Phusis- physics- is the natural world- what we see and touch and smell. Metaphysics is what is beyond Physics but which appears to the Mind to be law-like or part of 'Nomos'. Underlying both, there might be an undergirding- a universal or final hypokeimenon eschaton- onto which they are fastened and from which they are at least conceptually separable.
The notion here is that if Ethics or Nomos is relatable to Phusis- assuming we are part of Nature in the first place- by a priori Reason then there must be some common undergirding involving occult qualities- which Kant calls hypophysics.
This is a silly notion- unless you don't believe in Evolution and you know shit about Math. On the other hand, it is perfectly possible that 'evolution evolves' and thus all Reality is moving towards some 'omega point'. Tielhard de Chardin's system features this type of higher 'hyperphysics' which may be based on lower level mechanisms- hypophysics- which are hidden under the visible structure of Nature.
Since, the fact is, a lot of ordinary people know shit about math and think that if their kids are taught that they are descended from monkeys then they will be constantly pooping into their own hands and flinging their feces about. Also they don't know what a priori means.
Kant was a nice guy who wanted his work to be useful to ordinary people.
He says-
To accommodate a science to the common conceptions of the people is highly laudable,
Yup. You may be persuaded to quit smoking by ad captum vulgi arguments. But when you long for a ciggie, it's actually quite helpful to read medical articles on the internet which use highly technical language to describe all the ways smoking is bad for you.
To 'accomodate science' to the 'common conception' that smoking makes you stink and look like shit is, indeed, a laudable thing.
But, the the thing should be genuine science otherwise it backfires.
Thus Kant says-
when once the science has been established on first principles; and that, in the present case, would amount to founding ethics on their true basis, metaphysics; after which a popular dress may carry and spread the science more widely: but to attempt such a thing in a first investigation is folly.
So Kant is going to be doing the boring sciencey stuff which ordinary people can't relate to.
Others, however, may be tempted to just fake it for a popular audience.
Not only would such procedure have no claim to the signal and rare merit of true philosophic popularity, but it would lie open to the objection of amounting to no more than an odious and revolting mixture of random remarks, crude and half-fledged opinions,—a mad attempt, which would furnish the shallow with materials to talk of and quote in conversation, but which could only embarrass the more profound, who, dissatisfied, avert their eyes, and remain unaided; although those who see through the illusion are little listened to when they insist on the abandonment of a futile popularity, in order to become then only popular when clear and definite insight has been attained.
We now know that 'definite insight' wasn't attained by Kant or anyone else. Still, the geezer gave it the good old College try.
To illustrate this remark, it were only requisite to examine popular modern treatises which have been got up in this taste, and we find at one time the destiny of man, which is particular, at another, the idea of an intelligent nature, which is general,—here perfection, there happiness,—then somewhat of the moral sense, and of the fear of God,—all mixed up in one huge heterogeneous mass. But nowhere do the authors seem to have impinged upon the cardinal question, whether principles of morality were to be sought for in the psychology of human nature? (which we know only from experience and observation,)—or whether, if this be not the case, they are not to be met with wholly à priori in pure ideas of reason, and nowhere else?
So other pedants who wrote on this topic hadn't done something Kant would do.
Nor did it ever occur to them, in this last event, to commence an investigation of these first principles, as a particular and separate department [23] of philosophic science, called, if I may be allowed the expression, “metaphysic* of ethics,”—to isolate and keep it by itself, in order to exhaust and complete its entire circuit and extent,—diverting in the meantime a public impatient for popularity till the issue and conclusion of the investigation.
Sadly, that investigation was worthless. Metaphysics needed a Hypokeimenon from the get go. Kant, silly man, wanted to do without it. He failed.
