first bad stab at styles

3 files changed, 54 insertions, 38 deletions

diff --git a/aux.otx b/aux.otx
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..33cf24d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/aux.otx
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+\def\blankstyle{
+    \headline={}
+    \footline={}}
+
+\def\frontmatterstyle{
+    \headline={}
+    \footline={\_hss\rmfixed \romannumeral\_folio \_hss}}
+
+
+\def\essaytitle#1{\ul{#1}}
+
+% --- strikeouts
+% --- TODO this should be moved into sal.otx probably
+\def\cancel#1#{\isempty{#1}\iftrue \afterfi{\cancel/}
+   \else
+      \lowercase{\casesof #1}
+        /  {\let\cancline=\drawFslash}
+        \\ {\let\cancline=\drawBslash}
+        x  {\def\cancline{\drawBslash\drawFslash}}
+        -  {\let\cancline=\drawHline}
+        \_finc {}%
+      \ea\cancelA
+   \fi
+}
+\def\cancelA{\ifmmode \ea\cancelM \else \ea\cancelT \fi}
+\def\cancelT#1{\setbox0=\hbox{#1}\cancelF} % text mode
+\def\cancelM#1{\mathstyles{\setbox0=\hbox{$\currstyle#1$}\cancelF}} % math mode
+\def\cancelF{\edef\tmp{\cancline}\quitvmode\box0 \pdfliteral{q \useit{\cancelparams} \tmp S Q}}
+\def\drawFslash{\bp{-\wd0} \bp{-\dp0} m 0 \bp{\ht0} l } % forward slash
+\def\drawBslash{\bp{-\wd0} \bp{\ht0} m 0 \bp{-\dp0} l } % backward slash
+\def\drawHline {\bp{-\wd0} \bp{.5ex} m 0 \bp{.5ex} l }  % horizontal line
+\def\cancelparams{1 0 0 RG 1 J .6 w} % color RG linetype J linewidth w
+% ---------
+
+\typosize[10/13]
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/blueprint.otx b/blueprint.otx
index ed415c3..cccc22c 100644
--- a/blueprint.otx
+++ b/blueprint.otx
@@ -1,6 +1,8 @@
 \input sal.otx
+\input aux.otx
 \margins/2 fold (0.75,0.5,0.3,0.3)in
 
+\fontfam[Latin Modern]
 \def\speech#1{\e{#1}} % ?
 
 % \newcommand\essaytitle{\uline}
@@ -14,29 +16,6 @@
 \def\greater{>}
 \def\less{<}
 
-
-% --- strikeouts
-% --- TODO this should be moved into sal.otx probably
-\def\cancel#1#{\isempty{#1}\iftrue \afterfi{\cancel/}
-   \else
-      \lowercase{\casesof #1}
-        /  {\let\cancline=\drawFslash}
-        \\ {\let\cancline=\drawBslash}
-        x  {\def\cancline{\drawBslash\drawFslash}}
-        -  {\let\cancline=\drawHline}
-        \_finc {}%
-      \ea\cancelA
-   \fi
-}
-\def\cancelA{\ifmmode \ea\cancelM \else \ea\cancelT \fi}
-\def\cancelT#1{\setbox0=\hbox{#1}\cancelF} % text mode
-\def\cancelM#1{\mathstyles{\setbox0=\hbox{$\currstyle#1$}\cancelF}} % math mode
-\def\cancelF{\edef\tmp{\cancline}\quitvmode\box0 \pdfliteral{q \useit{\cancelparams} \tmp S Q}}
-\def\drawFslash{\bp{-\wd0} \bp{-\dp0} m 0 \bp{\ht0} l } % forward slash
-\def\drawBslash{\bp{-\wd0} \bp{\ht0} m 0 \bp{-\dp0} l } % backward slash
-\def\drawHline {\bp{-\wd0} \bp{.5ex} m 0 \bp{.5ex} l }  % horizontal line
-\def\cancelparams{1 0 0 RG 1 J .6 w} % color RG linetype J linewidth w
-% ---------
 \def\redact#1{\cancel-{#1}}
 
