This guy.
Father of topology.
"Neurotopology is toroidal." -- Me
How did I deduce that? It's the only thing that made sense from the way I visualized neural space.
Gravitational waves... very interesting...
Philosopher of science. Didn't really know that about him. But it makes sense...
This should be interesting...
Just like what I was asking about a couple of days ago.
I knew this guy was good.
Wow. So there is a one-to-one correspondence to engrams??? Or something like that...
Interesting...
Hmmm...
Best show ever.
For sure.
What's the difference?
Song 2 and all that.
Anyway... Poincare. I have some reading to do.
Mining engineering. Astrophysics. Totally insane individual. In a good way. Incredible. Maybe Hilbert can be beaten.
July 91 demo tape. I remember that tape well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqmWSDncGZ0
The first song that I didn't recognize immediately on the YouTube recommendation list. Good choice. I should probably sleep. Tomorrow is another day. There will be time there will be time.
Henri Poincare. Almost like Hilbert + Nietzsche. In a way. What an unbelievable human being worthy of "historical sainthood".
Like Cassirer. The Myth of the State. "Wait, what? Like Cassirer the astronomy guy?" No. Who am I making the false equivalence with Cassirer? Cassirer was a philosopher. Who was I thinking of in the astronomy department, I wonder. Why do I think Cassirer sounds like a famous astronomer? For some reason, I associated Cassirer with a telescope. Was it the name of a space vessel? Or who am I thinking of? I guess it doesn't matter, anyway. Is it just because of Cassiopeia?
But Poincare. What an imagination that guy must have had. Philosophy, astronomy, mathematics, topology, Einstein. This guy's mind must have been borderline insane.
Hey, I just remembered I bought Edna Kramer because I want to look over it again after 2003-04 at GMac. I should read what she had to say about Poincare. First order of business after sleep. Maybe I should read Kramer again in its 700-odd small typeface entirety again.
One day maybe. I know I had plenty of time. But I was distracted by the Abyss.
[Finnegans] Wake
"The mind, once stretched by a new idea, never returns to its original dimensions." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Today Feb 17. On this date in 1600 philosopher Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake.He anticipated modern science by theorizing on an infinite universe and a multiplicity of worlds, rejecting traditional geocentric (Earth-centred) astronomy, and intuitively going beyond the Copernican model.
"People always get concerned about the things they are in danger of losing. But it often comes too late." Edward Abbey knew what was up in 1982.
The start of a new day / week / life? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBGaO89cBMI
My post:"That, I thought, was [Nietzsche's] morbid misunderstanding: that he fearlessly and unsuspectingly let his No. 2 loose upon a world that knew and understood nothing about such things. He was moved by the childish hope of finding people who would be able to share his ecstasies and could grasp his "transvaluation of all values." But he found only educated Philistines—tragi-comically, he was one himself. Like the rest of them, he did not understand himself when he fell head first into the unutterable mystery and wanted to sing its praises to the dull, godforsaken masses. That was the reason for the bombastic language, the piling up of metaphors, the hymnlike raptures—all a vain attempt to catch the ear of a world which had sold its soul for a mass of disconnected facts.--And he fell—tightrope-walker that he proclaimed himself to be—into depths far beyond himself. He did not know his way about in this world and was like a man possessed, one who could be handled only with the utmost caution."
-- Carl Jung, Memories, Dreams, Reflections
FB User: Why do people in this group keep referencing Jung? He is not an existentialist. He concocted a mythology (which he actually didn't see as a mythology) and refused to be scientific. Wait! I know why people keep referencing Jung: he gives comfort to those who won't let go of the judeo-christian mythology.
Me: I am in no way Judeo-Christian and in no way espousing his values. But clearly he had an interest in existentialism because of how extensively he talks about Nietzsche. Many people post regular quotes by Nietzsche as he is exceedingly popular amongst various crowds for various reasons. I am personally interested in Nietzsche because of the hallmarks of substantial neurodivergence in his writings and what they mean as a reflection of Nietzsche's ideas. Is it not interesting to see what Jung had to say about the self-proclaimed "greatest of all psychologists"?
