The Indomitable Gaze of the Other
The visible is foregrounded by an obscured background, so that revealing relies on what can't be seen for its presentation. But can the darkness appear in its invisibility without reducing it to the merely visible?
The visible is foregrounded by an obscured background, so that revealing relies on what can't be seen for its presentation. But can the darkness appear in its invisibility without reducing it to the merely visible?
Henri Bergson argued that lived time was continuous but that the spatialized time of Einstein's "Block Universe" was discreet. Therefore, scientific knowing was about being's quantities rather than about being's becoming.
The quantum field is considered the most basic "reality," so that it isn't "in" anything. Whatever is without an inside is also without an outside, and therefore, without relation, but the quantum field produces both simultaneously when it emits light without a cause or an intention.
Knowing is foregrounding a temporary unity according to the "take as one" function of Set Theory against a background of what doesn't belong in the set.
The Individuation of a object can either be a convergence on a transcendent identity, or an imminent differentiation of a temporarily unified multiplicity of ever-new flows of intensities, as Giles Deluze preached.
Does the intention to know motivate knowing too much for it to be disinterested knowledge?
CS Pierce connected semiotics to ontology with his notion of "Hypostatic Abstraction." How does a system of symbolic difference relate to being's becoming? Through predicative copulation, of course.
LLMs may have code, but they can't touch the Lacanian Real, so they don't have the Symbolic either, since human language is a relation between what it discloses in the register of the Symbolic and what it hides in the register of the Real.
Jorge Luis Borges has a famous short story called "On Exactitude in Science," in which a cartographer makes a map that is as large as the territory that it covers. What can this tells us about the relation between models and the reality that they proport to disclose?
Uncomputable problems seem to indicate that not everything can be known, especially because of their relation to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. However, it all comes does to how one interprets "incompleteness."
Evolution by natural selection seems to show gap's of indeterminacy within its "total" determination of niche construction. Could the "natural" selector be less "blind" than was once assumed?
The Cartel has breached the abandon aquarium. Something incomprehensible has move in that will change their lives in the Zone forever. But what intention has intended all of this lack of intention?