/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13863705]

Life is an offensive, directed against the repetitious mechanism of the Universe.

[Anonymous No.13863714]

>>13863705
I fucking hate Akko.

[Anonymous No.13863900]

You are part of the Universe you moron.

[Anonymous No.13864492]

Life is the Universal ampliative, animating the inveterate habits and continued evolution of novelty in the Universe.
Whitehead's process ontology can't accommodate a fully living cosmology, such monism always devolves into dualism as the animated experience must experience the inanimate. Peirce is different, because the experience is animated by what is experienced.

[Anonymous No.13864590]

>>13864492
>Whitehead's process ontology can't accommodate a fully living cosmology, such monism always devolves into dualism as the animated experience must experience the inanimate.
Just came in this thread to tell you that you have no idea what you are talking about.

[Anonymous No.13865035]

>>13864590
So, what are you going to do about it? Pussy

[Anonymous No.13865095]

>>13865035
He won't do anything. He doesn't even understand how incoherent that white head was in his works. He couldn't understand the Ionion doctrine.

[Anonymous No.13865128]

>>13865095
What is incoherent?

[Anonymous No.13865144]

>>13865128
A metaphysics of transience, in which the only real things are that which change. How could you even understand this doctrine when you must use words that are constantly changing? Cratylus was right to never speak.

[Anonymous No.13865211]

>>13865144
That's only one part of his system. From this post I can tell you are brain dead and that you have never read Whitehead and talk about things you know nothing about.

>In the inescapable flux, there is something that abides; in the overwhelming permanence, there is an element that escapes into flux. Permanence can be snatched only out of flux; and the passing moment can find its adequate intensity only by its submission to permanence
>We find here the final application of the doctrine of objective immortality. Throughout the perishing occasions in the life of each temporal Creature, the inward source of distaste or of refreshment, the judge arising out of the very nature of things, redeemer or goddess of mischief, is the transformation of Itself, everlasting in the Being of God. In this way, the insistent craving is justified — the insistent craving that zest for existence be refreshed by the ever-present, unfading importance of our immediate actions, which perish and yet live for evermore.
>We find here the final application of the doctrine of objective immortality. Throughout the perishing occasions in the life of each temporal Creature, the inward source of distaste or of refreshment, the judge arising out of the very nature of things, redeemer or goddess of mischief, is the transformation of Itself, everlasting in the Being of God. In this way, the insistent craving is justified — the insistent craving that zest for existence be refreshed by the ever-present, unfading importance of our immediate actions, which perish and yet live for evermore.
>The oneness of the universe, and the oneness of each element of the universe, repeat themselves to the crack of doom in the creative advance from creature to creature, each creature including in itself the whole of history and exemplifying the self-identity of things and their mutual diversities.
>Thus the universe is to be conceived as attaining the active self-expression of its own variety of opposites of its own freedom and its own necessity, of its own multiplicity and its own unity, of its own imperfection and its own perfection. All the opposites are elements in the nature of things, and are incorrigibly there. The concept of God is the way in which we understand this incredible fact that what cannot be, yet is.

>>Whitehead understood perhaps mor sharply than anyone else that the creative evolution of nature could never be conceived if the elements composing it were defined as permanent, individual entities that maintained their identity throughout all changes and interactions. But he also understood that to make all permanence illusory, to deny being in the name of becoming, to reject entities in favor of a continuous and ever-changing flux meant falling once again into the trap always lying in wait for philosophy - to "indulge in brilliant feats of explaining away." - Order Out of Chaos, Ilya Prigogine

[Anonymous No.13865230]

>>13865144 #
That's only one part of his system. From this post I can tell you are brain dead and that you have never read Whitehead and talk about things you know nothing about.

