/lit/ - Literature

I have known silence and articulation. I have articulated something through equipment: an arm, a pen, a keyboard, a larynx. The articulated message... its intention, which is governed by thought, all lies within the field of mythology: It can almost be said that thought is mythology. Thought does not have a use: The myth of utility is a product of thought, not its category. Thought is false categorisation. To think is to engage in farce. Abstract metaphysical thought is a dilution of the mythological nature of thought. Metaphysics is a categorisation of myths, which lives in pretending it is not one. In the past it was easier to notice this, such as in the case of the neo-platonic and aristotelian priests of the roman catholic church, whose metaphysics claimed to be free of mythology when in fact it was quite obvious that this was not the case: Its farce was openly revealed but dissent was destroyed through institutions... This is the same in modern science and philosophy, although the farce has concealed itself and has become more mythological in claiming to be free of its myths. The axioms of any institution necessarily derives power from pure articulation. Precisely because articulation necessitates ever more intricate mythological creations does it have to be institutionalised. Pure articulation is necessarily flawed in any form. Its alternative, silence, has no identity to be flawed or not. Myth will conserve articulation in so far as it conceals itself. Myth is difference. Myths are platitudes. Its alternative is silence.

[cont.]

There exists a choice between coma and focus, the latter necessarily drawing in institutions and accepted mythologies. While that choice does occur, WHAT you focus on is not necessarily "up to you", for lack of a better phrase. Articulation necessarily lives through mythology, whether it knows itself as myth or not. What we are no longer referring to is science as something "useful", but science as articulation as opposed to silence, a farce as opposed to silence. I have known unorthodox mythologies, but they have always been through extension a product of institutional mythologies. Humanism, perhaps realised at its most lucid beginning with Feuerbach necessarily derives from the myths of Christianity. The anti-philosophical axioms which prop up Humanism necessarily derive their power from institutions in precisely the same way Christianity has done in the past. Precisely because myths about humans are myths do they have to be institutionalised. It needs to be said very plainly: Humanism is an extremely flawed tradition. Articulation itself breeds flawed traditions, which leads one to consider perhaps it is better if most people simply remained silent. The myth of a silent being exists in direct contrast to the myth of "common sense". "Common sense" is that which originally bred the aforementioned myths which make up difference. "Common sense" simply articulates and reiterates platitudes. The mythical silent being refuses to.

I have focussed in on particular areas of extension. I have chosen areas of focus and interpreted their fields. I have been imposed upon by institutions. What is imposed is useless. I have known an interpretation of focus in unorthodox acts. I have separated ideas in to vocations. These vocations have been imposed by institutions. Precisely because vocation does NOT exist does it have to be propped up by an institution. I considered vocation to be an objective category in the past. It is possible for experience to trigger the separation of a personal mythology in to vocations. Phenomena taken to be absent of a vocation come in and out of being within a personal mythology. The farce that is vocation fluctuates between being imposed by institutions and not. Vocation is mythology and speaks about nothing. Nonetheless hypotheses are postulated about the "inherent nature" of a phenomenon. Vocation is only imposed when contrasted with its absence: with "phenomena of nothingness". This is the idiocy which allows "common sense" to occur. "Common sense" allows mythology to thrive. Mythologies are spurious ideas jettisoned out in to extension, where the alternative is closer to silence, with elongated and slowly released contemplations of extension. Mythology simply exists, whereas its alternative refuses to participate.

[cont.]

I have known an Art through the experience of farce and I have constructed a mythology in order to interpret it. Through my interpretation it lives, imposed upon by institutions and power-symbols. Where Art is pointed at or framed, it loses itself to banal institutions. Where it has yet to be realised it lives as an area of free interpretation. Interpretation free of institution is free of paralysis. When contemplation occurs, the mind necessarily incorporates clichés and platitudes read in a newspaper or article. The inclusion of reiterated platitudes only occurs when one is faced with a task that can not be completed. In the past I have sought Art. At times we experience what triggers in our mythology the notion of "Artlessness"... some thing "unartistic" et cetera. Artlessness necessarily triggers mythology which separates one area of Being from another in to a constructed dichotomy: "Beautiful/ Ugly" et cetera. What Artlessness entails changes over the history of memory of the migration of moments. What Artlessness is fluctuates between being grasped and not being grasped. Our IDEA of Artlessness is a mythological association and does not necessarily speak of what Artlessness objectively is. We may impose our own hypotheses on when Art is absent. Art can only arrive when it is contrasted with its absence. A separation needs to occur, or Art can not exist. If every thing is Art, then Art is irrelevant. But Art exists because we necessarily fear its absence. Art changes, but its institutions remain. Art and its absence reveal themselves in the continuity of existence.

