• Des nouvelles de l'épistémologie
  • Lettres non-philosophiques
  • Philo-fictions, la revue
  • Statuts et membres
  • Textes et Recherches - Glossaire
  • Agenda - Interventions
  • Collections - Bibliothèque - Videos
  • FAQ - Forum - Liens - Plan

Renseignements pour adhérer

Connexion
Login
 Password
Statistiques
Visites : 669609
Aujourd'hui : 174
Connectes : 1
Mise a jour :
29 sept 2011
ONPhI - Organisation Non-Philosophique Internationale

Faites également la promotion de votre Page

Spinoza: 7 ½ Metaxiomatics


[1] Spinoza’s ethics consists of two transformations (alternately, passages or functors) in the three genres of cognition: [A] from the first to the second genre (inadequate to adequate ideas), and [B] from the second to the third genre (adequate commonality to singular Deum Amor).

[2] The transformations [A] [B] do not represent changes of state undergone by an otherwise continuous substance or subject. Rather, they elicit fractal-effects (immanent-abstractive, or transcendent) in/of the material.

[2.5] Bereshit Torah: God creates the heavens and the earth. Normally, two interpretations differ: [a] The demiourgos takes a rebellious, disordered decision (heresy) to make a mirror-print of what is above in what is below; or [b] an absolute creatio ex nihilo orders the self-distinguishing difference (of) God-world, indistinguishable perhaps from an absolute self-cleavage or self-Othering. The test of a gnosis (de) sans-, or non-Gnosticism beyond the revelatory critiques of ancient Gnosticism (Plotinus, Irenaeus) and modern/post-modern Gnostic political thought (Shestov, Florensky, Voegelin, Milbank) would be a thought of the identity X...ababababa...X in-the-last-instance.

[3] The world (Dehors/Dedans): customarily seismic rupture/reconciliation/reversal of and in transformation [A] – from inadequate imaginings to common indifference, from economies of adequation to delirious overturning. The reciprocally determinative endpoints of this dual transformation may be conceived (as) identical in-the-last-instance. The unilateral double [tropic latitude [A]-[B]] thus forms an ellipse with its own appropriately virtual lacuna-world, blocked by a now-focal sun (special case: circle).

[4] Mapped parabolically (gravity’s tragic rainbow), transformation [A] has a definite maximum/minimum, slope=0.

[5] At the zero-point of [A]’s parabola (indifference of indifference), linear transformation [B] takes place tangentially immanent to itself – not as a passage/escape from the orbital of [3], but as ipse Dei Amor, quo Deus se ipsum amat (Ethics V: proposition 36).

[6] A composition-map [C] of transformation [B] following [A] remains implicit (as) a purely dynamic intensity of the imaginary-(One)-itself.

[7] Esse sequitur agere.
Rocco Gangle


Commentaires

First reading, par Marc

I am not stating I may follow or even start to understand - whatever this means - your seven and a half axioms. It is of inmportance, then, to remember that the following lines do not dare any criticism of your work, but rather tend to desribe the effects of your lines upon of my first stubborn reading. I just try to dive in the dynamics you propose by _confronting_ it - probably not the proper posture, you will tell.

A few words around your mathematical topoi:

Point [4]: why shoud [A] be differentiable when it turns back - why does it have a well defined turn-back, slope-0 point at all? I cannot link this to the [A]-elicited fractallity described in [2]. More generally, why is [A] quadratic - is the Fall of some mass-point within a gravitional field the main "metaphor" accounting for this? And why should [A] be a one-variable function (slope-0 condition as extremality criterium being necessary and sufficient only for this type of functions)? But maybe do we reach here the limits of the images you use, however strongly evocative they are.

Point [5]: I think I can figure out a mathematical model of the tangential application of a function (through varieties and tangent bundles), and I do understand the limits of this representation, which brings back transcendance were immanence is stated. But is there a reason why [B] should be linear?

Last, on a more philosophical point of view, though in non-philosophical context :

Point [3]: I surmise we do not have the same "determination-in-the-last-instance" (or -identity) concept : you have it work between [A]'s endpoints, when I'd see it "function", on[A]'s point of view, (from [B]) to [A]. I therefore also guess, possibly unlegitimately, that we are not doing the same thing (with) the One either.

Please, do feel free to answer this or not - depending on your way of considering what a proper (non-)philsophcal answer shoud be!

Best regards

M