/lit/ - Literature

I am a trivialist. Mostly trivialist. Somewhere between a modal realist and a trivialist, if I'm being honest.

If we are to imagine trivialism as a black hole, specifically the singularity, I am within the event horizon. And yet, I am not a part of the singularity, I am outside of it. I am within a miraculously stable orbit within the philosophical schwarzschild radius. Most importantly? I have discovered a system of thought which can escape this inescapable place, and more than that, can harness the absolute untapped potential inherent to its structure.

Within this epistemological fortress, my furnaces of creation and discovery are firing full blast. There are new linguistic functions to be created, new parts of speech to be designed. Someday soon, I will make my presence known (to absolutely no fanfare, and my thoughts will die in obscurity like myself. But maybe in 100 years someone will read them)

>>14777074
There is no shame, but what you allow.

The clown is stalked by danger, building suspense. While any other being would observe the danger, collapsing the being-state and triggering a loss-confrontation, the clown remains wholly ignorant. They continue their act, going about their clown-ly until the comedic suspense reaches it's climax, where upon it is released and the force of danger is phenomenologically neutralized. They may jump out of a plane and have their parachute fail to deploy and, all thanks to their clown ontology, survive in what can only be considered pure luck.

The clown is neither an object of envy or jealousy, being lower than the most wretched leper. Yet the clown is also not an object of contempt or disgust, holding more power than the grandest kings. It is also not a mediocre entity, a bland perforation of experience that is ignored in it's mundane nature and saved from the ends of this duality.

No, the clown is a being of uproarious laughter, grand performances that compel souls to be jolly and witness the clown. I would rather nothing, and I reject your duality. I walk the path of the clown, and I observe no shame. My only desire in life is to show you the way I see things, and to bring you into the ring of the Big Top.

>>14603726
It's more that any such model that you are imagining is useless and outdated the moment it tries to predict the behavior of a mind aware of the model. It's one of the biggest issues that sociological studies have run into.

Consider Turing's halting problem, and attempt to imagine this working on a human brain. The mind and its processes are highly plastic, and have a built-in capacity for dialetheism. Such a system is capable of utilizing the principle of explosion for arbitrary domain expansion, which means that anything that operates on a sense of true/false will never be able to exist as you have imagined.

It is best to imagine the mind, less like an intricate web, and more like a ferrofluid that is anchored only to extreme generalizations (if that).

>>14439862
>To argue otherwise is an implicit admission to believing in magic.
To say that our ontological catalog is incomplete is not an absurdity. To say that there are things that empiricism is incapable of uncovering is also not an absurdity. Yet your assertion that for both of these things to be true and agreeable for something IS an absurdity. Why don't you back that position up with some actual dialogue?

Marx's dialectical materialism was reductive. Determinism is a property not of a system, but of knowledge of a system. The fact that material reality is non-deterministic implies that there is a missing piece of the puzzle. The more we poke and prod and fiddle with the atomics of the material, the less sure we become of longstanding beliefs about the nature of the material. The fact that we are running out of road with regards to new scales to make observations in would further imply that we're not going to find that missing puzzle piece by assuming that the material is only affected by itself. This is not a case of merely where the line falls between complexity and randomness, but rather the complete and total incapability of the actual systems that drive the material realm to be understood to their finality.

>age
>how you're holding up
>current book