[cont.]

I am drifting through farce and its alternative, as well as mythology and its alternative. Beings live through farce and mythology: Farce reveals itself at its most farcical when it claims to be free of itself. Mythology reveals itself at its most mythological when it claims to be free of itself. There is an ignorance that is imposed during contemplation: Ignorance only reveals itself in the face of a task which can not be completed. I am seeking something: An apparition. There are times when we take something to be negative and wish to remove its attributes but can not understand the procedures necessary for its removal. We may suddenly get strange mythological ideas that may or may not align with the truth. We may begin journeys with intentions which change halfway through. We may pretend myths are completely without substance. We may associate our myths with an objective attribute. We may trigger a change in colour or sense-data and assume we have an objective for the journey. We name separate ideas of objects and persons based on preference, observation, and ignorance. We separate ideas of objects and persons based on preference, observation, and ignorance. We presuppose attributes and laws based on memories of the migration of colour and "sense-data". Every moment we are seized by phenomenological apparitions revealing themselves as "sense-data".

Art will occur as days, X, Y, or Z- And then you will forget Art.

don't use Sargent to help promote this drivel. please.

>>7242664
If you are not going to respond directly to the text than I would prefer you did not post.

>>7242713
*then

artist name on the beautiful sketch?

>Using I in an essay

and that's why tripfiends should be strung up in the town square

>>7242744
try reading

nevermind, it's John Singer Sargent for anyone wondering.

>>7242635
>using second person when writing a pseudophilosophical text.
Not even once.

>>7242750
>>7242807
True, the first and second person introductions to passages could have been done without,
but it came to me at the time.

Unfortunately neither of you have responded to anything aside from that within the text so I find it difficult to know what to say in response. Perhaps consider reading it again with the intention of understanding.

Is this Heidegger? I just looked over it but the interest in Heraclitus, experience, rejecting modern humanism.

Still, it would be an earlier text since he wrote much more interesting things about aesthetics.

>>7242906
I wrote it,
but I have been reading Heidegger's Bibliography.

>>7242913
If you haven't, give The Origin of the Work of Art a chance. It will expand some of the ideas you already have and you'll correct some oversimplifications you're making. Letter on Humanism might interest you, too. If you have read both then you might want to re-read them.

>>7242952
I recently read both in his Basic Writings.
You just said you "looked over" it and are now claiming I do not understand both essays.

>If you have read both then you might want to re-read them
No. I am not going to read them again after only a few days.
Aside from that you have made no comment upon what I wrote,
which is not simply a reiteration of what Heidegger wrote.

I remember this same inconsistency when discussing Georg Friedrich Hegel with people on this board about half a year ago.
I was criticising parts of PoS where he takes a "Humanist" slant,
or presupposes Humanism and noone wanted to hear about it.

Heidegger himself stated the reader is concerning themselves with the text, not the author or his institution. Aside from that, there is no overt focus on mythology in what I have read by Heidegger.

I am currently concerning myself with poetry and will return to philosophy in the future.
The text was an articulation of some abstract unorthodox thoughts I was contemplating.

>>7242979
>and are now claiming I do not understand both essays.
I said you might not that you should, and before that I just assumed you stumbled into some of his ideas all on your own so you could feel complimented.
I'm sorry that I can't give you the time but I don't come to 4chan to read long pieces of text. I'm not saying you should compress your text neither, some ideas have to be properly presented to appear like a Higgs particle and can't exist in a simplified manner. But it's not an inconsistency, it's just that even if you like naked women you might be unconfortable if a stripper shows at work.

Sampling around I get the feeling that you are too tied to the modern situation of the artistic institutions and you sort of lack a background into art history. If you are interested in a modern interpretation of the term art that can expand outside of the present day and traditional practices, while still incorporating them, I'd really like you to read Gadamer's Art as Game, Symbol and Celebration.
Still, you should already know that it's pretty hard to follow your stream of conciousness posts and much less when there are multiple ones sort of connected but not entirely. You can get mad that people end up ignoring you, Twinchick.

>>7243035
Then ignore me.
I await a response to the text,
not about its ghost.
If that prerequisite isn't met,
then Silence is my preference.

>>7243072
Just stop tripfagging if you want people to reply to your posts in earnest. If you care about making people know that they are replying to you, then you aren't someone I want to have a conversation with.

>>7243097
>Just stop tripfagging if you want people to reply to your posts in earnest
Interesting hypothesis.

>If you care about making people know that they are replying to you, then you aren't someone I want to have a conversation with.
Nor do I wish to have a conversation with you.

>>7243097
Maybe you are a bit new, twinchick's posts could be recognized from a mile away. Try reading those things.