At my leisure

With the project complete, little more than an essay, I'll be busy with a lot and after another foray into an accumulation of Parkinson's documents whilst gearing up the film life, I'll begin a critical reading of Deleuze and Guattari. My semiontic statement won't be enough for those stranded in DG cosmologies, I can see. There are a lot of problems I can't begin to list with their dealings in matters. They are bigger than Marx, I'd say. And maybe that's the film? In thirty years can they match Derrida or Foucault in aura?
Anyway, I've decided this.

Saying it

I've left a few old posts. Like you see where the wild has taken the wire down. Some work, I can decompress them and don't bleed to death. I guess I aim to update on those (no rewrites, I need see where I've been) and do better. I don't think they ROI of time, besides I've withdrawn into ice as interesting if they do (and again as documenting development). So this is just for any newbies. And do not indulge anything purporting to connect to me on facebook
As near as psy ops by run by excretion of the knigthood system is all it is. Who it is for? Evidently someone so obsessed they expect everyone else to be.

PÉRORANT OUTANG - Freud Stage Mirrors

This began riffing on Lacan's wonderings on the origin of speech, in humanity specifically. I say the nasal bulb. This began and then was lost to matter by signal drop.

Not simply did I want to say something about speech. I wanted to indicate something of Lacan, and I find only Soler truly is sober to this - Lacan doesn't want to go there, and it is not difficult to accept his distrust of science, yet it is difficult to accept how much - Ethics states quite plainly - Lacan deliberately allowed mystery if not was genuinely mystified.

Too much is allowed doxasticity in all, except maybe Soler, I read of from Lacanians. No wonder society is a mere taphonomy. This is especially true of where what is not said as an adherence to Freud is taken so. The same was with Lacan on Lacan, the subject even there is finding its own way, we can observe that and learn to do better.

That Oedipal - we could find another figure - I will need to see Cocteau's a'la Lang version. We could find another figure. Drop the not being as good as the form of woman at the male groin, the topology Dionysian. What can or not a body be made by the subject? From memory - this the Father, no more no less - jouissance can be halted. Additionally the commandment, the superego is feminine - that feminine is the otherside of this human history, this masculine attack on life? I don't know what genders are except the consequences of gendering which render claims of intersubjectivity ridiculous - it would never have happened. The Levi-Strauss whatever... never if the Social Bond is what is made to it by psychoanalysis. The gendering has nothing to do with artifices of its consequences. It just says that we are animals and know, only this works as life works it works in all I'm working here, that sapience (animals have that, sentience is what is stuffed like Bentham) is of one as individual and maybe that others have, potential, the same knowing.

Ok. If the autistic is copying the memory of others? Becoming, in their being, memory (or the Father, well yes, what the get of them the one in that role, no doubt) and they have no sense of death somehow maybe not of their own certainly of others (I don't know). That is the mythical Social Bond is, only ever was and will not change, of death. They do have it, yet they must hide from themselves?
If a certain amount of melancholics are so from absorbing a sibling in the womb then why not autists, a number, are a different response to same? Or even some endocrinal developmental event in the womb? This is if I am getting at the Social Bond anamorphis correctly.
It would be the autistic needs - by forgetting the Social Bond in the way we say it is without saying it is death - fresh anxieties, achievable by using simulcra of memories, to make memory a symptom, so double, tripling etc anxiety for jouissance to be achieved?

I want say everything. People can be unmade of stupid. We can't forget we are - the autist can? - and that's the point of two passes : a subject maybe our fullest capacity for thought; we have to think with analysand success as a fresh stupid?

Much of this  - it is disappointing my first remarks were vanished - begs the question "Where if not vocabulary - because that really doesn't work whatever Lacan said about japanese taken into consideration - as Brenner climbs on is the surround that our holobiont endocrinal semioticised existence still gets troubles from?

It's not the State of Mirroring. Though it is of PROMISE? Religions hang around like ghosts and PROMISE
States or enterprises do the same - a Lacanian can promise nothing, we don't know - and the key matter is that need to believe. That doesn't need words, does it?

Rather than indulge in defining what I say with the word belief - it owes something to Davidson, you have noted my remarks or haven't - I, like Derrida, have wondered on death. I began, many years before I gave a thought to thought, curious as to where the expectations placed on the dead grew, the similarities and diversities.
That'll do for now.

Switch

Yes. That I have switched around the postulated narrative position. Of course, maybe this is a switching, and needs comparison to clinic in Lacanian - I'm not quite a'la mode. Absolutely not for testing at the early life. I find a lot of that "science" abhorrent, unconsentable, invasive. One only has to note Pinker, S to consider the level of stupid.

MetaEthic description or WorldWriting sketch

The trouble is the psychopath (biological) whose fantasy (that they do not have without thorough examination) exists as an act - a peculiar cheat - that supports the far worse sociopathy. The failure throughout them is to grant others a life outside their own - they are making others rent rooms in their heads to their troubles, yet claim moral superiority simply for paying up (we see this in findom - there are no doubt many endings only few are privy to the facts of).

I have avoided sociopathy and can treat my spleen to avoid the strike of the riboflavin drop when angered. The precision of thought, no doubt habituated over decades yet often demeured, avoided for not simply the consequences but from a learning of life, of chance deserved. I know my simple fantasy - film-making I can do among other pursuits - is that of composing, recording, music. I get that it belongs as a daydream, I have tried though the sheer shutting off of all else is not in my skillset - well, chance does deliver proof of talent and maybe I'll get down to it, move another fantasy into play? This is not of my objet a and all. That is simply abstracting space visually and the all is of sleep.

So we have these failures, tangled in living fantasy, only alive for moral superiority; until the expected great reveal of death, we can suppose (in hell they would not be good company) they expect an afterlife?

What we judge on them is not from the morality surround that doubtless inspires their gambit, which they fear and expect we may act from against them. We judge them on the pathetic cheap thrill that feeds them at the expense of other lives that are left to attempt survival in that morality surround. That they would destroy, with growing abandon, all fantasized threats yet not their cheap thrill (which is of set of many in the mismanaged concepts of the Oedipal, at least that is where we would begin an analysis I suggest) which began as some rite of identity - not in "genes" - that arrives in idioms, vernacular, the colloquial - for we all make flesh animal without the human by the human, sublime, skill of total inattention to Time?

As I can attest the greatest threat to achieving a difference is physical illness. Again the moral surround will determine of those similar by several different approximations the same cause - not demons or a god's sentencing (it is, of course, in literal sentencing several and different) but genes. And that in this time is their god-like sentence on others.

It may be they can only test their own death and with better wishes than the posthumous reveal should they achieve their deepest move for freedom? This is a better alternative the slow fracture, the taphonomy of their motives preserved for as long as civilisation obtains?

The vastest difficulty is the habituation to sadism - for want a better term - that in this long grief is exercised at persons from the fantasy of "genes". I subscribe to a holobiontia, a epigenetically derived starting point that determines nothing that can be called personality or identity. It only determines abstract sensitivities that are - by lights of Arrival of the Fittest - avenues to change by choice. It is, perhaps, our greatest obstacle that we depend on speech to the detriment of improving our animal humanity.

This is a predicament that is not infrequent, yet frequently unapprehended. I was not going to press a philosophical shape to the description. That is quite another text.

I think this a worthwhile accompaniment:
https://youtu.be/YiivnaT9V28