Such a system of metaphysic ethics, isolated and cleared of all theology, anthropology, physics, hyperphysics, and occult qualities, which I may call hypophysics, is
empty. Being cleared of anthropology means it is inaccessible to humans. Without 'occult qualities'- stuff like 'karma' or 'Providence' or 'Geist' or 'Gaia'- there is nothing to tether a 'system of metaphysics' to anything else. A sequence of farts might be a 'system of metaphysics'. But Kant's shite can't. Why? We don't know when a fart contradicts another fart. But we do know that Kant's system contradicted itself immediately.
not merely a substratum indispensable for all theoretic knowledge in the department of duty,
This is clearly false. Kant knew there were plenty of Professors claiming 'theoretic knowledge' of this sort. They relied on occult qualities- hypophysics- and that was their 'indispensable substratum' or hypokeimenon. But Kant's own theoretic knowledge is dependent on the hyophysical assumption that thinking is done by entities with a particular anthropological description.
but is likewise a main desideratum towards the actual fulfilment of its law; for the naked representation Duty, unadulterated with any foreign charms,—in short, the moral law itself,—is
baloney. If it is unadulterated then it don't got no anthropology. But in that case it is not prescriptive for any anthropos. Kant knew Hume & Smith & Hutcheson- who mentions the akreibia/economia syzygy better developed in Orthodox Christianity. Kant's Deduktions are meant to be juristic, protocol bound, and 'buck stopped' by endoxa- which is how come he can have synthetic a priori judgments. This is why he disregarded Solomon Maimon's mathsy critique- which we can think of as a drunken attempt to do Voevodskian 'univalent foundations' avant la lettre.
so much stronger a mobile to the will than any other motive,
i.e. participation in juristic processes is the primum mobile of the Will upon which judgment is passed- this is Alexander Pope as much as any Whiggish Edinburgh hack-
that reason first learns by this method her own causal-force and independency on every sensitive determinator; until at length, awaking fully to the consciousness of her own supremacy and dignity,
she divorces the body and goes off to live by herself on the Moon. Ariosto supplies this theme to Defoe in a manner which impressed Pope.
she scorns to act from any such, and comes in the sequel to be able to control and to command them:
like in a Jacqueline Collins novel
which things a system of ethics, not distinguished from the emotions of the sensory, cannot effect; for there the mind is at once perturbed by opposing causes, and is forced to waver betwixt feelings and ideas which cannot be reduced to any common principle, and is accordingly, owing to its instability and uncertainty, led sometimes wrong, sometimes right.
Kant was very old when he wrote this. Soon he would start babbling about Zarathustra.
Duties are real things. They are part of the undergirding of Social relations. Law & Econ don't just study duties and immunities, they make money and increase Social Welfare by doing so. Meanwhile, Philosophy stands in a corner with its thumb up its butt drooling incontinently.
As a case in point, consider Mohan & Dwiwedi's 'Gandhi & Philosophy', published last year.
Wikipedia states
' Gandhi and Philosophy proposed that parallel to the metaphysical tendency in philosophy there is hypophysics. Hypophysics is defined as "a conception of nature as value".Plenty of metaphysical systems can have a conception of nature or anything else as value. On the other hand, so can magical thinking, superstition, or just plain lunacy. Mohan & Dwivedi's tome epitomizes the lunacy of the Indian leftist Academy.
a theology behind his (Gandhi's) globally celebrated concepts of satyagraha, non-violence and brahmacharya.
Gandhi constantly says that he believes in God. He also says that a Hindu, properly so called, must believe in karma. Thus, we all already know that Gandhi's theology was karmic and could either be represented within the 'aashrav' Jain theory he learned from Raichand Bhai, or else the 'Vedic' (i.e. advaitic) version which Bhai Parmanand came and explained to him in South Africa in 1905. Incidentally, Parmanand, who was an Arya Samajist on a mission to the diaspora, also influenced Lala Har Dayal at just this time. That worthy started babbling about the need for celibacy and vegetarianism and went off to California where he set up an Ashram and initially lived very very simply. However, Har Dayal's trajectory was different from Gandhi's. The 'Ghaddar' Americans played a crucial role in the 'Indo-German' conspiracy so that Khattri polymath kept popping up in Berlin and Istanbul and so forth during the Great War . Still, in the end, the trajectory of the polyglot genius but utterly useless Har Dayal wasn't really so different from that of the epistemically challenged Mahatma. Indeed, the silly Stephanian surrendered unilaterally to the Brits a couple of years before Gandhi did. He then took a worthless Doctorate from SOAS and lectured on Psilosophy.
