Wednesday, December 12, 2012

some junky comment i made

Song, let them take it,
For there’s more enterprise
In walking naked.

For me, this quote really sums up nicely not only the subtle distinctions of the dynamic of 18th century \'wit\', but really unites it with both a Socratic dialectics, and more importantly, Continental philosophy. In the title of my post you will find a word, of my invention which is a mainstay of my process of analysis. It collideorscopically collapses or rather modifies, the usual sense of irony with an added notion of sound and logic combined into a figural chimera, ie earony, but also eerony, as in eery, or irrational irony, taking only the sound of the beginning of irrationality and abruptly giving it a Socratic \'clown-silenus face\' -ir- is also used in chemistry, as a formative element in the names of three-membered heterocyclic ring systems, ironically to indicate saturation or unsaturation, etc.. Syntaxis is the latin word for Essay, but I have repurposed it in the sense of a word like Chemotaxis, therefore to return Semiosis to a more standardized and universal programme and continuity of biological nomenclature systems, and in fact, in a Linnaeus like twist, this fragment of Yeats might be given the binomial species name Syntaxis irroneam.

How so? Recall Deleuze and Guattari\'s theme of \"The Schitzo\'s Stroll\", from Heidegger to Romanticism this figure of thought posits an ecological self, or rather ecologies of becoming self.. Here is a possible page for reference: http://www.rc.umd.edu/praxis/deleuze/broglio/broglio.html

The trick is something like the binary exerted in classical times by Socrates in the debates over the character of divinity. In early Greece, and this is attested to in Indra Kagis-McEwen\'s work, dynamism was more sacred, see notices about Daedalus\' mechanical guardian statues, etc.. whereas Socrates posits the development of stasis as divine. In the Tao Ti Ching we find a 3rd figure ie Changeless Change, and in Ihab Hassan we find nature described as \"Omnirational\" If nature is able to absorb any rationality, then any Binary is ever only part of a Bifurcative processing of a single field, a kind of \'habit of growth\' if you will. To say one is beyond binaries is to push the bifurcative process up the ladder of abstraction say, but as in programming, there will always be \'break-points\' where because of some combination of elements, processing must procede along differentiating pathways.
In ancient Indian poetry, verses were often composed of \'little steps\' and even in the western world, poetry and \'feet\' are no strangers.. this metricity is both foundational and ironic, and possibly irronic in a classical sense if we also hear an echoic of metis-ity.. ie cunning. (see tric\'). The strange attractor in the Yeatsian Fragment is the term \"Enterprise\" and so quickly, let us think of Seymour Krim\'s story of running around naked from his little anthology of the beats. One way of reading this has to do itself with irrationality in a social context, but the other idea, is something closer to \"The Emperor has no clothes\".. The way it works is simple. Look at the word Nation, and then the word Notion. That is irronic criticism. Culture is an abstraction, an operating system laid on top of a shifting ground, a nomenclature system, and one which is highly invested in both differentiation and valuation re: Nietszche (perhaps)ie the bugaboo that only valuation is valuable, and it is in so many ways. But
what is an Inter-prizing or Inter-prising?
Prise comes from prendre, a taking, seizure, capture

see now, Song, let them TAKE it.. not the offhanded sense of it, but SONG as citadel perhaps.. and like an empty burden Yeats proposes what? Insanity? certainly. There is no conquering of semiosis, because like the sticky tar monster in the old epic, you cut it in half, and then you have two foes, or go further back, the hydra..

and so, by inter-prising in the sense of prising off a mask, even the duality of non-duality can be shown as a fundamental bifurcative processuality as if dialectics were a kind of stroll, two legs to maintain a single torso\'s propulsion.. 

The prize goes to the sorcerer smart enough to enact those specific forms of blindness which render her vision trans-subjective, which as in a game is the great secret, because subjectivity itself is a sort of infinite binary, subjectivty is something like 1/infinity, or as one approaches infinity.. no matter what you multiply one by, it always remains the same, but that approach, yes, that is where the insane singing figure like pi, Enters pi, like Heraclitus into the river.