 \def\stress#1{{\bf #1}}
@@ -75,6 +54,7 @@
 \picdir={img/}
 
 % ... blank headers, footers, folios
+\blankstyle
 
 % Title
 {
@@ -99,8 +79,9 @@ colophon goes here
 
 \break
 % ... folios to roman numerals
+\frontmatterstyle
 
-% \input{essays/introduction.tex}
+\input essays/introduction.otx
 % \input{essays/sal_introduction.tex}
 
 \break
diff --git a/essays/introduction.tex b/essays/introduction.otx
index 70f00ea..8d8a524 100644
--- a/essays/introduction.tex
+++ b/essays/introduction.otx
@@ -1,25 +1,25 @@
-\chapter{Introduction}
+\chap Introduction
 
 This essay is the third in a series on the rationale of my career. It summarizes the results of my activities, the consistent outlook on a whole range of questions which I have developed. The first essay, \essaytitle{On Social Recognition}, noted that the official social philosophy of practically every regime in the world says that the individual has a duty to serve society to the best of his abilities. Social recognition is supposed to be the reward which indicates that the individual is indeed serving society. Now it happens that the most important tasks the individual can undertake are tasks (intellectual, political, and otherwise) posed by society. However, when the individual undertakes such tasks, society's actual response is almost always persecution (Galileo) or indifference (Mendel). Thus, the doctrine that the individual has a duty to serve society is a hypocritical fraud. I reject every social philosophy which contains this doctrine. The rational individual will obtain the means of subsistence by the most efficient swindle he can find. Beyond this, he will undertake the most important tasks posed by society for his own private gratification. He will not attempt to benefit society, or to gain the recognition which would necessarily result if society were to utilize his achievements. 
 
 The second essay, \essaytitle{Creep}, discussed the practices of isolating oneself; carefully controlling one's intake of ideas and influences from outside; and playing as a child does. I originally saw these practices as the effects of certain personality problems. However, it now seems that they are actually needed for the intellectual approach which I have developed. They may be desirable in themselves, rather than being mere effects of personality problems. 
 
-I chose fundamental philosophy as my primary subject of investigation. Society presses me to accept all sorts of beliefs. At one time it would have pressed me to believe that the earth was flat; then it reversed itself and demanded that I believe the earth is round. The majority of Americans still consider it \enquote{necessary} to believe in God; but the Soviet government has managed to function for decades with an atheistic philosophy. Thus, which beliefs should I accept? My analysis is presented in writings entitled \essaytitle{Philosophy Proper}, \essaytitle{The Flaws Underlying Beliefs}, and \essaytitle{Philosophical Aspects of Walking Through Walls}. The question of whether a given belief is valid depends on the issue of whether there is a realm beyond my \enquote{immediate experience.} Does the Empire State Building continue to exist even when I am not looking at it? If such a question can be asked, there must indeed be a realm beyond my experience, because otherwise the phrase \enquote{a realm beyond my experience} could not have any meaning. (Russell's theory of descriptions does not apply in this case.) But if the assertion that there is a realm beyond my experience is true merely because it is meaningful, it cannot be substantive; it must be a definitional trick. In general, beliefs depend on the assertion of the existence of a realm beyond my experience, an assertion which is nonsubstantive. Thus, beliefs are nonsubstantive or meaningless; they are definitional tricks. Psychologically, when I believe that the Empire State Building exists even though I am not looking at it, I imagine the Empire State Building, and I have the attitude toward this mental picture that it is a perception rather than a mental picture. The attitude involved is a self-deceiving psychological trick which corresponds to the definitional trick in the belief assertion. The conclusion is that all beliefs are inconsistent or self-deceiving. It would be beside the point to doubt beliefs, because whatever their connotations may be, logically beliefs are nonsense, and their negations are nonsense also. 
+I chose fundamental philosophy as my primary subject of investigation. Society presses me to accept all sorts of beliefs. At one time it would have pressed me to believe that the earth was flat; then it reversed itself and demanded that I believe the earth is round. The majority of Americans still consider it \dq{necessary} to believe in God; but the Soviet government has managed to function for decades with an atheistic philosophy. Thus, which beliefs should I accept? My analysis is presented in writings entitled \essaytitle{Philosophy Proper}, \essaytitle{The Flaws Underlying Beliefs}, and \essaytitle{Philosophical Aspects of Walking Through Walls}. The question of whether a given belief is valid depends on the issue of whether there is a realm beyond my \dq{immediate experience.} Does the Empire State Building continue to exist even when I am not looking at it? If such a question can be asked, there must indeed be a realm beyond my experience, because otherwise the phrase \dq{a realm beyond my experience} could not have any meaning. (Russell's theory of descriptions does not apply in this case.) But if the assertion that there is a realm beyond my experience is true merely because it is meaningful, it cannot be substantive; it must be a definitional trick. In general, beliefs depend on the assertion of the existence of a realm beyond my experience, an assertion which is nonsubstantive. Thus, beliefs are nonsubstantive or meaningless; they are definitional tricks. Psychologically, when I believe that the Empire State Building exists even though I am not looking at it, I imagine the Empire State Building, and I have the attitude toward this mental picture that it is a perception rather than a mental picture. The attitude involved is a self-deceiving psychological trick which corresponds to the definitional trick in the belief assertion. The conclusion is that all beliefs are inconsistent or self-deceiving. It would be beside the point to doubt beliefs, because whatever their connotations may be, logically beliefs are nonsense, and their negations are nonsense also. 
 
