Member 2812
3 entries

spookfish (37)
Immortal since Dec 21, 2010
Uplinks: 0, Generation 4
  • Affiliated
  •  /  
  • Invited
  •  /  
  • Descended
  • spookfish’s favorites
    From Wildcat
    Because the world belongs...
    From Bright_Abyss
    Meillassoux, Ancestrality...
    Recently commented on
    From spookfish
    « We/I » instead of «...
    Now playing SpaceCollective
    Where forward thinking terrestrials share ideas and information about the state of the species, their planet and the universe, living the lives of science fiction. Introduction
    Featuring Powers of Ten by Charles and Ray Eames, based on an idea by Kees Boeke.
    From spookfish's personal cargo

    « We/I » instead of « I/We »

    Monette & Mady are identical twins. They have lived their whole life closely together and are, as they say, inseparable....They often finish each other’s sentences and that they refer to themselves as « I » instead of « we ». photo/text by Maja Daniels

    Cut Up - Season 2, 2010, variations sur la séparation

    Tue, Dec 21, 2010  Permanent link
    Categories: fluid affinities, speculations
      RSS for this post
      Promote (8)
      Add to favorites (4)
    Create synapse

    Wildcat     Thu, Dec 30, 2010  Permanent link
    Hello Spookfish and thanks for an interesting post and questions.
    Some notes however:

    Spookfish: “I the organism equipped with mind, brain and self have a few questions!”

    W: the very manner of presenting this propositional statement is problematic, yes there is ‘ organism equipped with mind, brain and.. self’ but to posit that the organism is an ‘I’ is already an assumption that has no basis whatsoever (I understand if you mean to use ‘I’ the organism as a short-speech with no implication for a strategic approximation of a possible state of affairs of an organization of an organism). Alternatively I can understand if you use this phrase to indicate a tactical move for the next part of your questions, however if the language used (for strategic or tactical purposes or both) already implies an unassailable reality (inherent), there is no possible way to answer your questions in a coherent fashion.
    Moreover if the proposition ‘ I the organism’ is equipped with a ‘self’ what are the conditions under which said organism can be defined outside the equipment of ‘mind brain and self’? (regression ad infinitum)
    Since this appears to be a circular belief or truth proposition again answering your questions (though good and interesting) is impossible (coherently that is).
    Sorry for picking on this but I think your musings are highly pertinent and therefore would love to comment more widely but in the present case the very statement that starts your musings destroys the very possibility of coherency.
    Apollo     Sun, Jan 9, 2011  Permanent link
    I think your musings are highly pertinent and therefore would love to comment more widely but in the present case the very statement that starts your musings destroys the very possibility of coherency.

    spookfish     Thu, Jan 13, 2011  Permanent link
    Wildcat and Apollo

    'I' and the potential of becoming not of itself is already implied.

    Can the question then be answered in an incoherent and politically wrong, absurd, bizarre, abstract manner, yet fun and sexy, beautiful and speculative, playful and detached fashion where nothing can go wrong yet its incorrect to start, with a language and/or other artifacts understood as performative.

    And where naming stuff will remove the paranoia that the meaning will be lost in the unaware minds. Or not.
    Apollo     Sun, Jan 16, 2011  Permanent link
    I think there's certainly something to be said about the joy of contemplating concepts and ideas despite the fact that those musings are destined to remain incoherent, given — as Wildcat pointed out — that they are often framed within the context of unanswered / potentially unanswerable premises.

    In my experience, such a process of thought can only be joyous if one does not attach expectations to it. In other words, "performative" thought (as you eloquently put it) can best be seen as an end in itself, rather than as a means of arriving at concrete conclusions.

    Obscure premises seem destined to result in obscure conclusions. They can, however, open the door to a process of thought which can in itself be rewarding.

    Along with this, I don't believe that "naming stuff" is a viable means of overcoming fear and paranoia, unless the process of "naming" (the performance of striving after objective conclusions based on unsure premises) is taken with a degree of humour, an element of lightness which allows for the beauty and playfulness of unrestricted thought and exploration.

    Interesting post; very thought-provoking :)
    spookfish     Tue, Feb 1, 2011  Permanent link

    I did not know how to continue the dialogue so instead We moved the writing and replaced it with Mady & Monette