Fucking the System(ic Writing)
...and getting down with the sickness
Words are flowing out like endless rain into a paper cup
They slither while they pass, they slip away across the universe
Pools of sorrow, waves of joy are drifting through my opened mind
Possessing and caressing me- The Beatles (Across The Universe)
For far too long I’ve resisted allowing my method to bleed into my form of presentation. I’ve had this…compulsion…to present these ideas, this philosophy, the way in which I have seen it modeled to me by historical philosophers and academics. Call it a piece of the cultural conditioning, a nuovo pezzo di sociality I’ve stumbled upon in myself, one I’ve yet to make explicit. I’ve never stumbled upon a great reason to present my ideas systematically or academically or even with a strict coherence, propositional direction or many references and footnotes. These are all forms and bits that appear time after time in the tombs I read. One is compelled to think they must have some meaning, some reason. I have been told that it helps to convince the reader of your thesis - but I am not interesting in convincing. There is nothing to teach here, strictly speaking. There is a direction I point at. But the word is two deviations from the phenomenal experience. The word is a map to a nearly endless room of maps. I don’t convince. How can I? Why would I want to? People believe things, typically those things which keep them alive. To reason is a private thing. The moment of understanding an isolated event. To convince is easy: all you must do is align your propositions with that which is currently prejudiced and/or is bio-intrinsically supported and you’ve aligned your word-smithing to the tracks of an imbedded sociality. ZOOM! You go fast! You hit the center and…! Well…you’ve worn the tracks slightly more. Nothing new appears there…nothing which could obliterate the track or at the very least give another the opportunity to free himself from them. You don’t give questions that way, you pretend to give answers! And there’s answers, of course there’s answers, of course there’s truth, of course you can discover it - but answers, truth, and discovery are not words. They are moments, they are experience, they are deeds, they are Being-in-the-World. This is why the linguistic obsession of philosophers not merely this century but since the (tiny) FAILURE of Socrates involving an unhealthy focus on the (linguistic) essences of things…philosophers have failed time and time again. Partly because of this linguistic focus, partly because they don’t philosophize qua instinctive egoism (this being ruthlessly trained out of them,) partly because they’re out to convince (socially obsessed without understanding social value,) partly because they think words containing truth (without understanding linguistic value.) Because, essentially, you can’t value a thing if you think you need it. When a thing is a need rather than a desire - it is by necessity an object which must be needled and controlled. For philosophers, language is their need. They don’t know how to conduct proper philosophy without it. And yet the only way you can make proper use of language for the sake of philosophy, the only way you can make proper use of sociality for the sake of philosophy (or is it philosophy for the sake of sociality…?) is to do without it. To reach beyond post-linguistic philosophy to the pre-linguistic philosophy is, in point of fact, to return to the meaningful use of linguistics in service of philosophy - not to choke it to death! This is not a side point either. Philosophers must honestly consider how they would conduct philosophy without language, without the means to communicate, without the possibility of ‘convincing.’ The is what the new philosophy will show, because it does not depend of language for its Being.
I am done with systemic writing. I am done with presentation. I am done with clarity, coherence, consistency and logicism driving me on with whipping stick all the while knowing that none of these are necessary for my understanding nor will their ‘absence’ deter the curious. This is not to say I wish to drive them out, let them be as they are necessary or useful or pleasurable or evocative to the meaningful truth of things - but they are never the point of writing or of my philosophy. If I communicate anything successfully at all - that is, if I present a decent map - it will be because my writing follows my philosophy in content as well as form. I no longer wish to segregate the ‘presentation’ from the ‘process’ nor try to awkwardly blend them together in a schizophrenic mess. I will write the method - and it will be conditioned by my a priori sense of reason, truth, logic, sense, consistency and empiricism. Throw in a little editing here or there and things will work themselves out for my reader. But it is not a bad thing if they flounder a bit. It is a new form. And an affront to some to call this philosophy. But they simply haven’t gotten deep enough. I am still unsteady, unconfident about being explicit with the method in form - but it is closer to the truth of things. It is my mode of authentically driven philosophizing. The center of interest - then OUT!
Oh to be FREE AT LAST!
The euphoria is RACING! Is RACING!