Aurobindo, also bright but less facile- & married like Har Dayal- decided to go the celibate route at about the same time as Gandhi. Unlike Har Dayal, who kept shacking up with Swiss or Swedish chicks, Aurobindo stuck to brahmacharya and even gave up cigars and brandy on the urging of 'Divine Mother' who, frankly, I have to rate pretty high. Auroville still flourishes coz of that spiritual 'f.d.i' on the basis of true partnership- not 'turnkey', 'turnpike theorem', Planning Commission, shite of a sort Stephanians are programmed to clamor for.
One may say, 'but Aurobindo and Har Dayal were 'garam dal' votaries of violence. Gandhi believed in Ahimsa. But, this simply isn't true. Gandhi was a recruiting sergeant during the war. In other words, he too believed in violence- and, what's more, had shown abundant courage under fire- it's just that he was on the side of the King Emperor while Har Dayal & Amba Prasad Sufi and so forth were busy committing treason by seeking help from the Kaiser- George V's seniormost cousin.
Nature, in Hinduism, is 'Prakriti' which is the active 'pravritti' aspect of the Godhead. 'Purusha' is purely passive and contemplative. Everybody knows this. Everybody, it seems, except Mohan & Dwiwedi.
Ziya us Salam, who 'builds bridges between Quran Sharif and the Holy Vedas' writes-
They find that nature is divine and the divine is nature in Gandhi’s theology, which they name “hypophysics”,
This is not hypophysics- which is about 'hidden variables' i.e. occult qualities which permit 'action at a distance' and which synchronize 'mind' and 'matter' or 'free will' and 'deterministic causation' etc, etc. It is pataphysics- Alfred Jarry's parody of science based on the paronym or linguistic pun or the, rasaabhasa, urge to indulge in a type of silliness subversive of all literary autocritas.
and which they say Gandhi developed through his ingenious use of the theories of Euclid, Newton, Darwin and J.C. Bose:“He considered politics and civilisation to be deviations from the divine nature and therefore ‘satanic’. He developed a scale of speed to measure these deviations, and proposed the cure in the form of adherence to Truth and non-violence which cannot be fully grasped until the Gandhian Hypophysics is understood.” The book reveals, arguably, that a political project adhering to this theology would be the ultimate limit of nihilism and would risk the very existence of humanity.
In other words, these guys are saying Gandhi thought humans should live like cave-men without any recourse to technology or the evolving mechanisms of political economy. The greater the deviation from the natural order, the faster 'catch up' growth could be. But such growth was ab ovo evil and satanic. Mohan & Dwiwedi conclude that 'adhering to' Gandhism 'risks the existence of humanity'. Actually, if everybody had given up sex like he wanted them to, humanity would have disappeared by now.
If Dwiwedi & Mohan are right, then Gandhi was a cretin. But, we know they are wrong because we know Gandhi believed in karma. Thus all he is saying is those who follow brahmacharya, ahimsa and who practice satyagraha get reborn in Satya Yuga or Vaikuntha or a time when a Tirthankar is preaching- in other words, they get an almost infinite benefit in the next life. But, during the War, all the various theist 'recruiting sergeants' were saying 'Die in battle and go straight to Heaven. Martyrdom is a career move.'
This type of special pleading poses no risk whatsoever to humanity's existence.
Mohan said "This non-philosophical system, which we call hypophysics, is necessarily interesting for philosophy. "[4]
For shite philosophy- sure. But phenomenology could appropriate this Kantian term for a more useful purpose- e.g. Schnell's correlational hypophysics or by thinking of 'hidden variables' as 'black box' endoxa underpinning 'overlapping consensus'. What Mohan & Dwiwedi are doing is exploring Gandhi's, not hypophysics, but pataphysics. Bapu, in their hands, becomes a dadaist Ubu Roi.
The distance from nature that human beings and natural objects come to have through the effects of technology lessens their value, or brings them closer to evil.
Schumacher explained this aspect of Gandhian economics. Simply by reimposing 'cascading' excise duties on the basis of highly localized Tiebout models you get back to medieval autarky. Alternatively, let piracy prevail on the High Seas and 'thugee' and 'dacoity' on the highways. Transport costs will go through the roof and the great mass of humanity will starve to death. The survivors can live like cave-men or foragers. The same outcome may not arisefrom involuted Warlordism because one Warlord may prove smarter at 'killology' than the others and thus found an Empire.
