in political writing that is meant to be raw and moving. "The revolution needs bread" is such a powerful statement

Short stories that are connected either because of shared character, or experience are a nice cosmos to test the replicability of your philosophical idea. Perhaps toss it around, and try to create complete stories

I was introduced to possibilities of critiquing the Darwin-Hobbes universal war intellectual regime with Lynn Margulis, but turns out the anarchists were talking about this a long time ago. Margulis and anarchists aren't saying the same thing, but critiquing the same thing

Perhaps we need to pay more attention to the Lvov Warsaw school?

Mathematics is decentering its own language, and is a model for similar practices in our discourse, particularly politics. For example, generalizations of Triangle Inequalities in analysis, are still called the Triangle Inequality, even though this has no meaning in higher dimensions

I've observed that for an outsider, understanding what "Theory" (the generalization of philosophy, critical theory, etc.) means is pretty hard. In its most infantile understanding, it's thought for thought's sake.

The empiricist, and the practitioner, forgets that this "intermediary" state is critical, and if anything, there is value in the method of formation, of these intermediary insights. We know that most pure mathematics aims to do the same, and is therefore useful

I find myself reducing the Magic and the Occult into the human (limited information processor), being faced with a finite information (generating) process that has reached a level of information density, that is not easily recognizable, and therefore is now a categorical monster

One must note now that a possible world is a particular case of "all fictions" (note - the implicit reference to Library of Babel, Borges). In a sense, the outsider believes the axiomatically derived theorem belongs to some possible world that doesn't coincide with the "real" one we inhabit

I find myself reducing the Magic and the Occult into the human (limited information processor), being faced with a finite information (generating) process that has reached a level of information density, that is not easily recognizable, and therefore is now a categorical monster

Of course, this assumes that the occultist is an honest person. I am pointing to why mathematics can seem magical at times. In fact, all of theory built with mathematics, that is purely axiomatically built, using the conjunctive "it then follows", is effectively built on a fiction

A friend recently asked me, after having heard that I attend the occasional Marxist meeting, asked "Why do you even like Marxism" I gave her the usual spiel - continued relevance of dialectical materialism, Marx's analytical method on history, class struggle, animating power of labour and so on..

But I think, on a deeper level, it appeals to me because it is systematic, ethical, and level-headed radicalism that I am comfortable being involved in. Am I involved for academic reasons? Perhaps; is the honest answer. Don't tell my Marxist friends.

Stefan Themerson's semantic poetry is one of those "right in front of your face" concepts. It doesn't strike one as non trivial at first. It involves translating statements by the literal definition or each term. His poems (including one about the Netherlands) show a depth of "simple" intellect.