meh. i've decided to turn this into a half-normal blog, for the sake of getting SOME writing done, albeit lamezors.
i'm still in post-examen joy, hopefully it will extend into Tuesday at least. Yesterday, between 3:50 and 7:30 was great. Today i woke up and organised my schoolwork, started some extension two, fiddled around with the MIDI device in the vain hope that i might begin recording some songs today, and upon its stupid stupidness decided instead to catch up on Questionable Content whilst listening to bloc party. when the day comes that i once again care nought about the horrors of perpetual debt, i'll get to some more live music. or forget about the world. they amount to the same.
although it's nice now, i feel almost horrible that my moods are dictated by school. i seem to have finally decided that it's important, but it's so numbing. what i like less is that there has to be the trade-off between feeling in touch with what i would tentatively think of as true, and pursuing a life that adheres to it. what made me feel like i didn't exist before was the fact that i always seem to interpret my position in such paradoxical terms. That’s what I was on about with the writhing worms post last year, Rach, if you remember. I suppose it makes sense that paradox is inevitable in our situation. For any thought to be verified, it must be thought to be true, and so on. So, this age where we destabilise truth --> destabilisation of thought --> destabilisation of identity, also, of logic --> madness --> Cakeocracy, wherein carbohydrates subjugate nations and collective humanity’s threadbare reality justifies survival based solely on devouring concepts. *eats a scone to celebrate the rise of all-resolving Paradoxism/ anti-Atkinsism*. hmm! Some thought for food...
afternoon
2 comments:
Well, you did say you wanted me to say something about your thoughts on paradox. I can only say I'm just not as fascinated by the concept as you are. Do you mean that because truth isn't stable, it ceases to be truth, and is paradoxical in that regard. Well, obviously, but why ponder it any further? Does giving it further thought provide further insight (I'm not taking the micky, I'd like to know what you think)? But if truth is an abstract concept (which I think it is), and doesn't actually apply to anything in the world, then how can it possibly be destablised by the "this age where we destabilse truth". Truth is one of those concepts which mean different things to everyone, when actually applied to the world. Like love. It's what you make it. And thus there are contradictiosn there, but thats in the application, not the concept. Bah. I need some sleep. Wake me up when truth is stable in teh actual world. *wink*
instead of the presumption that truth is unstable, i think of the way we come to treat it as such as more interesting, for a lot of these conclusions rely on their own logic to justify themselves.
it's no new revelation, it is at base the old sceptic argument/ anxiety: that we rely on thought to confirm that there is a truth in thought. so you're right not to be completely overwhelmed with excitement at the idea. :). it's just that i sometimes think in terms of paradox, for sometimes i think that it can almost defy the instability of truth by embodying it - a paradox in itself. i find that when i think that way my thoughts extend and at least seem to sustain themselves/ their own logic. that is not important on its own, i just wonder that in the context of some of the theories such as Baudrillard's end of history (progress is only sustaining a static state: progression), perhaps, when a time of decentralised truth is presented with a human need for progress and logical explanation, only what is self sustaining will survive.
what makes it fascinating to me is that the argument itself is self sustaining, a truism.
perhaps mostly i really wonder if paradox can be confined to semantics, or whether there could be literal application - and whether there is even a difference anymore.
(bovie says bomb paradox!)
Post a Comment