Read on Twitter
I don't like quote-retweeting my threads like this, but I've committed to writing essays through Twitter, which doesn't allow me to edit the first thread
I now want to expand on this notion of "This is different enough to stop me in my tracks" (which is why I'm retweeting this). https://twitter.com/tom_username_/status/1351248472016625664
I now want to expand on this notion of "This is different enough to stop me in my tracks" (which is why I'm retweeting this). https://twitter.com/tom_username_/status/1351248472016625664
I'm aware that this comes off clumsy, but it's the only way I can continue the tangent without confusing myself when I re-read my essays.
One day this will all be compiled into a book (which no one except later generations motivated by historical curiosity will read).
One day this will all be compiled into a book (which no one except later generations motivated by historical curiosity will read).
Now, back onto the subject at hand.
To perceive matter is to perceive something that is different from you. In the purely tactile sense, it is when free passage is denied, and thus you *hit* upon it. In terms of vision, it is when light is refused free entry and thus *hits* it.
To perceive matter is to perceive something that is different from you. In the purely tactile sense, it is when free passage is denied, and thus you *hit* upon it. In terms of vision, it is when light is refused free entry and thus *hits* it.
The reason you can't see behind a wall is, in essence, the same reason you can't walk through it either.
Consciousness is denied free entry through the differentiated boundary. To quote my first tweet: "This is different enough to stop me in my tracks, & strikes me as distinct."
Consciousness is denied free entry through the differentiated boundary. To quote my first tweet: "This is different enough to stop me in my tracks, & strikes me as distinct."
The materialist reckons that only those things which have *impact* are really existent. Empirical detection consists of something having an effect.
If existence doesn't make itself impactful, the empiricist says it doesn't exist.
If existence doesn't make itself impactful, the empiricist says it doesn't exist.
Due to this absurd reductionism, we have to rest content with empty mechanical statements like "Light is photons". (In reality, a photon is just a wave-like deviation from a background state. It has no independent existence as a truly distinct object.)
As a whole, we can say this:
The materialist only counts as existence those things which exert resistance/are effective. He would refuse to grant existence to something from which he can’t sense resistance.
In short: if it doesn't affect me, it doesn't matter.
The materialist only counts as existence those things which exert resistance/are effective. He would refuse to grant existence to something from which he can’t sense resistance.
In short: if it doesn't affect me, it doesn't matter.
When something shows that it meets with resistance (either by blocking light or by blocking his body), he sees that it can affect his bodily integrity, and that therefore it matters.
Let's now consider the opposite philosophical viewpoint.
Let's now consider the opposite philosophical viewpoint.
I touched on this in another thread (see attached): https://twitter.com/tom_username_/status/1347581273846460420
Basically, we are inquiring into that mode of being which has no resistance, has no effect, does not (to quote again) "stop you in your tracks and strike you as a distinct thing", etc.
Basically, we are inquiring into that mode of being which has no resistance, has no effect, does not (to quote again) "stop you in your tracks and strike you as a distinct thing", etc.
There is no easy, one-size-fits-all word to account for this, so let's experiment with some concepts.
It must be perfectly transparent, which is to say that it must be without medium. This renders 'trans-' redundant, so it would be just '-parent' (i.e. apparent, or appears).
It must be perfectly transparent, which is to say that it must be without medium. This renders 'trans-' redundant, so it would be just '-parent' (i.e. apparent, or appears).
Pure appearance, without resistance, without intermediation. Existence in its purest sense. Immediate, immanent, independent of matter.
I've discussed this many, many times before. Here's one snapshot tweet for example: https://twitter.com/tom_username_/status/1336294642283913216
I've discussed this many, many times before. Here's one snapshot tweet for example: https://twitter.com/tom_username_/status/1336294642283913216
Only *differences* in light (e.g. shades) bring about a secondary calculation.
Light in and of itself is existence transparently revealed. It can undergo as many modifications as you like; it nonetheless remains as perception of existence.
Light in and of itself is existence transparently revealed. It can undergo as many modifications as you like; it nonetheless remains as perception of existence.
Light and transparency are metaphysically identical concepts.
However, when it comes to a differentiated consciousness who makes the distinction between itself and other objects, this doesn't fully appear to be the case.
