B. Steersman

signal processor

[B. Steersman @BSteersman]

@Jpricy8022 Vision Machine is a good one

[B. Steersman @BSteersman]

@wastemailing @179AAP893 yes exactly, s'why I said 'from Their perspective' -- from Our's, you're right

[B. Steersman @BSteersman]

@wastemailing @179AAP893 This all jiving with Pynchon's basic allegorical program in the novel -- the central characters all being less one-to-one representations than walking Tarot cards that express some essential quality of various persons, like Slothrop being every Fool

[B. Steersman @BSteersman]

@wastemailing @179AAP893 But you're right in that JFK is one specific instance of the Byronic, as well is Farina, or Rosa Luxembourg, ect.

[B. Steersman @BSteersman]

@HuntClancy what would be a go-to album for sleeping outside in afghanistan?

[B. Steersman @BSteersman]

@nonchalantly_ there's also an agonistic quality to the language game that Lyotard makes explicit in The Postmodern Condition

[B. Steersman @BSteersman]

@nonchalantly_ except 'games' and 'work' aren't antonyms for him. the most famous examples of language games in PI are in the context of physical labor. see also his distinction between 'language at work' and 'language on holiday', the former being what he valued positively

[B. Steersman @BSteersman]

@inherent_itgirl but i agree that that kind of question is primary and valid, you'd have to be some kinda antique positivist to think otherwise

[B. Steersman @BSteersman]

@inherent_itgirl if true and false are secondary why wouldn't the primary question equally be about the 'why' of a particular falsity? hence doesn't it make more sense to simply ask: 'why this particular proposition?' (which may be true or false)?

[B. Steersman @BSteersman]

@ianpaulwright finally, this really just comes down to the Hegelian conflation of negation, contradiction, and opposition

[B. Steersman @BSteersman]

@ianpaulwright so it seems to me that what you're really talking about is 'the problem of contradiction'. but i don't think contradiction or opposition are so ontologically fundamental, in a 'war is the father of all' sort of way. there are problems of contradiction, but contingent ones

[B. Steersman @BSteersman]

@ianpaulwright the problem of negation isn't solved, but rather dissolved, not by stating the commonplace of system-environment distinction, but by showing that w/r/t such a distinction negation isn't a problem. ok i tried

[B. Steersman @BSteersman]

@ianpaulwright in yr og tweet you asked "why does reality oppose us?". the distinction exists because recognizing the difference/boundary between system and environment is necessary for survival. doing so requires logically hierarchical negation -- not opposition or contradiction

[B. Steersman @BSteersman]

@ianpaulwright which isn't the same as being contradicting itself, which isn't necessary. to claim that being must be self-contradictory is to confuse contradiction and negation. contradiction arises, rather, out of a misrecognition of negation

[B. Steersman @BSteersman]

@ianpaulwright such a "division" is already presupposed in your claim that reality is opposed to "us" (your word). "us and not us" is really a distinction between system and environment, each being a negation of the other, necessary because a system depends on its environment for its existence

[B. Steersman @BSteersman]

@ianpaulwright being would only be self-contradictory to the extent that our notion of our relation to reality is imaginary (as in hegel's oppositional notion). see Anthony Wilden's 'The Rules are No Game' pp. 245-248

[B. Steersman @BSteersman]

@ianpaulwright what you call the 'problem of negation' is also a non-problem. a negation of a thing isn't its diametric opposite, but exists at a different and distinct level of logical type. reality doesn't oppose us -- it is simply 'not' us in the sense that it is more general than us