Choice is retroactive to what "is" predetermined on the outskirts of consciousness. But predetermination is not necessity; it obeys no law. Predetermination flows from the demonic, whose retroaction reaches back to infinity.
You've said this twice and I don't know what you mean: "Choice is retroactive to what 'is' predetermined on the outskirts of consciousness." If you'd care to explain, I'd be grateful. ...Why is 'is' in quotes? By "the outskirts of consciousness," do you mean something like subconsciousness, or some sort-of pre-reflective consciousness, or something else? Do you really mean "inskirts"? Or by 'consciousness' do you mean the contents of conscious awareness or scope of intelligibility rather than consciousness as an activity, or something else? ...Are you simply saying that we're predisposed to continue in the direction we've been moving - like inertia - governed by a goal or not? But it doesn't necessarily obey inertia as a law? Does it take a chance event to change the course? Are there other ways to alter the trajectory? ...By 'demonic' do you mean some motivational disposition/drive? If predetermination assumes some direction, is it going in one direction or two at once? Or maybe predetermination is the "action" and choice the "retro-action". So predetermination and choice are two sides of the same coin? Is the coin an activity or simply a switch? ...So it's choice that reaches back to infinity? I'll presume you mean that the ramifications of possible choices are unlimited. If so, how is that possible? Can they reach into regions from which they did not originate? How would they know how to speak the language of those other regions? I suppose you could say that everything's connected, but how practical is that? Or is that where the egg-cracking comes in? And what about time? If I'm on-track about ramifications, are these temporal ramifications? By that I mean this: imagine an horizontal plane upon which is a road that forks. A fork is chosen and the plane changes. So there's a new plane above the old one, and if you try to go back the road you came on, you can't, b/c the map has been redrawn by your choice. So when we reach back to infinity, are we reaching towards impossibilities (due to temporal-shifting), or towards possibilities that cannot be grasped, or towards the nullification of any criteria for choosing while keeping our feet off the ground? ...What are the implications of what you're saying?
Hi Joel. Thank you for your questions. After some hesitation I decided to place "is" in quotes as a nod to the idea that the determinants of a choice exist under erasure, though it would have been more Heideggerian to cross the word out while retaining both the word and its crossing out. At any rate, that is my excuse. The real reasons for my decision remain foreclosed.
As for the rest, I mean all of those things you say given the right emendations and qualifications, otherwise I mean only what I say, exactly as I say it, which I find very hard to accept. And yet your questions force a lot of choices on me, which I also find very hard to accept.
So please accept my apology as I ignore all the options laid out before me and say only that by "demonic" I mean something like the machinic, and that by "demon" I mean something like a demonic assemblage. But also, in the earlier outtake that repeats the sentence you ask about, I follow up with the idea of demonic faith. By "demonic faith" I mean something like the bad faith of what we otherwise think of as objects. As far as I know, Sartre never allows that objects can have bad faith, but only because he is concerned with the contingency of human existence alone. My own concern is not so restricted: for me the world is populated by demons, literally. So whenever someone chooses something, I see that choice as predetermined by a demonic will.
You've said this twice and I don't know what you mean: "Choice is retroactive to what 'is' predetermined on the outskirts of consciousness." If you'd care to explain, I'd be grateful. ...Why is 'is' in quotes? By "the outskirts of consciousness," do you mean something like subconsciousness, or some sort-of pre-reflective consciousness, or something else? Do you really mean "inskirts"? Or by 'consciousness' do you mean the contents of conscious awareness or scope of intelligibility rather than consciousness as an activity, or something else? ...Are you simply saying that we're predisposed to continue in the direction we've been moving - like inertia - governed by a goal or not? But it doesn't necessarily obey inertia as a law? Does it take a chance event to change the course? Are there other ways to alter the trajectory? ...By 'demonic' do you mean some motivational disposition/drive? If predetermination assumes some direction, is it going in one direction or two at once? Or maybe predetermination is the "action" and choice the "retro-action". So predetermination and choice are two sides of the same coin? Is the coin an activity or simply a switch? ...So it's choice that reaches back to infinity? I'll presume you mean that the ramifications of possible choices are unlimited. If so, how is that possible? Can they reach into regions from which they did not originate? How would they know how to speak the language of those other regions? I suppose you could say that everything's connected, but how practical is that? Or is that where the egg-cracking comes in? And what about time? If I'm on-track about ramifications, are these temporal ramifications? By that I mean this: imagine an horizontal plane upon which is a road that forks. A fork is chosen and the plane changes. So there's a new plane above the old one, and if you try to go back the road you came on, you can't, b/c the map has been redrawn by your choice. So when we reach back to infinity, are we reaching towards impossibilities (due to temporal-shifting), or towards possibilities that cannot be grasped, or towards the nullification of any criteria for choosing while keeping our feet off the ground? ...What are the implications of what you're saying?
ReplyDeleteHi Joel. Thank you for your questions. After some hesitation I decided to place "is" in quotes as a nod to the idea that the determinants of a choice exist under erasure, though it would have been more Heideggerian to cross the word out while retaining both the word and its crossing out. At any rate, that is my excuse. The real reasons for my decision remain foreclosed.
DeleteAs for the rest, I mean all of those things you say given the right emendations and qualifications, otherwise I mean only what I say, exactly as I say it, which I find very hard to accept. And yet your questions force a lot of choices on me, which I also find very hard to accept.
So please accept my apology as I ignore all the options laid out before me and say only that by "demonic" I mean something like the machinic, and that by "demon" I mean something like a demonic assemblage. But also, in the earlier outtake that repeats the sentence you ask about, I follow up with the idea of demonic faith. By "demonic faith" I mean something like the bad faith of what we otherwise think of as objects. As far as I know, Sartre never allows that objects can have bad faith, but only because he is concerned with the contingency of human existence alone. My own concern is not so restricted: for me the world is populated by demons, literally. So whenever someone chooses something, I see that choice as predetermined by a demonic will.
The demonic will is co-opted as one's own through retroaction.
Delete