However, when it comes to a differentiated consciousness who makes the distinction between itself and other objects, this doesn't fully appear to be the case.
A differentiated consciousness necessarily sees obstruction. Its view of the world is abated on all sides by walls, trees, clouds, atmospheric gases, etc.
It's a consciousness which is refused further entry on all sides. Its free passage is constantly denied.
It's a consciousness which is refused further entry on all sides. Its free passage is constantly denied.
The consciousness begins as transparent, and further down the line it becomes increasingly obscured/differentiated.
The perfect moment of transparency is the perception of light itself. Opacity is a subsequent development.
The perfect moment of transparency is the perception of light itself. Opacity is a subsequent development.
Essentially, the course of reality is being increasingly perverted into an infinitesimally detailed course, on which basis you generically label it as an impenetrable surface.
(For this same reason, we call prose "impenetrable" or "dense")
(For this same reason, we call prose "impenetrable" or "dense")
To pass through an object, your material integrity would have to contort itself in a way that could only result in death.
If you press hard against an object, you will sense a distortion of your body, which "strikes you as something distinct".
If you press hard against an object, you will sense a distortion of your body, which "strikes you as something distinct".
Similarly, when looking at an opaque object, light is being contorted in ways which are intolerably random and infinitesimally detailed. To see in perfect detail through them would entail a consciousness that not only cannot live but wouldn't want to live due to the sheer beauty.
NDEs report seeing everything in exactly this way, as well as being indifferent to the resistance of objects.
But because we are trying to live, a much hastier image is formed. The reason for everything's being a certain way seems brute and uninteresting.
But because we are trying to live, a much hastier image is formed. The reason for everything's being a certain way seems brute and uninteresting.
We ourselves are a particular form which (due to its being a closed system) has fixed parameters, the deviation from which betokens death.
These deviations inherently strike us that something distinct is exerting itself upon us, and thus we detect an object (which concerns us).
These deviations inherently strike us that something distinct is exerting itself upon us, and thus we detect an object (which concerns us).
The deviation is a spike of uncertainty, and suddenly makes consciousness follow it in discernment.
As an aside, when you injure yourself with something slight and sharp (like a papercut), you squint as if you're discerning something small in too much detail.
As an aside, when you injure yourself with something slight and sharp (like a papercut), you squint as if you're discerning something small in too much detail.
When the injury is much larger, you tend to gape as if you're discerning an enormous change in circumstances that exceeds your grasp.
You are tracing a deviation in consciousness and trying to make sense of it to restore certainty about your status.
You are tracing a deviation in consciousness and trying to make sense of it to restore certainty about your status.
To be focused on an object means feeling outpaced by a deviation (and being uncertain about the outcome) and therefore keeping track of it.
i.e. "What's happening? Will I be affected?"
This is the opposite of meditation because it's the subject-object distinction.
i.e. "What's happening? Will I be affected?"
This is the opposite of meditation because it's the subject-object distinction.
The basis, to repeat myself, is the feeling that the object of attention is new, different, distinct and therefore truly warrants your attention.
You could also say: "Due to a stark change, you feel blind to its nature and to where it leads, and so you focus on it."
You could also say: "Due to a stark change, you feel blind to its nature and to where it leads, and so you focus on it."
This, as mentioned earlier, also accounts for the appearance of opacity.
When light takes an unusual course that outpaces your grasp, you become blind to its nature and where it leads, so it becomes an object whose existence you regard as important and necessary to bear in mind.
When light takes an unusual course that outpaces your grasp, you become blind to its nature and where it leads, so it becomes an object whose existence you regard as important and necessary to bear in mind.
When your body is distorted into an unusual shape, it feels alien and uncertain, and you attribute it to an object whose existence affects you and is of primary importance to bear in mind.
Essentially, when something refuses to give up its form, it has to draw a line between itself and others.
This line amounts to objectification, and beyond these boundaries, the inner nature of things is not perceived. It's generically labelled as a thing to navigate in spite of.
This line amounts to objectification, and beyond these boundaries, the inner nature of things is not perceived. It's generically labelled as a thing to navigate in spite of.
