hugo :: ideas :: metaphysics
"only as an æsthetic phenomenon is
existence and the world justified"

- nietzsche

 

             
 
       
               
 
 *
 
emotus ponens picture
::: incontinent meditation, or fed up :::

 
 


satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. we run in circles don't we? or back and forth. modernists: truth, knowledge are real; postmodernists (read: onanists): truth, knowledge, ceux-la sont impossible. why does it matter? do these words still refer? if so, what is the nature of their referential power? objective? subjective? intersubjective? ritualistic? postmodernist's words fail to refer because the postmodernist has destroyed intention's agency. he deconstructed intention as a biology and physics, hence he exposed its virtuality, like a toddler riding a bicycle falls off when he becomes conscious of riding; like breathing becoming difficult in an anxiety attack when the victim assumes conscious responsibility for breathing. maybe the most interesting aspect of the above is not the ideas but their implausible juxtaposition; the reduction of the narrative into a text, into a whirl of fiducial and aural sensations, like las vegas read from a merry-go-round. when you read this you aren't reading this, you are reading you, it is your activity which inspires text and expires intention. this text is a manifesto. sure, it is incomplete, without start or end, hence without middle also because middle requires start and end to situate in between. we are always in between, when we aren't we are dead. when we feel confusion, we should be grateful for not being dead. not being dead is not the same as being alive. a common misconception is that alive opposes dead or that rich opposes poor. alive opposes nothing more than not alive, and dead opposes nothing more than not dead. but see that this is not a closure, for we know people who are not dead but not alive, and also those who are dead and alive. these words, have again, failed to refer. if words can't refer, how can we refer? how can our consciousness of being alive refer to the world which purports to be real and existent? how can our observation of a, then b refer to a causing b, or that b happened after a? it is a miracle that we are such an imaginative and deluded species. it is a travesty that the act of being and imagining a world to exist in is not viewed as a miracle by more selves. then it is a miraculous travesty that all these brillant ideas, spilt in this text box, means nothing more to you than yourself, your paltry reflection against this sexvigin-lithograph. my thoughts to you is as possible as your thoughts to me. in writing, as in being, these words, this world refers only to the writer. in reading, as in being, these words, this world refers only to the reader and to the writer that lives in the reader. but these problems, these problems don't exist; having a concept, word like 'problem', we are as inevitable to exercise seeing problems as we are to eventually eating the treat, that cookie that we are given. so cast away this poisoned vernacular of concepts and words, throw yourself back into nature, into unconsciousness, into the dionysiac passion where you, nature, the unconscious, dionysos and passion are indifferent to meaning. research your rapport and 'be in' instead of 'refer to'. close your eyes to language and culture, harken to your childhood unlearnedness anxiety and wonderment, and you will open your eyes and awaken in dasein. Niagra, o roar again!

 


 

 

article copyright (c) 2005 by hugo@media.mit.edu.
all rights reserved.

 

                                                                           

H U G O . . L I U ...
POSTDOCTORAL ASSOCIATE

program in comparative media studies, mit

the media laboratory, mit
if you like my work, please link to me
hugo at media dot mit dot edu