 The important consequence of my philosophy is the rejection of truth as an intellectual modality. I conclude that an intellectual activity's claim to have objective value should not depend on whether it is true; and also that an activity may perfectly well employ false statements and still have objective value. I have developed activities which use mental capabilities that are excluded by a truth-oriented approach: descriptions of imaginary phenomena, the deliberate adoption of false expectations, the thinking of contradictions, and meanings which are reversed by the reader's mental reactions; as well as illusions, the deliberate suspension of normal beliefs, and phrases whose meaning is stipulated to be the associations they evoke. It must be clear that these activities are not in any way whatever a return to pre-scientific irrationalism. My philosophy demolishes astrology even more than it does astronomy. The irrationalist is out to deceive you; he wants you to believe that his superstitions are truths. My activities, on the other hand, explicitly state that they are using non-true material. My intent is not to get you to believe that superstitions are truths, but to exploit non-true material for rational purposes. 
 
-The other initial subject of investigation I chose was art. The art which claims to have cognitive value is already demolished by my philosophical results. However, art at its most distinctive does not need to claim cognitive value; its value is claimed to be entertainmental or amusemental. What about art whose justification is simply that people like it? Consider things which are just liked, or whose value is purely subjective. I point out that each individual already has experiences, prior to art, whose value is purely subjective. (Call these experiences \term{brend.}) The difference between brend and art is that in art, the thing valued is separated from the valuing of it and turned into an object which is urged on other people. Individuals tend to overlook their brend, and they do so because of the same factors which perpetuate art. These factors include the relation between the socialization of the individual and the need for an escape from work. The conditioning which causes one to venerate \enquote{great art} is also a conditioning to dismiss one's own brend. If one can become aware of one's brend without the distortion produced by this conditioning, one finds that one's brend is superior to any art, because it has a level of personalization and originality which completely transcends art. 
+The other initial subject of investigation I chose was art. The art which claims to have cognitive value is already demolished by my philosophical results. However, art at its most distinctive does not need to claim cognitive value; its value is claimed to be entertainmental or amusemental. What about art whose justification is simply that people like it? Consider things which are just liked, or whose value is purely subjective. I point out that each individual already has experiences, prior to art, whose value is purely subjective. (Call these experiences \term{brend.}) The difference between brend and art is that in art, the thing valued is separated from the valuing of it and turned into an object which is urged on other people. Individuals tend to overlook their brend, and they do so because of the same factors which perpetuate art. These factors include the relation between the socialization of the individual and the need for an escape from work. The conditioning which causes one to venerate \dq{great art} is also a conditioning to dismiss one's own brend. If one can become aware of one's brend without the distortion produced by this conditioning, one finds that one's brend is superior to any art, because it has a level of personalization and originality which completely transcends art. 
 