FB User: Fair enough. Still, your detective work on Nietzsche's supposed neurodivergence is a tad disconcerting. (Though I admit it's new to me and therefore interesting.) I've read biographies of FN, but only as history. Attempting to divine character and personality and brain (?) traits from Nietzsche's written works seems suspect. He says what he means and he means what he says. As philosophy, that's really all we need, along with the scholars who explore the ideas further.
Me: Supposed? Then why all the research trying to explain this very aspect of his life and thought?
Do you believe that every person that is "famous" is also neurotypical? I also did before. Then I got on the inside and gained a deeper understanding of reality.
"As Higgins (1987, p. XI) aptly observed, philosophical scholarship underplays emotional response to the texts it interprets. By and large, the scholars reject the pivotal role of emotions and treat Nietzsche’s entire oeuvre as if it were conjured up by some disembodied, unfeeling spirit. And yet, he criticised philosophers for turning insights into “concept mummies”, so that nothing real would escape their grasp alive (Nietzsche, 1888/1976b, p. 479). Any attempt to interpret Nietzsche’s writings in the context of his personality, his life and his mental illness risks being branded “reductionistic”, notwith- standing the fact that excluding such interpretations is precisely what is reductionistic. And yet, Nietzsche repeatedly stressed that at all times he thought with his whole body and his whole life and did not know what purely intellectual problems were. In Nietzsche studies, there are some notable exceptions to the “concept mummies” scholarship, such as Pasley (1978), Higgins (1987), Krell (1997), Marsden (2002), and, above all, Pierre Klossowski (1969/1997)."
-- Eva Cybulska
Do you disagree?
FB User: Yes, I do indeed disagree. I'm afraid I've lived long enough to see too many faddish theories of reading and literary analysis come and go. Psychology, as Wittgenstein supposedly said, is a science without a conceptual foundation. So, beyond CBT in a dialogic context, I have next to no respect for psychological theories. They're fun, they're necessary in a pragmatic way but they ain't philosophy! But thank you for your constructive dialogue. Like I said, such theories are interesting.
Me: So when Louis Althusser fatally strangles his wife and gets admitted to an asylum for many years off and on. Or John Nash is admitted for schizophrenia and admits that he was hearing voices, these are "psychological theories"? Neurodivergence and mental illness are "not true" and / or have "no effect" on actual philosophical content? Like, if you read the Wikipedia page on Nietzsche, everywhere it talks about mental illness. But this has absolutely no effect on his ideas or what he wrote, correct?
FB User: I neither know nor care what made Nietzsche write what he wrote unless he tells me. In other words, I care only about what he published and claimed ownership of. To pretend that psychology has the tools to divine (and I use that word pejoratively) an otherwise inaccessible subtext is, like I said, a fun parlour game. But it ain't philosophy (except in more and more of academia, I'm afraid). Two "prophecies" in response to some points you've shared. 1. I would suggest that neurodivergence is soon going to lose all meaning as we come to understand that it does not "diverge" from the norm. It IS the norm. And neurodivergence is not a mental illness. 2. Mental illness begins in a corrupt and dysfunctional social group ... and if we don't soon outgrow capitalism and magical thinking, it's soon going to me the norm.
Me: This is essentially the framework behind Michel Foucault's "The Birth of the Clinic" and, of course, I don't necessarily disagree with the nuances of either of these principles. I am simply using the terms that society gives me to convey a particular interest, the particular interest being that I have a condition that was suggested to be similar to Nietzsche, and I have had powerful subjective experiences that have made me come to similar suggestions about the underlying nature of reality. What caused him to come up with "eternal recurrence"? I can suggest something. Where does the "tightrope walker" come from? I can suggest something. What does the "ubermensch" actually mean? I can suggest something. Or the author saying essentially that "psychosis is the synthetic a priori". I share this conclusion because during psychosis, you are making decisions, but you are not deciding to make decisions. Your mind is essentially on autopilot making extremely "outlandish" connections that you wouldn't normally make, but can only understand in hindsight. If we suggest that there is something about the brain that causes it to try to "know itself" and this is the underlying principle of "authenticity", while capitalism seeks to distract to only know "external power", and if we further take the theories of Iain McGilchrist and Fabienne Picard about "the divided brain" on the one hand and the central influence of the insular cortex, we can start to suggest a mind-brain-reality explanation for conflict and how to conceive of the evolution of thought and neuroplasticity.