All this has nothing to do with 'Nature'. Gandhi wasn't such a fool that he couldn't see that a boat journey was cheaper and shorter and safer than a land journey where bandits and excisemen might appear every few miles. Yet floating down a river, or crossing a sea by sail, or in obedience to tides and currents, is 'natural'. Bandits and exceisemen are 'unnatural'.
It is quite true that there are nutters who prefer 'local' and 'natural' shite. But they subscribe to many different theologies or none at all. No question, Gandhi was a crank but, theologically, he was a Hindu who believed in Karma which aint 'natural' and which involves transmigration across gazillions of light-years. The Gita, itself speaks of man as 'yantrarudhani mayaya'- machine mounted, not 'natural' or 'vitalist' at all.
Gandhi's concept of passive force or nonviolence is an implication of his hypophysical commitment to nature.[34]
No. The guy was an, albeit Occasionalist, Hindu who believed that 'Rishis' gained supernatural powers through ascesis. Mahatmas- a term the Theosophists had popularised in the West- had superpowers.
A Jain 'aashrav' type theory can easily accommodate Gandhian nuttiness. Indeed, the rules for Jain monks re. diet and travel and so forth are an example. The notion is that there are 'karma binding particles' in Nature and so what we eat and how we move and so forth affects our ethos. It is easy to give a Jain or Hindu or Greek or 'Quantum Consciousness' type account of any type of stupidity. But such accounts have no hypophysical commitment to nature. Rather they have a pataphysical commitment to completely imaginary entities belonging to a world not our own but merely supplemental to it by way of extreme silliness.
Raj Ayyar- apparently a Humanities Professor at an IIT or something of that sort- writes in the Wire about Mohan & Dwiwedi's book-
I ask them, “Hypophysics, or the perception of the good in nature alone,
coz 'the good' is in Nature just like 'the bad', 'the ugly' and 'early Clint Eastwoodish'-as opposed 'late Clint Eastwoodish when the guy had clearly lost his marbles and was talking to an empty chair'
is closely linked to calypsology
& nonsenseology & shitting-higher-than-your-arsehole-ology
which confines oneself in effect to a kind of nature.
when what you really need is a corset coz of your burgeoning muffin tops.
You have suggested a criticism of Gandhi’s relation to caste through these concepts, which is very different from the other critics. Could we go a bit more into it?”
so we can laugh ourselves silly over this pair of nutters
Shaj (Mohan) said, “If what is called ‘the ends’ are deployed in order to reproduce ‘the means’ or the conditions, and vice versa, we have something like a calypsology of caste”.
No. We have this horrible couple's respective parents getting their ends off the way their own respective parents had done. Endogamous fucking is the aspect of caste we really don't want to look at coz the vast majority of Indian peeps simply don't have porn bods. That's also why most of us only get to reproduce thanks to the arranged marriage system.
Divya joined in, “Caste is the primary functional isolation of a person’s body into either “touchable” or “untouchable”.
This is nonsense. The word 'caste' is from the Portuguese. The thing can exist without untouchability and vice versa. Lepers were untouchable even under purely tribal regimes.
Functional isolation is a new concept from “Gandhi and Philosophy”.
But is as shite as the the rest of the book.
It explains the freedom inherent in things.
Really? Which things are free from the Law of Gravity?
For example, the hand can perform many functions such as gripping, sewing, writing, and typing.
those aren't 'functions', they are activities. The functions of the hand can be sequenced so that those activities could be completed. But that sequencing is not a function of the hand. It is a function of a brain or C.P.U of some sort.
The eye can perform only one function, that of seeing.
Nonsense! Rolling your eyes conveys a certain type of information. A perfectly 'functional' eye may be possessed by a person who can't see at all due to a brain injury or some psychological malady.
But what is important is that functionally isolating the hand for a while allows us to write.
I write a lot. I've never 'functionally isolated' my hand. On the other hand, an illiterate could functionally isolate the shit out of her hand and still be incapable of writing anything.
This applies to groups of people too. A group of people functionally isolated to fight is an army, to play is a football team.
This is nonsense. Most armies, most of the time, aren't doing any fighting at all. There are two teams on the football field. No 'functional isolation' occurs. A football game may end in a punch-up. Soldiers may spend a lot of time playing footer and none doing any actual fighting.