 Thus, I reject art as an intellectual or cultural modality. In rejecting truth, I advocated in its place intellectual activities which have an objective value independent of truth. In rejecting art, I do not propose that it be replaced with any objective activity at all. Rather, I advocate that the individual become aware of his just-likings for what they are, and allow them to come out. If I succeed in getting the individual to recognize his own just-likings, then I will have given him infinitely more than any artist ever can. 
 
-We are not finished with art, however. Ever since art began to disintegrate as an institution, modern art has become more and more of a repository for activities which represent pure waste, but which counterfeit innovation and objective value. A two-way process is involved here. On the one hand, the modern artist, faced with the increasing gratuitousness of his profession, desperately incorporates superficial references to science in his products in the hope of intimidating his audience. On the other hand, art itself has become an institution which invests waste with legitimacy and even prestige; and it offers instant rewards to people who wish to play the game. What is innovation in modern art? You take a poem by Shelly, cut it up into little pieces, shake the pieces up in a box, then draw them out and write down whatever is on them in the order in which they are drawn. If you call the result a \enquote{modern poem,} people will suddenly be awed by it, whereas they would not have been awed otherwise. This sort of innovation is utterly mechanical and superficial. When artists incorporate scientific references in their products, the process is similarly a mechanical, superficial amalgamation of routine artistic material with current gadgets. 
+We are not finished with art, however. Ever since art began to disintegrate as an institution, modern art has become more and more of a repository for activities which represent pure waste, but which counterfeit innovation and objective value. A two-way process is involved here. On the one hand, the modern artist, faced with the increasing gratuitousness of his profession, desperately incorporates superficial references to science in his products in the hope of intimidating his audience. On the other hand, art itself has become an institution which invests waste with legitimacy and even prestige; and it offers instant rewards to people who wish to play the game. What is innovation in modern art? You take a poem by Shelly, cut it up into little pieces, shake the pieces up in a box, then draw them out and write down whatever is on them in the order in which they are drawn. If you call the result a \dq{modern poem,} people will suddenly be awed by it, whereas they would not have been awed otherwise. This sort of innovation is utterly mechanical and superficial. When artists incorporate scientific references in their products, the process is similarly a mechanical, superficial amalgamation of routine artistic material with current gadgets. 
 
-Now there may be some confusion as to what the difference is between the products which result from this attempt to \enquote{save} art, and activities in the intellectual modality which I favor. There may be a tendency to confuse activities which are neither science nor art, but have objective value, with art products which are claimed to be \enquote{scientific} and therefore objectively valuable. To dispel this confusion, the following questions may be asked about art products. 
+Now there may be some confusion as to what the difference is between the products which result from this attempt to \dq{save} art, and activities in the intellectual modality which I favor. There may be a tendency to confuse activities which are neither science nor art, but have objective value, with art products which are claimed to be \dq{scientific} and therefore objectively valuable. To dispel this confusion, the following questions may be asked about art products. 
 \vskip 0.5em
-\begin{enumerate}[label=\arabic*., nosep, itemsep=0.5em]
-\item If the product were not called art, would it immediately be seen to be worthless? Does the product rely on artistic institutions to \enquote{carry} it? 
-\item Suppose that the artist claims that his product embodies major scientific discoveries, as in the case of a ballet dancer who claims to be working in the field of antigravity ballet. If the dancer really has an antigravity device, why can it only work in a ballet theater? Why can it only be used to make dancers jump higher? Why do you have to be able to perform \enquote{Swan Lake} in order to do antigravity experiments? 
-\end{enumerate}
+\begitems\style n
+* If the product were not called art, would it immediately be seen to be worthless? Does the product rely on artistic institutions to \dq{carry} it? 
+* Suppose that the artist claims that his product embodies major scientific discoveries, as in the case of a ballet dancer who claims to be working in the field of antigravity ballet. If the dancer really has an antigravity device, why can it only work in a ballet theater? Why can it only be used to make dancers jump higher? Why do you have to be able to perform \dq{Swan Lake} in order to do antigravity experiments? 
+\enditems
 \vskip 0.5em
 To use a phrase from medical research, I contend that a real scientist would seek to isolate the active principle---not to obscure it with non-functional mumbo-jumbo. 
 