"Mental illness" is the outward manifestation of altered brain physiology. Why does this altered brain physiology come about? Randolph Nesse, for example, argues that "mental illness" has evolutionary advantages like sickle cell anemia, for example.
It is only by asking the question "how does a brain work and why?" that we can get beyond the he-said-she-said hegemony of the banality of "neurotypical" capitalism.
Zizek: "It is easier to imagine a total catastrophe which ends all life on earth than it is to imagine a real change in capitalist relations."
Mészáros: "[The] basic contradiction of the capitalist system of control is that it cannot separate ‘advance’ from destruction, nor ‘progress’ from waste – however catastrophic the results. The more it unlocks the powers of productivity, the more it must unleash the powers of destruction; and the more it extends the volume of production, the more it must bury everything under mountains of suffocating waste."
How does this "creative destruction" work as the outcome of evolutionary neurobiology?
Without considering the subjective, we can't begin to try to answer these questions.
Pretty huge stuff... Me: For example, Schopenhauer's "Three stages of truth" (1. ignored, 2. violently opposed, 3. accepted as self-evident) and Kuhn's theory of paradigm shifts are both an observation of historical trends externally, but also the reflection of a dominant subjective process internally. If you consider the latter "not philosophy", then I believe you're missing out on the most interesting and most difficult of philosophical questions, because these are the questions that cannot be answered based on the representation sphere alone. Nietzsche was big into Schopenhauer. Why? Did his brain split the subjective and objective cleanly? Why was Schopenhauer's characterization of Kant and why did he spend a lot of time writing about somnambulism and visiting mental asylums? And why did he end up alone and bitter? Was Schopenhauer the model for the "ubermensch" according to Nietzsche? Did he intuitively "see" all of this subjectively? Neurologists have found that the right insular cortex goes wrong in only bipolar but not unipolar depressive patients. And during ecstatic seizures / subjective mania, the insular cortex is implicated. Could one say that the insular cortex is the "seat of the soul", and that the left insular cortex in the left hemisphere decides based on sameness and self, and the right insular cortex in the right hemisphere decides on difference and other?
If so, then you have a conception of all of human reality based on "psychophysical" principles.
I look at Eva Cybulska's essay on bipolarity and creativity in Nietzsche and I say "well basically these are all of the sort of objective conclusions you would come to by considering the psychology of Nietzsche objectively, and it reflects my "mythology" of how the sorts of ideas that Nietzsche generates are reflective of my own theories and subjective mania experiences".
The "subjective" reason for ideas is the most important. If you can follow the logic of ideas as coming from similar brains with some "divergence", then you can say "why does my brain seem to come to such similar conclusions as someone with bipolar mania?"
And then you can think "if I have a similar mind to Nietzsche and have had similarly outlandishly weird subjective experiences that have made me believe that I have 'lived this life before', is there something really special about bipolar people and the right insular cortex?" In Cybulska's paper she talks about the importance of the "non-dominant hemisphere" in creativity and probably in Nietzsche. I come to the same conclusions subjectively that she comes to objectively as a psychiatrist obsessed with Nietzsche.
What should I conclude? That I'm crazy? Or that the world and what's behind it is crazier than anybody else could possibly imagine? Newton and Leibniz got to calculus independently at similar times. Darwin and Wallace got to the principles of evolution independently and at similar times. Is there a "hive mind" that is the natural outcome of an internal dialectic going through everything? And then you say "oh, interesting... then you get to Hegel..."
Do you see what you miss out on?