Our consciousness—although differentiated in an absolute sense—takes a less differentiated course than the objects it experiences
This is why it can perceive them as objects in the first place. If something was less graspable than us, it would sweep straight through us unnoticed
This is why it can perceive them as objects in the first place. If something was less graspable than us, it would sweep straight through us unnoticed
To experience resistance (i.e. the distinction between you and something else, i.e. an object) means that you are unwilling to differentiate yourself.
If a wall was indifferent to its form, it would allow free passage, and would therefore be invisible and unable to be grasped.
If a wall was indifferent to its form, it would allow free passage, and would therefore be invisible and unable to be grasped.
But the wall is not indifferent to its form, and it therefore resists penetration.
For this same reason, a highly ethical person whose kindness knows no bounds has an almost ghost-like presence and invincibility. Their voice and behaviour doesn't stand out.
For this same reason, a highly ethical person whose kindness knows no bounds has an almost ghost-like presence and invincibility. Their voice and behaviour doesn't stand out.
An egotistical person (e.g. celebrities) makes a stark impression. They are highly reactive to the slightest violation of their boundaries, and their voices always pierce through.
Far from being ghost-like, they are bombastically present.
Far from being ghost-like, they are bombastically present.
Human consciousness is more indifferent than the objects it apprehends, because it perceives the self-absorbed density which a graspable, opaque object in consciousness must be.
By being *more differentiated* than background consciousness, it becomes an object therein.
By being *more differentiated* than background consciousness, it becomes an object therein.
This is not just a spatial phenomenon, but one that involves time too.
If a person goes about his life indifferently—that is without any particular objective—he lives a sort of unnoticed background philosophical existence. He grasps that people are self-absorbed and dense.
If a person goes about his life indifferently—that is without any particular objective—he lives a sort of unnoticed background philosophical existence. He grasps that people are self-absorbed and dense.
In the same way that dense, self-absorbed matter is contrasted against in consciousness which is neither dense nor self-absorbed, the philosophical person notices the dull, selfish materialism of the common person as a contrast against his bright, unselfish idealism.
The dull, selfish materialist is unaware of the stupidity of people like himself, because there is no contrast. He's too dense to notice his betters. Their greatness drifts over his head.
For him, only downright unambiguous criminality stands out as an abominable perversion.
For him, only downright unambiguous criminality stands out as an abominable perversion.
To the average person, Schopenhauer's greatness is invisible, ungraspable and unprovable. He turned no heads, and made very little noise.
He remained "as strange and unknown as the man in the moon."
He remained "as strange and unknown as the man in the moon."
(Continuation of thread)
We might define consciousness as that mode of being which cannot be physically grasped or subordinated. It is untouchable, indifferent and sovereign. No attempts at distortion or manipulation, however elaborate, will ever alter its sovereign status.
We might define consciousness as that mode of being which cannot be physically grasped or subordinated. It is untouchable, indifferent and sovereign. No attempts at distortion or manipulation, however elaborate, will ever alter its sovereign status.
An object is the opposite, so we can define it neatly enough by inverting the definition of consciousness. That is:
Physically graspable, touchable, differentiated, subordinate. The more it's distorted and manipulated, the more it subordinates itself.
Physically graspable, touchable, differentiated, subordinate. The more it's distorted and manipulated, the more it subordinates itself.
The more an object of consciousness transcends the immediate appearance, the less graspable and distinct it is (and, as an explanation, more sovereign and less distorted). To this extent, it can be regarded as metaphysical
Still, for it to be an object, it must have limitations.
Still, for it to be an object, it must have limitations.
A brick wall has an immediate appearance of impenetrability. This is the will-to-life crudely perceiving that another form is in contest with it. This is the crudest objectification. It's just a raw sense of "No. Bear in mind. Could work against you. It resists your freedom."
This is the purest apprehension of an object. It's perceiving "not-you's" everywhere.
Most people perceive in this negative manner, and so they are paying attention to appearances outside themselves, and therefore to things whose inner workings they are blind to.
Most people perceive in this negative manner, and so they are paying attention to appearances outside themselves, and therefore to things whose inner workings they are blind to.
Thus they lack introspection, and follow appearances.
The philosopher, by contrast, tries to imagine what is happening beyond appearances (e.g. people's motives). He wants to know what is going on on the inside.
