Quote:
No. What would that even mean?
This is a good example of a mode which I see as a kind of problem. How can you be sure of your answer if you don't know what it would mean? Could you answer this question (the last), rather than asking another loaded question? Do you not see a contradiction between the assertion "no" and the following question? You seem to claim knowledge as ignorance, or ignorance as knowledge.
Let me start at the beginning. The problem I am having is that you do not acknowledge form in any sense, yet somehow still find yourself in the trajectory of philosophical discussion on forms. Perhaps "I don't know I don't know" is reasonable, but it relies on some ostensible form, if only the linguistic signifier "form" to find involvement in the discussion. What is it precisely that "you don't know"? I would say it is form or knowledge.
A temporary or conventional understanding of something must precede its regress, to make that regress seen or public. I think you take for granted the show, the formal trappings of philosophy that you are so accustomed to. Time after time you might imagine that you "find yourself involved" with these petty forms, but really you are consciously involving yourself in their discussion on forms, and insomuch at least seeking ostensible form.
So much as to say, that this has become a formal process of questioning. This is what you are so sure of - the question .
I'd say you have formalized the question, based upon the longstanding and present convention of philosophy that is privilege the question. You seem to expect a red carpeted entrance of the question, as certain privilege, and your implication into the discussion is no less authoritative as the ordinary explicit assertion of contrary knowledge.
In itself, "I don't know I don't know" does not have any virility of its own, as basic ignorance. This is why I am indicating that your questioning only seems "passive", but is an implicit expression of power itself, based on the circumstantial ground you stand upon, as you raise the question. This is the context of forms you involve yourself in.
I am pointing out the contradiction of your "passive ignorance" with the virility of the forms it assumes - its questioning, and more basically its pointing toward ostensible forms ("forms"). That is its trajectory. The fact that "you don't know you don't know...", this momentum derived of ostensible form, doesn't account for your involvement, but by your privileged manner of implication, the question seems to suffice as the "mere" trajectory of philosophy.
You can follow this trajectory in the voice of the question. Imagine your voice rising, assuming the musical quality, as it climbs upward to raise a question. Is this really passive and non-imposing? Or is it possible that the question could just seem passive and non-imposing based on its reaction to what is explicit, as a declarative statement? What is the difference?
(.) (?)
Look at the symbol of the question mark, based on a period, with its symbol rising, and curving over to drop down on the ordinary position.
Here you can see that under the question mark, there is the similar mark which is seemingly no different, than the mark of an explicit declaration.
Perhaps you can imagine how the question may be a defensive tactic - in that sense, it holds certain territory and is fundamentally an expression of power.
Here I will make my way back to my own explicit assertion:
You question form, and form is what you question. Do you imagine that form is actually separate from your questioning of form? Ultimately it isn't. The question is based on an ostensible form or knowledge that precedes it.
You are well aware that the convention of philosophy is based on dialectics, where it is often the case that someone else presents the ostensible form, to which you may apply your method of questioning. This is the illusion of your separation. Forgive my speculation, but I suspect you are just too used to this form of debate. It is apparent that the question is a form in itself, to which you seem to have become quite sure of.
You are used to riding other peoples waves of form, and watching them crash on the beach and pointing this out. Here though, I think you are attempting to make your own wave and then ride it out. Nihilism has many points of detraction, but I am pointing out that it is nihilism in view of the disposition you hold, in contradiction of its own form.
Quote:
if everyone on earth confessed that they didn't know anything, no one would have a reason to kill anyone, or hate anyone, or prefer some people over other people.
Here it is explicit. You assert this questionable nature in paradox of itself. But you cannot make such assertions about the way things may be, are, or could be, without justifying them with certain forms of convention. As empty as they may be, the world is based on conventions, and your philosophical mode is one of them. You are just so used to standing in the opposition of dialects, that you may not be able to perceive, or may not wish to acknowledge when you are yourself making the waves of form.
Here, you could say I am "questioning the question". But insomuch I am asserting that you must rely on ostensible form to question form...
Here's some fun from Derrida, on "questioning the question":
Edited by daytripper23 (06/12/10 03:59 PM)
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order
daytripper23 
xFrockx 
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
it stars saddam
SkorpivoMusterion
shroomydan
Psilocybeingzz
psycroptic
zorbman
deCypher
PilzeEssen