Caste in India may be notionally occupational. But for most people like Ayyar or Dwiwedi, it has been generations since that has been the case. Why, at this late hour are these cunts invoking 'functionalism'?
Divya (Dwiwedi) continued, “Then, there are specific functional isolations such as caste-based labour—carpenter, manual scavenger, tradesmen—which one inherits.
Fuck did she inherit?
'The caste system’s task is to reproduce itself faithfully through anti-miscegenation laws and other functional isolations.
Which is how come Dr. Ambedkar's widow was Brahmin. By contrast, America- which did not have caste- had anti-miscegenation laws.
Then, caste as the means reproduces caste as the end.
Endogamy solves the stable marriage problem. That is its function. Endogamy may or may not be associated with Caste. But sex is the means and reproduction is the end.
Gandhi was faithful to this interpretation of caste as the self-reproduction of the social order and he thought this was the essence of what was by then called the ‘Hindu’ religion, and India”. She paused and added, “This is calypsology as the end of politics”.
How come one of his son's married out of caste? Clearly, there was no 'calypsology' nor was Gandhian politics concerned with perpetuating caste.
Are Mohan & Dwiwedi parodists of an undergraduate type? Consider the extract from their book published by Scroll.in
The problematic of truth telling requires us to return to the sense of means and ends – for Gandhi, means and ends are convertible.
Fuck does this mean?
We do not term the minor premise a means, and the conclusion the end, in the case of syllogisms. That is, “Socrates is a man” is not the means to the end “Socrates is mortal”. The form of syllogism conveys necessity.
A syllogism was considered a means to arrive at valid deductions. Then people noticed it was shit.
In the case of a mechanical law, such as “Momentum is the product of the mass of an object and its velocity,”
This isn't a law. It is a definition.
momentum is not the end obtained through the means of mass and velocity.
Momentum is merely a 'term of art'.
The form of the mechanical law conveys that each of the terms which constitute the law has a strict relation with the others, and also that any one term can be obtained, given the other two; that is, “Velocity of an object is given by its momentum divided by its mass.”
Velocity is given by measurement as is mass. Momentum is not given at all. It is calculated.
For a physical law to be available for articulation
the articulation must be done by somebody who knows physics. These guys don't.
under the logic of means and ends, the terms of that law will have to be substitutable, except for one term, the end; in the case of momentum, one should be able to entertain the possibility of obtaining it under more than one set of relations between terms, such as, a product of the viscosity of an object and its temperature.
This is nonsense. The 'logic of means and ends' is decision theoretic. It does not arise in Physics. An object's viscosity is a function of its temperature. An object's velocity is not a function of its mass. Thus, the notion of momentum has no correlative of the sort these nutters imply.
Gandhi’s assertion concerning means and ends,
was simple. Only pure means can achieve pure ends.
that there is no polynomia in any domain,
Did Gandhi say 'It is wrong to teach polynomial equations in Maths class'? No. These guys are just pulling this stuff out of their arse.
extends the form of mechanical laws into the domain of human freedom: there is no freedom since polynomia is an illusion, and man will inevitably be punished by the Maker, His Law, for surrendering to this illusion.
But, if there is no freedom then 'mechanical laws' can't be extended into its domain- since that domain is empty. A punishment for surrendering can't arise if there is no freedom to surrender.
This is meaningless shite.
This convertibility of means and ends is beyond the imagination of the ordinary alchemist who seeks the convertibility of any metal into gold, whereas the Maker establishes the supreme convertibility which dissolves all the illusions of abandonment of man – “God is the supreme alchemist”. The supreme alchemist converts all actions into the value zero.
Gandhi was Hindu. He was interested in 'rasayana'- i.e. transmutation of semen into amrita for longevity and spiritual gain. But then so was Lala Hardayal and Aurobindo and so forth at around the same time.
The fact that a 'means to an end'- e.g eating cake to gain nutrition- can become an end in itself- i.e. eating cake for the sake of eating cake- is not beyond anybody's imagination. Islamic alchemy, which influenced Christian esoteric thought, has a notion of 'takwin'- the Supreme Alchemist creates Life. By contrast, the folie a deux of this couple converts everything they hit upon into shit.
After all, our concerns with good and bad actions are determined
by their outcomes, not
according to the distinctions we entertain between means and ends;
We can easily demarcate 'means' from 'ends'. But this does not tell us whether the means or the ends are good or bad. Only our expectations re. the outcomes they lead to make this determination.
