Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
Six great enigmas
This topic is locked

162 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Leonard
Leonard
359 posts

Re: In praise of the obvious
Aug 24, 2005, 14:14
So.. the more 'evolved' can see more as they're DNA is further down the line ? so, do you advocate eugenics to go along with your swastika obsession ? Thing is, as I tried to explain to you earlier on, evolution is not survival of the fittest, it's just survival. If a species can survive with a mutation that takes away an advantage it has long enough to breed, then that mutation will be continuosly passed on. Also, the idea of DNA being directly related to intelligence or spiritual understanding (not the same thing, depends on your point of perception) while being an almost rational theory is actually an abstraction too far mate. Hey, maybe teenagers buy this shit more readily because they're more gullible than the grown ups who hear this crap. Maybe, as we get older, we develop and refine an instinctive bullshit filter that can detect such things are nonsense without having to fully understand the underlying principa. This instinct develops from being around a few more years through the way experiences interact with our subconcious. I'm not saying this is true, I'm just showing you an example of how easy it is to develop a counter sophistry to your own.

However. Much more important to that, and what truly undermines all of your arguments thus far here, and in TMA, is your desperate clinging to regimes of signs. Symbols are man made constructs to express things that cannot be readily expressed without recourse to a symbol. (try reading some metaphysics, like Deleuze for instance). The symbols themselves are not 'it'. As said, it is easy to develop an alternative and equally valid system of geometry to the one we use. Geometry, maths, geomancy even, these are all regimes of signs and at their root, their application, and results interpretation thereof, are subjective. Subjective analysis can never result in a 100% proof that can exist outside of the regime of signs it's been created with. Systems create the same 'no win' situation as they are built with these regimes. So you can rant and wave about phi, and about the swastika, but bottom line they are only abstractions, attempts to explain the unseen. All they create is a closed proof within a limited space defined by your own abstraction, all they encompass is the dataset you've proscribed for them. They're unassailable, naive, but unassailable. That doesn't mean that they're right or the truth though. Any half arsed information theorist or metaphysicist would tell you that. Also there is always a line of flight from any semiotic, an exception that doesnt fit. Always. It may take time to find it, but it's always going to turn up. Exceptions are more likely to be an indication of a god, but even they're a given that will occur, and not actually a proof. Because no regime can abstract the whole of existence, as said, even math is at the end of the day a subjective tool.

so.. in order to get anywhere in terms of understanding wtf is going on requires chucking out every symbolic language and hitting the thing at source with no preconceptions or constructs at all. Ok, I'm oversimplifying, Imagine creation as an abstract machine that is all function and no form, now try and describe it. Thats where the said regimes of signs come in, and each regime will trip up, as once form is allocated to function a limit is placed on interpretation and future abstraction of that function. As the true limit of the function cannot be known, and may even be limitless, what you've done is take yourself further away from truly modelling the abstract machine, as is, and further developed your own closed system of interpretation. Which is alright for shits and giggles, and you can entertain people at parties with it, but its probably completely fucking wrong. I, for instance, have developed the elegant abstraction model that can theoretically model a system of any complexity. But the application and querying of the model is weighted by the point of perception and instance of it you look at, and the interpretation will always remain subjective.
Topic Outline:

U-Know! Forum Index