Showing posts with label EZE. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EZE. Show all posts
Monday, March 24, 2025
Sunday, March 23, 2025
Skepticism as Asemics / EZE, 2025
Skepticism acknowledges the incomplete and the disconnected, but skepticism does not necessarily offer another path, i.e., another means, i.e., another solution, to the path it has thrown into question. Indeed, at one extreme, skepticism might just force us to let go of an issue entirely, and at the another extreme, skepticism might (at least, seemingly) throw the entire world into question. Yet when it draws our attention to the tenuousness of our connections, skepticism may help us acknowledge the cul de sac. But by calling a matter into question, skepticism forces us to suspend belief and in so doing, also give us a means to investigate the matter at hand. Such is asemics.
Political Skepticism
Friday, March 21, 2025
Thursday, March 20, 2025
Sunday, March 16, 2025
Saturday, March 15, 2025
Escher Asemics / EZE, 2025
Escher
Asemics as Impossibility
Escher Sentence
Waterfall
Belvedere
Ascending and Descending
Friday, March 14, 2025
Sunday, March 9, 2025
Saturday, March 8, 2025
Tuesday, March 4, 2025
Sunday, March 2, 2025
An Asemics of Science / EZE, 2025
Science for the Public
The Problem of Teleology
History of Science
Happy Accidents
Asemics
Limitations
Funding for Science, Historically
Asia
Europe
Great Britain
United States
Saturday, March 1, 2025
Friday, February 28, 2025
Asemics as the Value of Sacrifice and of Sentiment / EZE, 2025
Asemics as the Value of Sacrifice and of Sentiment
1) The first principle of a rationalist theory of value currently in play follows Ayn Rand and Objectivist philosophy, and it is fundamental to creating asemics: Deny sacrifice, especially, self-sacrifice, as meaningful. Note that meaning here plays to a context of rationality. The self-sacrifice, this irrational act, becomes the asemic.
2) Enact a business model to interpret human behavior as rational or not. For example, enact a business model to manage the legal system. Everything thereby tends to become negotiable whether it is or not. The not becomes the asemic. Rule of law passes to the bid. Justice passes to the aggressor.
3) Develop a categorical imperative that divides the world into winners and losers. Losers are those people who have sacrificed themselves for a claim of a good of some sort. Servants are losers who work for the common good. Winners are those people who serve their self-interest, i.e., their own ends. The losers are the asemic, and the winners have meaning, at least of the photo opportunity sort.
4) In contradistinction to Ayn Rand, who was atheist, re-make religion, especially Christianity, as a means to a different end. For example, re-make Christianity as a Prosperity Gospel as the end desired of this religion is something other than self-sacrifice. Such a re-make, of course, also destroys the religion.
5) Consider loss and the like as something akin to an insurance claim where insurance has no value for sentiment, which thereby becomes asemic, and the pay-out for the claim is replacement value, asemic value excluded. But what potential does this asemic value then acquire? politically, socially, ... otherwise?
6) Preserve the asemic in emojis, but look to the icon of the negotiation table as that which remains of shared meaning among communities otherwise a-communal.
Links
Wednesday, February 26, 2025
An Asemics of Steven Pinker / EZE, 2025
Language as an Experience of Sense and of Affect
- Imagine Language as an Experience of Language
- Imagine Language on the Way to Meaning ~ Imagine Language on the Way to a Question of Language
- As [__________] Called into Question, imagine Asemics as a Question of Affect (or Lack Thereof) in Relation to a Sense of [*]
Pinker
Other than Pinker
Tuesday, February 25, 2025
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)