The cleaning music is apt right now. A clean space is a clean mind. Or something. Cause or effect of the "eternally recurrent" "Spirit"? He came back and arranged all the physical stuff quickly. I'm doing the kitchen. Optimal.
And then this.
This is the reality that I live within. Alone. Crazy, huh? Suicide or elation? Which one today, Nietzsche?
Some years ago, I had this vision of 11 people.
0. ?
1. Astral Weeks
2. The Konigsburg Bridge Problem
3. Mr Crowley
4. A Happy Death
-----------
5. Can't remember off hand
6. Can't remember off hand
7. It is you who are the monsters
8. Something about everything and everything about something
Now I'm thinking. Hmmm. Henri Poincare for #1?
It's impossible that I could see this stuff coming, right? It's all just coincidence, right?
All sane or all insane. What say you today, quantum physics?
:)
Nice... I just noticed that YouTube is playing this right now.
The idea of "ideas of reference" just becomes so absurd.
CUT!!
Uncut
AI becomes the next "black mirror". Does the algorithm behind YouTube know exactly what I'm thinking because of the internal chronometric momentum patterns in my brain?
ChatGPT then consolidates all of what's original and all of what's popular into the next Kuhnian phase of "normalcy" after we outgrew private subjective news via the newspaper.
Makes sense, makes sense.
Did Hegel foresee this as a general principle of what must happen even though he could never have known how?
The dialectical hive-brain. So much good stuff here.
Just adding to the blogposts. Then anyone can analyze any argument I put forward subjectively and objectively. Or something.
And thinking about chronobiology, I thought of Michel Siffre.
Nice photo, no? Those hive minds hanging on Kierkegaard's telephone.
During that first seizure, yes I thought about Kant. But I also thought "what if we look at philosophers as subjective minds working on the same fundamental problems instead of objective minds trying to win a popularity contest?"
You see what a good idea it was...
Anyway, that's enough of the external communication...
Good song. Very much a great anti-suicide song.
Come on all you philosophy profs. Where are your counterarguments?
Kramer on Poincare. Next order of "objective" business.
Sharing:
Summary of everything:
Quantum neurophilosophy: To know "something", you must first know everything because we only have objectively indeterminate ensemble flips.
Metaphysical neurophilosophy: For anything to exist at all, reality must play a joke on itself.
Existential neurophilosophy: Psychosis is the closest approximation of the synthetic a priori because you are deciding but not deciding to decide.
This is the causa incausata of subjective reality.
And we all internalize it as the point at right anomie. What would happen if we woke up one morning with Otto Neurath's ship back in port and our brains wiped? Who are we really?
Hegel: Spirit
Nietzsche: Ubermensch
Rousseau: Legislator
Hobbes: Sovereign
Lenin: Party of the People
But if the way of wealth and power cannot take you there (left anomie)...
How is it possible?
This is the strength of Cybulska's article. It is, based on my interpretation, an accurate objective understanding of Nietzsche that I come to subjectively. It's the theoretical limit of the being created by Schopenhauer's "artistic musician" that shuns the will. Schopenhauer: If I give you a chair and a cactus, you will sit on the chair... unless you know I'm philosophizing behind you. In a game theory course, I was told that the "tit-for-tat" strategy always seem to be optimal winners for programmed prisoner's dilemma computers. It all depends on the first move. This is quantum indeterminacy. And it if you go all the way to a cosmological beginning, it makes sense. It's like the optic nerve you can't see through... but your eye has to attach somewhere to functional at all. The same metaphor. It's all iterations of the liar's paradox. Or Russell's paradox. Kojin Karatani. Why Westerners and why not Easterners? It's a progressive evolutionary yin yang. I had this idea before. The elastic brains and the plastic brains meeting at Jerusalem. And the Greeks went to papyrus and the Muslims went to tablets. The Chinese and Indians started it, and the Westerners finished it. Iteratively, it's just the same logical double-bluff redefined over and over and over again, so that there is something new rather than nothing new.
Hence evolution.
Where are the philosophy profs? Where are their counterarguments? Where are the jobs?
;)
I hope you have a good next week. Day 1 was productive ;)
An extremely good anti-suicide song.