This stupid couple think there is some formula
'in the ratio between the given means and ends' which enable 'men (to) determine the best action there is.'
This is crazy shit. Suppose the end I am aiming at is 'to provide food and drink for a dinner party'. All the shopping and cooking and table setting I do is a means to the end. If I start eating and drinking before the guests arrive- though one 'end' of the party is served- there is a danger that there will be no fucking party coz I'll be drunk off my head and all the food would have been burnt to a crisp.
What the fuck are these cretins getting at? 'Golden path' savings rates? Surely that type of shite isn't taught anymore even in Marxist shithole Econ Depts in India?
The abandonment of mankind, for Gandhi, is effected by the illusion of polynomia. The abandonment of man is his freedom, contrary to the binding of man to the Maker’s Law – “Bond means bandhan.” The man in abandonment is the observer of the convertibility of means by other means, ends by ends, a means for an end, and an end for a means.
But everybody sees that 'means'- e.g. money- is converted into 'ends'- e.g. a nice slice of cake- all the time. Furthermore, a polynomial is merely an abstraction and thus is known to be an 'illusion'. Why make such heavy weather of things? Everybody knows that they have a nose on their face. Why drag alchemy and polynomia and so forth into the matter? This is not even pseudo profundity. It is naked stupidity.
We found that Gandhi’s exasperation with language, that one word can mean several things and the same meaning can be conveyed through several words, reflects the acknowledgement of the conflict between polynomia and calypsology.
So the conflict between two meaningless words arises out of the fact that words can mean anything you like and any meaning whatsoever can be conveyed, if that is your intention, by any form of words...or sequence of derisive farts.
In this sense, the arts are a game of un-truth.
like farts or marts or tarts. The un-truths of games are the arts of this sense. This sense of untruth is the art of its own game. One can go on mechanically churning out equally meaningless, pseudo-philosophical shite.
That is, they extend polynomia to newer limits with each instance.
Each instance of newer limits extends polynomia to the 'that' that 'is'- it is this novel detournement on the Upanishadic mahavakya 'tat tvam asi' which skidmarks Gandhi's gandhi chaddi with the calypsology of polynomia under conditions of increasingly populist hegemonic neo-liberalism.
Had Rohith Vemula not topped himself, this is the sort of shite he'd have been writing. Carl Sagan would have been so proud.
Just as Gandhi would remark on the difference between absolute truth and relative truth, he would also practise the relative telling of truth.
He was a politician. He lied his arse off.
We found that certain truths have unwelcome consequences, even if their telling is the right means, which should ensure a right end, although it may not be apparent.
e.g youse guys saying- we are as stupid as shit. This book is crap. Only a couple of senile French assholes will be taken in.
Even then the passive resister, who is the adherent of Truth, shall tell it at all times – “A devotee of Truth cannot stop to consider if someone will not be injured by his telling the truth, for he believes that truth can never do harm.”
These two cretins are taking the quotation out of context. What Gandhi said was
There cannot be a vow to commit a sin; in the case of a vow, first thought to be meritorious but later found to be sinful, there arises a clear necessity to give it up. But no one takes, or ought to take, vows about dubious matters. Vows can be taken only on points of universally recognized principles.We shall take an example from Kant and set it to work under distinct parameters of a man who took refuge from his pursuers in a hospital.
This is bad English. It seems St. Stephens turned to shit some twenty years ago.
Let’s assume that it was in Nazi Germany, the man who was seeking refuge was a Jewish activist, and the hospital was manned by “native German” doctors. The imperative which commands the doctor is that he shall save all lives without discrimination.
This is false. Have these guys never heard of Dr. Mengele? Perhaps they mean 'the imperative which should have commanded', but that's not what they say.
The primum mobile of imperatives for Kant was that one shall tell the truth at all times.
Nonsense! Kant merely said that no legal action can be taken against you if you told the truth when legally required to do so. On the other hand, you would be held legally accountable for a lie no matter how noble your intentions. The corollary is that there is no metaphysical duty to propagate a 'noble lie'. The metaphysics of morals can proceed without bothering with consequentialist considerations. Obviously, if you are legislating for yourself, you stipulate that your own truthfulness can't be a transgression- no matter what its effect might be.