The philosopher, by contrast, tries to imagine what is happening beyond appearances (e.g. people's motives). He wants to know what is going on on the inside.
If he is especially interested in the inner workings of things, he will eventually realise that the world isn't a load of "not-you's", but that every object is will-to-life.
In other words, he gains a deeper insight into the world by phenomenological inquiry of himself.
In other words, he gains a deeper insight into the world by phenomenological inquiry of himself.
Such inquiry begins with a deep dissatisfaction with the ordinary explanations people give.
The explanations always seem too mundane, too contingent, too opaque, too matter-of-fact. They don't seem grounded in necessity. They feel alienating, like you aren't meant to understand.
The explanations always seem too mundane, too contingent, too opaque, too matter-of-fact. They don't seem grounded in necessity. They feel alienating, like you aren't meant to understand.
They make you feel helplessly at the mercy of random facts. The world seems broken up into discrete facts which will forever outpace your memory, and so you rely on scientists (who use big words and seem to have a grasp of their subject).
Not content with mere nouns, he tries to imagine in his head how a steam engine works. He tries to imagine what it was like to live in a certain historical era. He insists on an explanation which is grounded in perception, and thus grounded in the analogy of his own experience.
Having succeeded in doing this, explanations now seem grounded in necessity. He no longer feels at the mercy of the world. He no longer feels like an impostor when he talks about life and existence.
Everything he says is rooted in subjective certainty.
Everything he says is rooted in subjective certainty.
He is no longer a copy-and-pasted human being. He no longer mimics appearances. He becomes an authentic, self-generated man who knows what is right, regardless of the democratic consensus of NPCs (the copy-and-pasted human beings who mimic appearances).
In moving away from brute appearances, his explanation becomes less easily grasped, more diffuse, and he is reluctant to refer to specifics. This is what I meant earlier in the thread (see attached). https://twitter.com/tom_username_/status/1351898671139467265
The immediate appearance is a spatial phenomenon, in the sense that it is local. It is temporal in the sense that it lacks duration.
Thus the perfect object is perfectly local, and lacks duration. That is to say, it accounts for one specific thing in one moment of time.
Thus the perfect object is perfectly local, and lacks duration. That is to say, it accounts for one specific thing in one moment of time.
It is a snapshot moment, rendered obsolete by the next moment. You empirically detected a ball because it hit you. It was quick and local in its effect.
If something is long, enduring and non-local in its effects, you would not detect an object.
If something is long, enduring and non-local in its effects, you would not detect an object.
The more something has duration and is non-local, the less it can be characterised as an object.
To repeat myself once more, it is as I said earlier: https://twitter.com/tom_username_/status/1351898671139467265
(The difficulty of the subject justifies repetition)
To repeat myself once more, it is as I said earlier: https://twitter.com/tom_username_/status/1351898671139467265
(The difficulty of the subject justifies repetition)
The perfect object is actually just the infinitesimal moment between cause and effect. Indeed, a sort of synonymy which binds the two.
An observer resists penetration. When he obstructs something's path, he receives an effect. From that effect, he infers a cause equal to it.
An observer resists penetration. When he obstructs something's path, he receives an effect. From that effect, he infers a cause equal to it.
When the ball hits him, he does not feel a ball; he feels his body undergo a quick and local distortion.
Only subsequent to this impact does he infer a cause proportionate to it.
This is how all so-called "particles" are detected.
Only subsequent to this impact does he infer a cause proportionate to it.
This is how all so-called "particles" are detected.
A physics particle is a perfect object, because it is perfectly local (i.e. point-like) and has zero duration (i.e. is effective only at the precise moment of impact, prior to which it has no location).
All objects are the detection of an intermediate transition, whereby two grades of differentiation refuse to yield to each another (i.e. they will to live).
The one which succumbs less to differentiation is the observer. The one which distorts itself most is the object.
The one which succumbs less to differentiation is the observer. The one which distorts itself most is the object.
In case that sounds obscure, try to consider it this way:
The thing which detected a particle remained indifferent. The particle, on the other hand, is the distortion.
It's an a priori configuration. The observer has to be more enduring and non-local than the observation.
The thing which detected a particle remained indifferent. The particle, on the other hand, is the distortion.
It's an a priori configuration. The observer has to be more enduring and non-local than the observation.