@@ -29,16 +29,16 @@ A definition of the intellectual modality which I favor is now in order. Until n
 
 But the defining requirement of the modality is that each activity in it must have objective value. The activity must provide one with something which is useful irrespective of whether one likes it; that is, which is useful independently of whether it produces emotional gratification. 
 
-\slop{We can now consider the following principle---\enquote{spontaneously and without any prompting: to sweep human culture aside and to carry out elaborate, completely self-justifying activities.} Relative to the social context of the individual's activities, this principle is absurd. We have no reason to respect the eccentric hobbyist, or the person who engages in arbitrary antisocial acts. If an action is to have more than merely personal significance, it must have a social justification, as is explained in On Social Recognition. In the light of \essaytitle{The Flaws Underlying Beliefs} and the \term{brend} theory, however, the principle mentioned above does become valid when it is interpreted correctly, because it becomes necessary to invent ends as well as means. The activity must provide an objective value, but this value will no longer be standardized.}
+We can now consider the following principle---\dq{spontaneously and without any prompting: to sweep human culture aside and to carry out elaborate, completely self-justifying activities.} Relative to the social context of the individual's activities, this principle is absurd. We have no reason to respect the eccentric hobbyist, or the person who engages in arbitrary antisocial acts. If an action is to have more than merely personal significance, it must have a social justification, as is explained in On Social Recognition. In the light of \essaytitle{The Flaws Underlying Beliefs} and the \term{brend} theory, however, the principle mentioned above does become valid when it is interpreted correctly, because it becomes necessary to invent ends as well as means. The activity must provide an objective value, but this value will no longer be standardized.
 
-The modality I favor is best exemplified by \essaytitle{Energy Cube Org\-an\-ism}, \essaytitle{Concept Art}, and the \essaytitle{Perception-Dissociator Model}. \essaytitle{Energy Cube Org\-an\-ism} is a perfect example of ideas such that the very possibility of thinking them is a significant phenomenon. It is also a perfect example of an activity which is useful irrespective of whether it provides emotional gratification. It combines the description of imaginary physical phenomena with the thinking of contradictions. It led to \essaytitle{Studies in Constructed Memories}, which in turn led to \essaytitle{The Logic of Admissible Contradictions}. With this last writing, it becomes obvious that the activity has applications outside itself. 
+The modality I favor is best exemplified by \essaytitle{Energy Cube Org\-an\-ism}, \essaytitle{Concept Art}, and the \essaytitle{Perception-Dissociator Model}. \essaytitle{Energy Cube Org\-an\-ism} is a perfect example of ideas such that the very possibility of thinking them is a significant phenomenon. It is also a perfect example of an activity which is useful irrespective of whether it provides emotional gratification. It combines the description of imaginary physical phenomena with the thinking of contradictions. It led to \essaytitle{Studies in Cons\-truc\-ted Memories}, which in turn led to \essaytitle{The Logic of Admissible Contradictions}. With this last writing, it becomes obvious that the activity has applications outside itself. 
 
-\slop{\essaytitle{Concept Art}\footnote{published in \booktitle{An Anthology} ed. LaMonte Young, 1963} uses linguistic expressions which are changed by the reader's mental reactions. It led to \essaytitle{Post-Formalism in Constructed Memories}, and this led in turn to \essaytitle{Subjective Propositional Vibration}.}
+\essaytitle{Concept Art}\footnote{published in \booktitle{An Anthology} ed. LaMonte Young, 1963} uses linguistic expressions which are changed by the reader's mental reactions. It led to \essaytitle{Post-Formalism in Constructed Memories}, and this led in turn to \essaytitle{Subjective Propositional Vibration}.
 
 The \essaytitle{Perception-Dissociator Model}\footnote{published in I-KON, Vol. 1, No. 5} was intended to exploit the realization that humans are the most advanced machines (or technology) that we have. I wanted to build a model of a machine out of humans, using a minimum of non-human props. Further, the machine modelled was to have capabilities which are physically impossible according to present-day science. I still think that the task as I have defined it is an excellent one; but the model does not yet completely accomplish the objective. The present model uses the deliberate suspension of normal beliefs to produce its effects. 
 
