The prelinguistic turn

by Justin Jijlstra

Has there ever been a step in the Occident that contravenes the change of discourse? Hmm.

Has there ever been a step in the Occident that? Hmm.

The problem of fashion - for me - is that it is nameable by savant idiots and idiot savants alike. However, to make a distinctive eloquent sequence of verbal gestures about anything does not move the "si" and the "is". Yes, to me the savant idiot "si's" to much and the idiot savant is the modern solipsist qua philosophy prelinguistically, too much of an "is" from the outside, but worst of all its internal mirrors shine without the gods complaining about its Hubris, or in short: "What is it about behaviour that makes people automagically go.. "yes"? "Narcissus!"

When you hear someone utter, "These advanced techniques...", I hope for this occasion that you want to hear something that fosters your imagination. But I am a protean thinker of thoughts and like to fashion myself as thinkerer of unsecular particularities while ad libbing my way through gnosis by way of serendipity haha.

So I ask, ""si"-like", the following thing to you my dear reader by way of exclamation:

"How can our savant idiocy be idiomatic while our idiots are savant?"

I Exclaim completely and doubly here: "Why do didy- or poly- mous nods (brrr, the air I imagine from this! I could have gotten Goosified!) at principles that we understand?”

It satisfies the occasion and burns down the house only... Right? It makes me resound Elias Canetti’s Crowds and Power which I haven’t finished yet: “It is only in a crowd that man can become free of this fear of being touched. That is the only situation in which the fear changes into its opposite. “ Oh hack, I'm going too quickly here! Yes..

Some.., fat.., twat..! This century is. Imaginary Hell! For as far as I know only the subspaces of genius are the places I do not dislike. So that essentially makes me some kind of self-imagining Hubris and, to the outside, a pedestrian alternating currents with predictability and proteanism.

Sigh..

Yes, the prelinguistic turn...

So I could crypto-summarise the above as follows:

"Hybris is having no feet".

And indeed, this radical approach should be "fashioned" as follows: "Having no feet whilst being able to move, is not god like, it is a technicality".

May I remind you of:

"Give me a place to stand and I will move the earth." - Archimedes

The frivolity of this each time strikes me as the most frivolous of genius I know. And indeed, frivolity is that which distinguishes the pedestrian from the god. I actually feel my eyes get soft at this point, I fashion my imagination to be of Greek ascent and experience a moment of height, not in the spatial sense though, but in the being movement without feet.

Essentially, this turn (prelinguistic) for me signifies the movement of bodies without feet. How can one imagine a turn being made without innate position? Well actually it is easy, simply utter it. How elusively evident is that? Right, however what you understand should not conform in my eyes to formalism. The question is, will it socially be information to rely on? (That without the turn.)

Actually it is a suggestion which encourages you to continue your road to fashion which is signification in other words. Yes, a friend of mine uses the words: "Ad Autoratum" jokingly in this case, but it has seriously been fashioned in my mind so I try to construct sentences that are commensurable with the imagination. Yes, I intuit Hubris as being the epitome of the homo significans but without being significant. The homo significans is the savant idiot whereof one can speak. However the ones without feet move outside the “spheres of significans” in this regard and may I remind you of Archimedes? I really do not want to sound like a psycho-fetishist but I really, really also feel the urge to speak with authenticity for a moment. But not more then a moment. I just want to taste it and enjoy the reproduction of worlds in a frivolous way and indeed without the feet.

So at last. I've had my first intuition after, well its proper here, I think:

I would thank a Jonathan Hayward for the inspiration and you for reading.

I will leave you with a final thought to consider:

What is left of culture when you haven't got the feet?

Chow!

Justin

Read More...

Summary only...

For Reality's Sake

by Justin Zijlstra

You want me to slap you in the face?
Yes!
Why?
Well, thinking of it..
What?
I’m afraid, I’ll get integrated.
Integrated into what?
Consistent madness!

Read More...

Summary only...

