470
a truth- value of varying degrees that is the make-or-break inflection point for Pp >
D, at the species and population levels, and, as a philosophical problem within the
Individual, for the totality of Phyla. Belief in such elementary connections is at the
heart of applied ecological ethics which, in turn, reminds us that our Being, our
Consciousness, and our Conscience together provide the only known codes and
pathways for restoration and amelioration, as opposed to mass ecocide.
“For itself,” “self-contained Being”
8
places conventional Continental Logic
(post-Kantian reflection upon the empirical temptations to simply correlate all perceived phenomena with the natural sciences) into the turbid cycles of Karmic cosmology, in other words, into the phraseology of a Being that only imagines itself
for-itself. Whereas for-itself, if contextualized biologically, necessitates every
inflection of interdependency. The probability of negative proofs, of double and
triple negatives in the thought process evincing language and co-dependent ideas,
overwhelms any volition that would seek pure isolation from the interdependent Pp
(again, “positive progress”) which avows a biological physicality that embodies it.
Believing otherwise is contrary to our senses; embodying a paradox which—at the
ecological frontier—forces our ideas and ideals, all nihilism and fatalism to reinvent
such desperation in view of a lasting affirmation.
Stepping outside a laborious set of logical types and abstruse denominations,
suffice to say that, to affirm is to live, even if both one’s affirmative propositions and
will to live pose contradictory crises for the Self, which they do.
To live beyond the aphorisms (“life is beautiful,” seize the day, etc.), is to also
coordinate the psychology which either embraces or rejects futilities, and the endless speculation that hampers motor activity or any other embrace of real objects,
goals, boundaries, or lack of them, within any given time-frame.
All affirmation is problematic, if one dwells on causality and the remains of any
full thought; verging on a manic state by almost any definition, because its etiological truths all rely upon those objects of consciousness that will die, or have died. Yet
continues ad infinitum to affirm life, regardless. This is our biology. Such optimism
combines thought processes with empirical experience, observations of other observations, or merely intuition and are applauded at the root-cause of all biodiversity.
This, in itself, propagating that “Great Chain of Being” (as depicted in Didacus
[Diego] Valades’ 1579 work published in Perugia, Rhetorica Christiana) lends to
apperception the very metaphors and similes out of which all ecological cognition
and intuition combine to assert the verities of the world (Fig. 50.1).
Apperceptive de-infinities of thought ultimately grow weary of the process
because, as has been reiterated, the mathematical proportions rapidly devolve
toward an infinity that graces no character, no attitude, with anything like certainty.
Regardless of the order of magnitudes by which thought cascades, the interloping
consciousness commandeers this metaphysic we know to be some version of our
reality, and it is a distinctly two-fold paradox.
8 op.cit., Sartre, p. 633.
50 Unthinkable Nullities, Negative Proofs
a truth- value of varying degrees that is the make-or-break inflection point for Pp >
D, at the species and population levels, and, as a philosophical problem within the
Individual, for the totality of Phyla. Belief in such elementary connections is at the
heart of applied ecological ethics which, in turn, reminds us that our Being, our
Consciousness, and our Conscience together provide the only known codes and
pathways for restoration and amelioration, as opposed to mass ecocide.
“For itself,” “self-contained Being”
8
places conventional Continental Logic
(post-Kantian reflection upon the empirical temptations to simply correlate all perceived phenomena with the natural sciences) into the turbid cycles of Karmic cosmology, in other words, into the phraseology of a Being that only imagines itself
for-itself. Whereas for-itself, if contextualized biologically, necessitates every
inflection of interdependency. The probability of negative proofs, of double and
triple negatives in the thought process evincing language and co-dependent ideas,
overwhelms any volition that would seek pure isolation from the interdependent Pp
(again, “positive progress”) which avows a biological physicality that embodies it.
Believing otherwise is contrary to our senses; embodying a paradox which—at the
ecological frontier—forces our ideas and ideals, all nihilism and fatalism to reinvent
such desperation in view of a lasting affirmation.
Stepping outside a laborious set of logical types and abstruse denominations,
suffice to say that, to affirm is to live, even if both one’s affirmative propositions and
will to live pose contradictory crises for the Self, which they do.
To live beyond the aphorisms (“life is beautiful,” seize the day, etc.), is to also
coordinate the psychology which either embraces or rejects futilities, and the endless speculation that hampers motor activity or any other embrace of real objects,
goals, boundaries, or lack of them, within any given time-frame.
All affirmation is problematic, if one dwells on causality and the remains of any
full thought; verging on a manic state by almost any definition, because its etiological truths all rely upon those objects of consciousness that will die, or have died. Yet
continues ad infinitum to affirm life, regardless. This is our biology. Such optimism
combines thought processes with empirical experience, observations of other observations, or merely intuition and are applauded at the root-cause of all biodiversity.
This, in itself, propagating that “Great Chain of Being” (as depicted in Didacus
[Diego] Valades’ 1579 work published in Perugia, Rhetorica Christiana) lends to
apperception the very metaphors and similes out of which all ecological cognition
and intuition combine to assert the verities of the world (Fig. 50.1).
Apperceptive de-infinities of thought ultimately grow weary of the process
because, as has been reiterated, the mathematical proportions rapidly devolve
toward an infinity that graces no character, no attitude, with anything like certainty.
Regardless of the order of magnitudes by which thought cascades, the interloping
consciousness commandeers this metaphysic we know to be some version of our
reality, and it is a distinctly two-fold paradox.
8 op.cit., Sartre, p. 633.
50 Unthinkable Nullities, Negative Proofs