19 Jan 2008

Fundamental to physicalists is the notion, elsewhere disputed, that identity is a linguistic construct. Strictly speaking, this has no convincing counterpart; all such offerings being byproducts of unreflexive interiority, or, at best, the nay-sayings of default proclaimers of otherwise. Here, all social accord is conspicuously mismanaged; whilst substance remains woefully under-examined, partial and always denuded. With greater precision in these matters, interchangeability could become a useful practical issue. That said, this is not a debate about orders of magnitude. Indeed, difference for its own sake is beyond us. It is, rather, a debate about technological capacities. Each of these consists of tiny infinities, where man is filament and inessential. Clearly, ideation is superfluous here, and the startling ordinariness of this state of affairs causes preternatural seismic repetition. We are left with no option but to magnify all apparent structures.

4 comments:

Papi said...

If the single most characteristic trait of an identity is its boundedness, with a boundary being the abstraction that it is,it cannot but be a linguistic construct. As a counterpart being either an analogue or a homologue, its being convincing is limited to its being consistent with agreed norms of congruence. When therefore it is social accord that sanctions linguistic constructs, nominations and identity, we could well be petitioning principles as we make accusations of conspicuous mismanagement of all social accord.
Magnifying all apparent structures is only an option insofar as we hold as a matter of social accord that nature is probably obliged to reveal itself to us.
There appear hardly any grounds for such a hope.
Clearly, ideation is superfluous.
Thanks for an exercise.

murmurists said...

Thank you. This at knife-point...

I sweat, '...Characterful boundlessness; oh, abstract into folds of but but but...'. Digging, I add, '...my trope is counterparticular; neither analogue nor homologue but duologue...'. All of this I say despite myself, convinced of the limitation of constancy itself. I am both for and against agreed norms, sic inside. Still sweating, I rub, '...Hell of congruence - all constructs, nominations and identities, mediate your petitions in me...'. And what of principles? Might we magnify social accord itself, perhaps into a list of easy penetrations? All I know is that I am preternatural and obligated. Thanks for the exorcise.

papi said...

Do you have Yahoo? MSN?

murmurists said...

Yes, Yahoo. Messenger you mean? I'm on cam now. Add me.