Trans-evaluation of love and friendship

(an exercise in writing)

by Justin Zijlstra

These are the necessary virtues:

1. The capacity to move autonomously and behave with the utmost care,
2. To be able to either tolerate or accept the will sublimated through your physicality,
3. To know how to create and prioritize thinking to create space in the mind,
4. To experience rivalry in friendship without sympathy, but not without empathy for one another.

Love for someone else is for me a dangerously elusive concept, but it does not seem to be so illusive according to the standards of many people or even by a higher ethos these days. Who is predisposed and who circumvents his own tendencies? Why does one laugh at the wise man as though he had been a satyr?

I only want to answer -- only even want to ask -- what is reasonable. Some anchors are useful and therefore should only be questioned when it is necessary.

Love for ones self is only possible when one is fully integrated with others. One can experience this in a sensual awareness when one listens to music sometimes. Then when thinking about some of the highest moments that are the moments of height and wither (or the withering heights), one needs to ask oneself why these feelings are experienced. Some introspection may lead to historical reflection, of course. But that is not my task. I'm here primarily as a first person reflection. Yes. I define myself to be such.

The psyche and psychosomatic pathologies are ways discomforting to ones self. One must not become burdened down with them but be aware of the signals. One is often in the position to misforgive one another on lapses and slips that can upon reflection be seen as conscious mistakes. Robust personalities compensate for this, weaker or less observing personalities or youngsters don't recognize what is going on.

Love for me is the full acceptance through all its paradoxes of the body and therefore the self.

One can love another by being dependent but the highest kind of relations are those where each sees in the other's eyes at each moment the existence of those virtues identified at the beginning of this article. One party to the relationship does not have one kind of urges, while the other has another. We want to find progressively deeper layers of ourselves, which is only possible with a kind of fearlessness. One does not want to suffocate parts of himself by installing schemata (morals/ideals/idols) on the psyche, these schemata have sluggishly been developed throughout the ages, only for the lazy. Understanding these deeper layers eventually comes down to listening to the body itself. Once these underlying facets of our individual selves are recognized many of our frustrations will be lost and one finally becomes integrated.

There is a synergistic rivalry derived from mutual passion. The highest relations are those where you intellectually see each other move but the moments in dialogue including silences stop time altogether. This requires mutual understanding of a kind similar to "knowing each other" obviously but also a recognition of how each of your minds handle silences. Thought experiment: "What will your mind do if there is silence and most importantly what associations will you have? Do you think you can figure out the reasons for these associations?" A deeper question is: "Which feelings accompany these associations?"

Tension recognized creates, but creation does not eradicate the tension.

Art is the result of recalling what one senses.

Rivalry makes great minds enjoy life and little minds crawl and smother.

Introjections in to my experience is the consumption of behaviour of others which you don't always comprehend but unconsciously see as useful, you'll recognize the behaviour and then the post decision will be if it is eventually good or not to your constitution.

Real friendship is something temporary often and permanently in rare circumstances. Real friendship for me is fruitful friendship and not the cultural imperative of "behaving as a friend".

Congenial friends are to be created by each other. One can create and optimize environments, if you know your behaviour deeply you'll recognize these words. If not, you're either alone without friends, culturally biased and thus blinded or you don't have a sense for the things written above. I suppose you should either reread in adagio or andante and integrate or do something else and come back later when you do recognize. But then I don't mind being read as a satyr, I write for the ones who do understand, you are the surplus.

The ultimate question for me regarding this all is. Why can't I behave just purely and autonomously, why do I unconsciously sometimes have an inner public? Sometimes subtle anxiety prevails as when taking a glass of water, for example, I experience a subtle turmoil, which gives me insight in retrospect. This insight is a sight of Maya or The Veil of behaviour. Which leads me to the last part:

Last words on effective writing.

I often see rationalisations in writings. Effective writing is fiercely recognizing what you experience mentally.

For the glass of water this would have meant that I possibly hid something from myself initially and possibly but not exclusively from the other person.

Read More...

Summary only...