It is a separate matter that such legislation is onanistic.
The moral value of an imperative is established through a logical examination;
Fuck off! Moral value is established through a moral, not logical, examination.
if an imperative is partial, such as truth telling, it results in the conditions where one is unable to practise it
Fuck off! I've got an imperative to go the loo. But it is partial. I only need to do number one, not number two. Will I be unable to piss? Sure, according to these two fuckwits.
– the partial telling of truth will encourage men to not trust any statement at all,
Which is howcome human beings don't use language to communicate. Partial truth telling causes us to distrust any type of communication.
and if all men were to tell the truth at all times it would establish the faith in the speech of men.
Yet, it is clear that 'faith in the speech of men' exists. That's how come we have such a sophisticated economy. But no man tells the truth at all times. The thing would be a nuisance.
The imperative to tell the truth will, then, establish a society which will require the least policing;
Nonsense! If people did not constantly, with great honesty, say they want to fuck you up got good, you would not be constantly ringing 911. At least that was my experience when I lived with my parents.
the relation between truth by brute force – policing – and continuous and voluntary truth telling was to be one of the pillars of Gandhi’s ideal state of Hind Swaraj...
The police were constantly arresting Gandhi and his groupies because they were continuously and voluntarily confessing to seditious intentions. But British Jails were not mentioned as one of the 'ideal' features of that shithead's pataphysical 'Hind Swaraj'.
The doctor in the German hospital is obliged to deliver the Jewish activist over to the Nazis, while knowing that his truthfulness will kill a man.
Kant merely says that doing what the Law requires won't get you in trouble with the law. German doctors who didn't hand over Jews probably did run some risk. But the thing was a double-edged sword. What if Hitler lost? Then that Jew might be avenged upon your sorry ass.
The Jewish activist hiding in the hospital is himself obliged to tell the truth, and reveal himself before his SS pursuers.
Not according to Kant. However, if that Jew wants to 'legislate' for himself, he shouldn't lie to himself on the grounds that he did it to the SS. That would be silly. But then Mohan & Dwiwedi are engaged in a dadaist exercise. Silliness is par for the course.
Gandhi’s own thoughts about the Jewish people in 1938 are difficult to grasp – “The Jews are not angels.” Gandhi’s advisories to the Jewish people, threatened with annihilation, are not surprising:“The calculated violence of Hitler may even result in a general massacre of the Jews by way of his first answer to the declaration of such hostilities. But if the Jewish mind could be prepared for voluntary suffering, even the massacre I have imagined could be turned into a day of thanksgiving and joy that Jehovah had wrought deliverance of the race even at the hands of the tyrant. For to the godfearing, death has no terror.”
Because they'd all get to go to Heaven. Gandhi's thought is easy to grasp. If you believe doing stupid shit will get you an eternity of felicity, do do that doodoo so God work that voodoo he do so well.
The sense of truth in this occasion concerns not merely a thought or a statement but rather the exposure of oneself to the brute force which seeks one’s own destruction. That is, when the Jewish activist tells the truth and submits himself before his captors, he identifies himself before the Nazis according to the Nazi criteria of being a Jew, and receives the fate reserved for the Jewish people in Nazi Germany. Gandhi appears to contradict himself in this case, since the truth to which man ought to expose himself, and the truth of man which will thus be exposed, are in accordance with the Laws of the Maker, whereas, the Nazi laws are still man-made.
There is no contradiction if you accept Occasionalism. God makes the Nazis enforce a bad law so they can burn for all eternity while the Chosen People obey it so they can relish immortal bliss.
Yet, in another sense the calamitous exposure to the truth held by the Nazis would remain a mediate exposure of the Jewish people to the thousand suns of the Maker.
Not in another, but the same sense. Life in this world is brief. Let it go. Heaven is the only real happening place.
This leads us to the tonal centre of Truth – exposure and concealment.
No it doesn't. Truth is truth. It isn't Music. It does not have a 'tonal center'. But the 'tonic' is neither exposed nor concealed. Generally speaking it is where the piece of music begins and to which it returns. On the other hand, one does to expose and conceal one's dick depending on whether you need to urinate or not. It may be that Mohan has suffered the inconvenience of thousands of Jewish people being led to his dick by mediate exposure to the thousand suns of the Maker or the myriad buns of the Shaker or the gazillions guns of the Quaker or some other such shit. I deeply sympathize with is predicament. The only sort of Jew who might be interested in my baby dick is a mohel hired to snip off the foreskin.
