Thursday, January 12, 2012

Little Divisibles

The first and most important step in wounding the human soul is the instillation of a "self."  So unacknowledged by innumerable social systems that it need not be discussed--so completely outside the bounds of anything considered allowable for "debate"--is the idea that, once the human infant is "born," it must be hammered in the ghost with the understanding that it is a separate entity.

"Oh, hello, baby!  YOU are a good baby!  YOU are a wonderful baby!  YOUR name is Frank Myers.

MY name is Mommy.  YOU are baby.  YOU are little Frank.  THIS is your father.  HE is over there."

This segregation, over the course of first days, first years, first lifetimes, or forever, is, much like shutting the infant in a room without food or human touch, a way to wound the connections between all souls and the lightspring; to isolate that point of light and create, forever and away, an "individual" that will think of itself as separate from other "individuals," and other things, like "air" or "water" or "vacuum" or "rock."

All human culture developed by fearful consciousnesses is based upon the idea of "humans."  Imagining humans, and playing with them as such, is delightful, and makes a lot of point-to-point interaction fun; like a virtual reality game, it provides for cute "and then this one does THIS while that one does THAT" situations that can make "life" interesting.  But believing in humans, like believing in "angels" or "deities" or "anything"--depending on the context in which the absolute term "to believe" is used--is the second step in the dangerous disillusionment of severing ghost from spring.

Over the course of a "lifetime," or much quicker, the wound can result in a death, leaving behind the animated dead: the callous movers in Forms, who find far too little difficulty, or no difficulty at all, in ending life, while being disarmingly good at "fitting in" (no surprise) to a society designed by and for walking shells.  Concepts like property ("ME own THIS"), capitalism (property to its logical conclusion), and "lesser evil" flow naturally from this trend.  Here is called to mind Monsieur IOZ's masterful breakdown of the current American President: "Interestingly, Obama has always struck me with an almost identical impression, a human personality reduced entirely to its formal, gestural elements, Commedia dell'arte where the soul's 'sposed to be."

Math fail.  Any "one" or "1" is never a 1, and requires a leap of faith akin to creationism or talking bushes to be believed in.  Any quantity or designation "one," whether "one person" or "one integer" is composed of two quantities "1/2" or "one-half," and any other similar formulas, including three quantities of one-third, four quantities of one-fourth, et cetera.  All math is, therefore, dependent on circular logic: in order to define "1" or any other integer or quantity of any kind, we have to use the very number we're trying to define.  "One" avocado is equal to two quantities each defined as being "one" half of an avocado, or three quantities each defined as being "one" third of an avocado; et cetera.

All mathematics is an attempt, like the conjuring of the "atom" or the "quark" or the "big bang," to reduce the flow to a limited set of laws or things constituting (a) reality(ies), which theories depend on their own postulations to explain or justify themselves.

More later.  For now, a lengthy Chris Rea, the gist of which can be gained in 70ish seconds:

Lightspring embrace.


  1. Your "math fail" is disingenuous, since your further claim seems to be that math itself is a failure, or perhaps a plot, maybe both.

    Formal mathematics is a game played with logic and symbols, strictly prior to any attempts to apply it to the world. Geometry and arithmetic may have arisen as attempts to model reality, but that doesn't constrain them to the role you assign them in your demonization.

    Finally, your claim about the circularity in the definition of 1 is straightforwardly wrong according to the standard set-theoretic account (for those who concern themselves with foundations). 1 is used in the definitions of the fractions, not vice versa. Being "composed of" different fractions doesn't consign 1 to any kind of circularity; that (1/2) + (1/2) = 1 is a property of 1, not a definition.

    This is all not to take issue with your philosophical struggles against individualism, which I don't object to, so far as I understand them.

    1. Dear StO, this one had begun a different essay tonight that linked to "Little Divisibles," and your comment fit so well that it served perfectly for the intro. Response here.