>In the inescapable flux, there is something that abides; in the overwhelming permanence, there is an element that escapes into flux. Permanence can be snatched only out of flux; and the passing moment can find its adequate intensity only by its submission to permanence
>We find here the final application of the doctrine of objective immortality. Throughout the perishing occasions in the life of each temporal Creature, the inward source of distaste or of refreshment, the judge arising out of the very nature of things, redeemer or goddess of mischief, is the transformation of Itself, everlasting in the Being of God. In this way, the insistent craving is justified — the insistent craving that zest for existence be refreshed by the ever-present, unfading importance of our immediate actions, which perish and yet live for evermore.
>The oneness of the universe, and the oneness of each element of the universe, repeat themselves to the crack of doom in the creative advance from creature to creature, each creature including in itself the whole of history and exemplifying the self-identity of things and their mutual diversities.
>Thus the universe is to be conceived as attaining the active self-expression of its own variety of opposites of its own freedom and its own necessity, of its own multiplicity and its own unity, of its own imperfection and its own perfection. All the opposites are elements in the nature of things, and are incorrigibly there. The concept of God is the way in which we understand this incredible fact that what cannot be, yet is.

>Whitehead understood perhaps more sharply than anyone else that the creative evolution of nature could never be conceived if the elements composing it were defined as permanent, individual entities that maintained their identity throughout all changes and interactions. But he also understood that to make all permanence illusory, to deny being in the name of becoming, to reject entities in favor of a continuous and ever-changing flux meant falling once again into the trap always lying in wait for philosophy - to "indulge in brilliant feats of explaining away." - Order Out of Chaos, Ilya Prigogine

[Anonymous No.13865289]

>>13865230
Imagine being so braindead that you need to delete your original post and then post this. His metaphysics still don't work as he's positing some ever developing and changing God to hold everything together. Can't have all these contradictory characteristics be unified but also multiplied. It's fucking garbage mysticism.

Cratylus was right to never speak. You should never type again.

[Anonymous No.13865307]

>>13865289
In formal logic, a contradiction is the signal of a defeat; but in the evolution of real knowledge it marks the first step in progress towards a victory.

[Anonymous No.13865358]

>>13865307
Logic is universal. You think logic and epistemology are discrete categories? Never heard of epistemic modal logic before?

[Anonymous No.13865491]

Bump

[Anonymous No.13866057]

>>13864590
You say I don't know what I am talking about, sure. Regardless I have a strong feeling that I understand what I am talking about. Was it not Whitehead who believed that it was more important to be interesting than correct? By positing that creation results from the prehensions of an organisms essential creativity, Whitehead's process metaphysics commits the same fallacy of misplaced creativity that Bergson's evolutionary theory places in the elan vital.
Of course I only can give this argument in a pathetic and rudimentary way at the moment, respect that. The philosophy of organism's supposedly nonreductive monism identifies the dualistic categories of creativity and actual occasions and relates them with the dualistic logic of prehension and subjective form which supposedly result in a "creative advance" to an actual occasion. Now to say that an actual occasion is a permanent product of creativity necessarily bifurcates actuality into inanimate occasions and an animated creativity that lives through them. Peirce's 'reduction thesis' demonstrates that a genuine creative process can only be constructed by triadic relationships, or else the creation will be a reflexive degeneration of the creature. If an inborn creativity animates the process of creation, then creation is a derived from the creature. Now how could this result in a sui generis creation? It can't. The answer is that the creativity of a creature, its self being a creation, is animated by the semiosis of creation. It's life given by a sign outside itself. Now remember in Peirceian terms that signs are living things and that everything is a sign. I do not know everything about what I am talking about but I have a visceral aversion to what was stated in the OP and to Whitehead's notion of creativity which I see as a concept of degenerate evolution. I see that as a stronger reason for my essential correctness than mere knowledge alone, no matter who complete.

[Anonymous No.13867464]

>>13863705
What

[Anonymous No.13867554]

>>13866057
>fallacy of misplaced creativity
cringed hard and stopped reading there. stop talking out of your ass.

[Anonymous No.13867606]

>>13867554
>Cried hard and stopped reading, st-stop talking out your ass :'(