Posted 27 February 2012 - 11:07 AM
… but it is apparent that Coleridge busied himself with a reconciliation of opposites. Taoists, Acrobats, the Chiz, they all obsess over balance- diametrics, antithetics, the endless Newtonian push-and-pull. The pendulum swings, after all, and the Skeptic’s Choice drives that forward motion.
On the Pendulum
A good deal of philosophy is concerned with the beginning, presumably on the grounds that this is where the answers are. They aren’t. The beginning is where the questions are. The beginning is not interesting. In the beginning there was no pendulum. There is no foundation in looking for something in nothingness, and such philosophies are always logically self-defeating. The beginning was what it was, and as instantiation logically predates observation, there is no direct evidence. The only proof that the beginning even exists is that the present exists, and many a philosopher turns up a blind alley searching in vain for an unmoved mover.
The major fault in this philosophy is that the teleological argument for existence does not begin with the beginning. Rather, it begins with a suspension of disbelief. That is where the pendulum hangs. As sentient beings, we are required to assume a degree of preface- to acknowledge that existence predates our awareness of it. It is illogical to suggest that the universe exists because we believe in it. However, it is observable that the universe changes because we believe in it. Belief informs perception, and perception shapes reality. That mutability, a force that is somehow both infinite and definite, irresistible yet malleable, that is the foundation of existence. Skepticism, then, is the fulcrum on which the pendulum swings- a secure pivot that, independent of observation, allows a central philosophical tenet to exist. The Question is the beginning, and also the middle. Descartes had the right start, but was preoccupied with reconstructing an extant morality rather than making any legitimate discoveries.
The alteration of perception is, in fact, an evolved trait. The consequence of the pendulum’s downswing is an eventual upswing. The ability to observe- and comprehend- change is tantamount to survival. The ability to predict change is tantamount to growth. The prediction exists in the hypothetical, which requires the suspension of disbelief. This view of the future is the only accurate lens- potentiality is the only truth because it exists beyond mere perception. Awareness of the infinitely bifurcated future allows life, creation, spontaneity, action, anticipation. This limitless possibility is secured by the mathematics of probability- a scientific application of skepticism. All systems of rules and numbers are founded in that skepticism.
Some philosophers attempt to raise these systems on a pedestal- reasoning that mathematics, probability, and temporal causality must be foundational elements of the universe. The flaw here arises from a love of skepticism, the misapprehension that because a thing is observed, its qualities are defined. The slower the pendulum is moving, the sooner it will change direction.
Again we come to the forked path, and The Skeptic’s Choice. Existence derives meaning from opportunity cost, the lost potentiality at each crossroad. By circumventing that choice, by selecting both options, the post-human condition disallows mutability. The butterfly helped from its cocoon will die. So, too, does this bode for men, when opportunity is…
Posted 15 April 2012 - 10:19 PM
I actually did. Was expecting more.
That's Sophia Martel for you.
Honestly, this is just fun suplemental material, which I never actually planned to write. Sophia is passionate about every aspect of her philosophy, but for my purposes I am only interested in it as far as it influences other characters' decisions and actoins. This one page came about after reading Updatedude's Story Stuff post in the KALI thread, involving his characters' constructed philosophy of "the Seven Elements of Everything." This intrigued me, because Sophia had constructed her own Philosophy and I knew she'd find The Seven Elements particularly flawed (you don't start writing philosophy without a massive ego.) I felt like I could have gone on for another couple paragraphs, but I wasn't trying to write the full text of Parva. I had just finished a very dry biography on Samuel Taylor Coleridge (prompted by a re-reading of Douglas Adams' Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency.) In typically understated English fashion, the bio used the phrase "reconcilliation of opposites" to address the utter inferno of conflicting forces and ideals which came to dominate Coleridge's writing (as well as his personal life.) I thought of Kubla Khan (pivotal to the plot of Dirk Gently) and how Lord Byron managed to convince Coleridge to publish it as a fragment, and how that decision lent to, rather than detracted from, the poem's mystique. Also I was tired of writing after four paragraphs.
Posted 16 April 2012 - 11:04 AM
Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Marcellus Dolorosa, Sophia Martel, Philosophy, Parva, Common Man, Manifesto, Fragment
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users