O.G. Rose

In The Emergence of Everything, Harold Morowitz ‘emphasi[zes] […] emergences in nature as distinguished from examples that can be generated almost without limit in computer modeling of complex systems.’⁶²⁰ His ’28 examples of emergence’ occur without really being planned or intended, and until 23–28 (Toolmakers, Language, Agriculture, Technology and Urbanization, Philosophy, and the Spiritual), humans weren’t much involved — all the more reason to conclude we are speaking of what cannot be...

Richard Boothby in his lecture on Lacan and Das Ding, given October 18th 2023 at Philosophy Portal, noted how we might approach the gods as a “mode” by which the Real is revealed. Religions then mark out zones of “not understanding” on which our lives depend (like a space of “free speech”); we cannot understand everything, and yet our lives are deeply impacted and shaped by what we cannot understand. All we can do is ‘make our sacrifice and hope for the best,’ as Dr. Boothby put it.

If the subject participates in reality like Rosen describes, then we cannot speak of a hard “subject and object divide,” and this would suggest that subjects participate in reality in profound and deep ways, which is perhaps precisely why we must deal with the problem of Affliction, hopefully overcoming it in favor of Attention.

We must negate/sublate A/A into A/B and thus step out of Affliction into Attention; we’ve been able to make the mistake of A/A without great consequence, but as of our current historic epoch things may have changed. In fact, in the past, A/A arguably wasn’t even a mistake: it was a necessary step, and indeed we required Aristotle for Hegel. Affliction arises now with A/A because we are overfitting A/A, and though for now this mistake of “overfitting A/A” has not proven fatal, the clock ticks.

There could be value in offering “an arch” between two series by O.G. Rose, The True Isn’t the Rational and Belonging Again, so that we might see better how the importance of ideas in Gödel Points relates to our “new address,” taking “incompleteness” into account, with reference to Shera and Hingl’s work (see “The SCM and ‘Ideas, Institutions, and Incompleteness’ by Kurtis Hingl and Marcus Shera”), notably regarding “rules” and “ideas.” The SCM and “Ideas, Institutions, and Incompleteness” by...

As Featured in Belonging Again II.2, Book 5, Sections I.3A to I.4 Photo by George Ciobra It is common sentiment that “institutions are failing” today, and why exactly is often attributed to corruption, not being able to keep up with technology, and the like.

Samuel Barnes and Owen Leyshon (“Owen in the Agon”) discussed at Schizo FM the power of “high trust societies,” a topic that also came up when Barnes and Tyger Cho talked. Barnes discussed how in nations like Korea he could leave a laptop on a table in public and come back an hour later and it would still be there, and he also voiced how he could interact with others and not worry about all the ways they might misread or misunderstand him.

An Opening for "The Social Coordination Mechanism" Deleuze and Guattari have always been righter and more prophetic than what I have wanted to admit, and for years I have circled them, taken them on, pulled back, orbited them again, and reengaged.

I Here is a review of Part 1 and Prologue, but neither of these must be read before reading Part 2.

I How do we read a book? Does a person really fully grasp the meaning of every sentence before moving on to the next? Or is it more like a kind of “flowing,” where a person just lets the words rush over him or her, grasping the words on what is a strange conscious-and-yet-subconscious level? If one is too focused on every sentence, the person fails to see the paragraph, and if a person focuses too much on a paragraph, the person can lose sight of the chapter, and so on.