Hasta luego!
:)
So... is this the "echo" of that first seizure moment in the Toronto subway where my mind felt like my mind was checking my work infinitely fast without me understanding how? The ensemble flip from the objective to the subjective?
Everything starts to make sense now. I mean "a mythology becomes more complete".
Time to clean up a bit.
The only way to feel the noise is when it's good and loud.
The Man Who Walked Through Time. Why did my dead get me that book? Why did I talk about "time travel" in my most recent mania when I got to the psychiatrists. Of course they thought I was crazy. Because they don't know the back door to the thing-in-itself.
Lemmy on methamphetamines all of the time.
Wild stuff.
Sartre's Search for a Method. The method is... "psychosis"! Funny how that happens ;)
Shower: 1-2-3-4 and 1-2-4-3 are the "first" tit-for tats. Wow. Just... wow.
"Shut up and calculate." -- Hawking... scientific realism (his mind)
Okay.
"Man is condemned to be free because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything that he does."
== "I am my representation": existentialism.
Machine-Learning Psychosis: It's amazing what the brain can do when you don't understand what it's doing.
Mania: an Archaeology of Knowledge dig along a branch you don't feel you'll find again. Picard... hmmm...
At the centre of reality. Weep.
4x4 matrix = 15-16-17. Okay.
Capitalism = strong beam weak column. Nepal. Euler-Bernoulli
String theory = four-way robotic movement: playground
Building the city: dot-to-dot on the rainbow bridge.
The unending archaeological dig: What if you can't get back? And here is the private language argument and neopragmatism. Way more connections than anyone: private language? Finnegans Wake?
Who can history live without more? Jesus or James Clerk Maxwell? Self and other.
100m dash in the mental olympics. Are you going to say "I'll do it tomorrow." Okay, good.
Double bluff principle: "Sometimes everything is more important than something."
Got it. Well done.
Ritual and evolution. Needs versus wants. "People are different." Based on biological similarity and social self-inoculation, how different?
Capitalist Entrepreneurship: Every ritual has to have been started by somebody.
The Poincare Conjecture at 4 dimensions reflects that you can't have a stable structure below 4, and everything else is just tit-for-tat.
Tit-for-tat hemispheric lateralization: there's only one difference between sanity and insanity. Ritual. Left versus right insular cortex
Space: finding our place. Internal "place": meditation. External "place" capitalism. Crazy outside needs peaceful inside, etc. Creative destruction. Biblical. Anthropological. Karatani. Tit for tat.
History versus protohistory. Is the colonizer's protohistorical treatment of the colonies "creating their own world"? How is the external ritual world and the internal thought world connected? On the left (loop) or right (web).
Thus, reality and its discontents and the importance of being other.
France - (England) - North America = Quebecois (Michael Perelman). Derniere (previous) to passe (past), and a tonto (?) wait versus a bientot (good day). Tous les leurs? "Hurry up" or "Hurry back", "wait for me" (indeterminate) "let's get going" (determinate). Culture = economics because capitalism.
Right-Left-Right-Left
Insanity-Ritual-Sanity-Observation
Language: "hurry up" (progressive, economic, New World) or "hurry back" (conservative, traditional, Old World). How do you define yourself. What does "protohistory" do? It tells you to cleave off your past: derniere versus passe. "A tonto" = "To some time", I see "attends" (wait) versus "a bientot" (until the next day) = (don't wait). So it's all hunter-gatherer signals about hurry and slow down between night and day. The oldest cultures have the longest roots. The newest cultures have the widest breath. Loop or web (left or right). A city is not a tree.
Anchor: a place in space and time that everything is relative to. Insanity. Synthetic a priori (insanity), analytic a priori (ritual), sanity (internal), and then observation (external). Four spots, three "stages of truth" in between.
You're looking for what you're missing. Sameness in difference and difference in sameness.
Poincare 4-Conjecture is by Occam's razor. But there's no reason why it should be true. If it is true, then it is a fundament of metaphysical structure.
Comments