If the observer was unable to match, endure and outlive the object of observation, it would not be able to make an observation.
All it would detect is its own limitations in the course of its encounter, and distort itself to point of death in trying to endure beyond its limits.
All it would detect is its own limitations in the course of its encounter, and distort itself to point of death in trying to endure beyond its limits.
Imagine, for instance, that a private inspector is hired to spy on someone for just 2 hours, but the person being spied on takes a whole day before the full extent of his routine becomes graspable/understood.
The inspector will try to form a picture, but it will be distorted.
The inspector will try to form a picture, but it will be distorted.
The inspector will return to his client, and tell him that he only got a limited picture. The client will clutch at straws and come up with all kinds of awkward, distorted readings of the situation.
The detection failed because it didn't endure long enough.
The detection failed because it didn't endure long enough.
Or think of it like this: If a ball hits a wall, the wall detects the ball. The ball detects only its limitations and tries to survive. It cannot give an account of the wall.
See how this relates to my earlier point: https://twitter.com/tom_username_/status/1351565771890163714
See how this relates to my earlier point: https://twitter.com/tom_username_/status/1351565771890163714
To perceive an object, you have to be more indifferent than it.
If it was more indifferent than you, you would not be able to grasp or comprehend it.
If it was more indifferent than you, you would not be able to grasp or comprehend it.
A visual object (like all objects) abides by the same principle.
You see it (and not the other way around) because it is more differentiated than your consciousness. It is a distortion *within* your consciousness. It, in turn, only knows within its confines.
You see it (and not the other way around) because it is more differentiated than your consciousness. It is a distortion *within* your consciousness. It, in turn, only knows within its confines.
It is pushed around by forces beyond its grasp, and it will never know why.
Differentiation necessarily entails a kind of helpless confusion as to your fate, because your will to live is localised and therefore unaligned with the broader fate of the cosmos.
Differentiation necessarily entails a kind of helpless confusion as to your fate, because your will to live is localised and therefore unaligned with the broader fate of the cosmos.
I now want to return to this tweet for a moment, and discuss it more in the context of visual objects: https://twitter.com/tom_username_/status/1351924360995602442
When looking at a wall, it's opaque because consciousness is refusing to take on the burden of its condensed differentiation. Rather than your mind exploding from perceiving such detail, you perceive it as a generic dead-end.
You are refusing to yield, which is the same as saying that you will to live (at your grade of differentiation).
The wall has no idea of this interaction, because it itself is the distortion into which you are being sucked. You are refusing to go down that dead-end.
The wall has no idea of this interaction, because it itself is the distortion into which you are being sucked. You are refusing to go down that dead-end.
It it concerned with itself, and is plugging the gaps of its own integrity.
In other words, the same distinction between us and the wall holds true between the wall and objects of concern inside it. It is refusing to decay into even further differentiation.
In other words, the same distinction between us and the wall holds true between the wall and objects of concern inside it. It is refusing to decay into even further differentiation.
The more successfully it maintains its integrity and plugs its internal gaps, the more dense, differentiated and opaque it is.
The less successfully it does this, the lighter, less dense and more transparent it is.
The less successfully it does this, the lighter, less dense and more transparent it is.
Metals are good examples of the former. They are dense, and admit of no gaps in their internal structure.
When you look at it, you are looking at an intense concentration of differentiation. It is the opposite of black-body radiation (an interesting subject for another time).
When you look at it, you are looking at an intense concentration of differentiation. It is the opposite of black-body radiation (an interesting subject for another time).
When looking at a gas, you are looking at something whose dead-end is further away (due to a lack of distortion/differentiation).
You are not so quick to yield to it. Only after it becomes a visible distortion do you see it as an impenetrable object (i.e. "not-me").
You are not so quick to yield to it. Only after it becomes a visible distortion do you see it as an impenetrable object (i.e. "not-me").
This is a nice illustration of the statement: "All objects are the detection of an intermediary transition, whereby two grades of differentiation refuse to yield to one another."
Prior to the intermediary transition, you made no distinction between consciousness and air.
Prior to the intermediary transition, you made no distinction between consciousness and air.
(Continuation of thread
As a quick interjection, I want to comment on the value of phenomenological inquiries of this kind.