Truth is that which remains concealed,
from this pair of knobheads
and man ought to expose all the hidden markers of Truth, His Law.
Wave your circumcised dick about! That will cause calypsology to fuck off, sho' nuff.
Truth is also that which brings about suffering;
No. Through Suffering, Wisdom may be attained. It is not the 'Revelation', the rending of the veil, which is apocalyptic. Rather it is one's previous commitments or conatus. Had Oedipus not been bound by a previous vow, learning the Truth he could have said, 'Cool! I fucked my Mom and killed my Dad! I'm like Zeus, baby!'
if one obtains truth without suffering, it is not worthy of being called by that name.
Said nobody ever. Aeschylus wasn't saying 'guys, my plays are shit. If you sit through them you will want to tear your own eyes out just to alleviate your boredom'. On the contrary. The fucker used to go around telling everybody his plays rocked.
Truth is like a b.j from your wife. Great if it comes gratis but, we are obliged to pretend, also something of sufficient present value to put up with her shit. Thank God, she doesn't put anal on the menu or promise to go ass to mouth. Or maybe she does in your age-bracket. In mine, b.js are still thought of as a birthday treat. Unless you lose your job and artificial respiration once again becomes necessary. But, death would be preferable.
We identify a proportional articulation here
No you don't. You articulate a prolapsed rectum, dear.
– in direct proportion to the exposure there is suffering, and in direct proportion to un-truth there is liveable life.
You are saying- 'Truth hurts! Lies make everything better'. That's not Aeschylus. That's fucking Tennessee Williams! After Blanche was carted away to the nuthouse, Williams told Gore Vidal, she married a wealthy and aristocratic Chief Psychiatrist and established a Literary Salon for non-kike Fugitives in the French Quarter.
This proportional articulation determines the movements of the Gandhian ascetic; he is scorched and baked in the thousand suns of Truth into the hardest terracotta figurine, which will endure forever.
The Gandhian ascetic, like Aurobindo, or Hardayal, wasn't actually ascetic at all. A wife or 'Divine Mother' ran the household. Not fucking isn't 'ascetic'. It's a choice. So is dressing up like a Yogi or whatever. India has strict codes for ascetics. Aurobindo might qualify- after all he did give up cigars and brandy- but Gandhi and Hardayal fail. Compared to what Savarkar or Bhai Parmanand went through, neither suffered shit.
Gandhi needed more and more money for his money pit schemes and, okay, he turned into a marionette or just a fucking statue or whatever. So what? He was a slot machine which paid out for at least some of those who most fed him coin.
It is this mode of suffering, of offering the vulnerability of themselves before the Nazi machinery of genocide, which Gandhi proposed to the Jewish people – to expose oneself to annihilation in order that one is conjoined to absolute truth. In their own annihilation the Jewish people were to have the non-experience of Absolute Truth – “a joyful sleep”.
If a Christian or a Muslim writes this type of shite, there could be a deep ecumenicism- rather than literary pretentiousness and shallowness of mind- at work here. Why? The 'Shoah' is recognized as 'Holocaust'. The Jew is accepted as a common pharmakos or korban. But when this shite pair of Stephanian illiterates do it, the effect is pure pataphysics.
Why? For Hindus, this world is one we share with Mleccha only coz of some previous life sin. Like Gandhi, we iz outta here like Otter beer- tastier than Tarka's twat but diuretic- so see you never losers!
Lala Har Dayal was considered a very brilliant Stephanian. C.F Andrews was associated with that suppurating anus which has shat out Zia ul Haq, Mani Shankar Aiyar, Shashi Tharoor, and now this pair of clowns.
There was a time when Stephanians, like Mayo boys, knew their place. They were stupid but well enough bred to know their place epistemically speaking. Now Stephanians are just vulgar. Sad.
P.S.- why do these guys refer to Joseph Alter as John? Is it coz they use the fellow as a toilet? Clearly, Modiji has not really ended open defecation as he promised. Army should take action.
No comments:
Post a Comment