-\slop{\essaytitle{Post-Formalism in Constructed Memories} and \essaytitle{Studies in Constructed Memories} together make up \booktitle{Mathematical Studies (1966)}. In this monograph, the emphasis was on extending the idea of mathematics as formalistic games to games involving subjectivity and contradiction. In two subsequent monographs, the material was developed so as to bring out its potential applications in conjunction with science. \essaytitle{Subjective Propositional Vibration} investigates the logical possibilities of expressions which are changed by the reader's mental responses. \essaytitle{The Logic of Admissible Contradictions} starts with the experiences of the logically impossible which we have when we suffer certain perceptual illusions. These illusions enable us to imagine certain logical impossibilities just as clearly as we imagine the logically possible. The monograph models the content of these illusions to obtain a system of logic in which some (but not all) contradictions are \enquote{admissible.} The theory investigates the implications of admitting some contradictions for the admissibility of other contradictions. A theory of many-valued numbers is also presented.}
+\essaytitle{Post-Formalism in Constructed Memories} and \essaytitle{Studies in Constructed Memories} together make up \booktitle{Mathematical Studies (1966)}. In this monograph, the emphasis was on extending the idea of mathematics as formalistic games to games involving subjectivity and contradiction. In two subsequent monographs, the material was developed so as to bring out its potential applications in conjunction with science. \essaytitle{Subjective Propositional Vibration} investigates the logical possibilities of expressions which are changed by the reader's mental responses. \essaytitle{The Logic of Admissible Contradictions} starts with the experiences of the logically impossible which we have when we suffer certain perceptual illusions. These illusions enable us to imagine certain logical impossibilities just as clearly as we imagine the logically possible. The monograph models the content of these illusions to obtain a system of logic in which some (but not all) contradictions are \dq{admissible.} The theory investigates the implications of admitting some contradictions for the admissibility of other contradictions. A theory of many-valued numbers is also presented.
 
-\slop{The \essaytitle{Perception-Dissociator Model} led to \essaytitle{The Perception-Dissociation of Physics.} Again, here is an essay whose significance lies in the very possibility of thinking the ideas at all. The essay defines a change in the pattern of experience which would make it impossible for physicists to \enquote{construct the object from experience.} Finally, \essaytitle{Mock Risk Games} is the activity which involves the deliberate adoption of false expectations. It is on the borderline of the intellectual modality which I favor, because it seems to me to have objective value, and yet has not generated a series of applications as the other activities have.}
+The \essaytitle{Perception-Dissociator Model} led to \essaytitle{The Perception-Dissociation of Physics.} Again, here is an essay whose significance lies in the very possibility of thinking the ideas at all. The essay defines a change in the pattern of experience which would make it impossible for physicists to \dq{construct the object from experience.} Finally, \essaytitle{Mock Risk Games} is the activity which involves the deliberate adoption of false expectations. It is on the borderline of the intellectual modality which I favor, because it seems to me to have objective value, and yet has not generated a series of applications as the other activities have.
 
 To summarize my general outlook, truth and art are discredited. They are replaced by an intellectual modality consisting of non-true activities having objective value, together with each individual's brend. Consider the individual who wishes to go into my intellectual modality. What is the significance to him of the academic world, professional occupations, and the business of scholarships, fellowships, and grants? From the perspective of the most socially important tasks, these institutions have always rewarded the wrong things, as I argued in \essaytitle{On Social Recognition}. But in addition, the institutions as now organized are obstacles specifically to my intellectual modality. In fact, society in general has the effect of a vast conspiracy to prevent one from achieving the kind of consequential intellectual play which I advocate. The categories of thought which are obligatory in the official intellectual world and the media are categories in which my outlook cannot be conceived. And here is where the creep practices mentioned at the beginning of this essay become important. Isolation from society is presumably not inherent in my intellectual modality; but under present social conditions isolation is a prerequisite for its existence. 
\ No newline at end of file