Basically, if experience makes full sense instead of appearing brute and arbitrary, then existence reveals itself as something more akin to a dream.
As a quick interjection, I want to comment on the value of phenomenological inquiries of this kind.
Basically, if experience makes full sense instead of appearing brute and arbitrary, then existence reveals itself as something more akin to a dream.
If you can see that existence isn't just a brute arrangement of objects, but instead a decay into differentiation, you will achieve a sublime distance.
The world won't appear so alien and arbitrary, and thus it will be more beautiful.
The world won't appear so alien and arbitrary, and thus it will be more beautiful.
While trying to live, this will necessarily remain an incomplete project. Only at the moment of death does this become a complete realisation.
Still, it's worth pursuing in this lifetime as a foretaste of what is yet to come, and as a way of diminishing your appetite for life.)
Still, it's worth pursuing in this lifetime as a foretaste of what is yet to come, and as a way of diminishing your appetite for life.)
I've lost my train of thought from yesterday, but I want to pick up on a notion that I glossed over yesterday. Namely, "the opposite of black-body radiation".
As is so often the case, this is one of those ideas in my head which I struggle to communicate. I'll try anyhow.
As is so often the case, this is one of those ideas in my head which I struggle to communicate. I'll try anyhow.
An object is a concentration of light. The hypothetically perfect object is a perfect concentration of light.
It is such an extreme concentration/density that it fades off into complete blackness. This is what is meant by a black hole.
It is such an extreme concentration/density that it fades off into complete blackness. This is what is meant by a black hole.
It is also what is meant by a black body.
There is a basic thread of synonymy between the concepts of 'black body', 'black hole' and 'an object'.
All of them are dense concentrations/decadent distractions/differentiation of consciousness/light. (Forgive the mouthful of words)
There is a basic thread of synonymy between the concepts of 'black body', 'black hole' and 'an object'.
All of them are dense concentrations/decadent distractions/differentiation of consciousness/light. (Forgive the mouthful of words)
If an object decays into a sufficiently extreme state of differentiation, then it becomes not merely darker (as all objects do, even mirrors) but black. It becomes a black hole.
I'm tempted to say that the destination of the material world is increasing decay towards that state.
I'm tempted to say that the destination of the material world is increasing decay towards that state.
It is all being sucked down into increasing differentiation.
The opposite direction is that in which light is still indifferent and undistracted. In this direction, objects become increasingly less perfect, i.e. less like black bodies, until finally it's not an object at all.
The opposite direction is that in which light is still indifferent and undistracted. In this direction, objects become increasingly less perfect, i.e. less like black bodies, until finally it's not an object at all.
Instead of being an object, it is pure undifferentiated light; that is, light which hasn't been distracted and contorted into a localised density.
We can imagine this very easily, and yet it cannot be empirically detected, because detection presupposes differentiation.
We can imagine this very easily, and yet it cannot be empirically detected, because detection presupposes differentiation.
You can only detect objects, which are deviations of light.
Detection presupposes a local effect that distinguishes itself from a more undifferentiated prior state.
Light itself (the actual thing itself as it appears in consciousnss) cannot be "detected"; only its modification.
Detection presupposes a local effect that distinguishes itself from a more undifferentiated prior state.
Light itself (the actual thing itself as it appears in consciousnss) cannot be "detected"; only its modification.
We see an object not because a black body (i.e. an object) positively emits light, but because there is still light left after the process of it being distracted into a black body density
This is what I meant by "the opposite of black body radiation"(not a great term admittedly)
This is what I meant by "the opposite of black body radiation"(not a great term admittedly)
When an object becomes hotter, this means that light is becoming increasingly differentiated and localised. Indeed, this is all 'heat' really means. It is existence taking an increasingly local and differentiated course.
After enough differentiation, the following principle helps us to understand what comes next: https://twitter.com/tom_username_/status/1351924360995602442
One side does not succumb to the intense distortion and differentiation, namely the observer.
In not yielding to the darkness of decay, it instead sees light (which is the default, more prior state of existence).
In not yielding to the darkness of decay, it instead sees light (which is the default, more prior state of existence).
This is what I was getting at in another (albeit not so good) thread of mine: https://twitter.com/tom_username_/status/1343574758017933314
