diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'extra')
| -rw-r--r-- | extra/anthology_non_philosophical.tex | 19 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | extra/communists_must.tex | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | extra/general_acognitive_culture.tex | 8 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | extra/misleading_newness.tex | 93 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | extra/repressed_content.tex | 4 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | extra/structure_art_pure_mathematics.tex | 2 |
6 files changed, 64 insertions, 64 deletions
diff --git a/extra/anthology_non_philosophical.tex b/extra/anthology_non_philosophical.tex index 9bd29c7..f9a7d26 100644 --- a/extra/anthology_non_philosophical.tex +++ b/extra/anthology_non_philosophical.tex @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@ -\chapter{Anthology of Non-Philosophical Cultural Works (1961)} - +\chapter[Anthology of Non-Philosophical Cultural Works (1961)][Anthology of Non-Philosophical Cultural Works]{Anthology of Non-Philosophical Cultural Works (1961)} +\pagestyle{salpc} +\setheadrule{0.4pt} \section{Introduction} I cannot include here my essays which discuss at length @@ -21,7 +22,7 @@ stand by themselves. \clearpage -\section{Lingart: Poem 1 (early 1960 / August 1961)} +\section[Lingart: Poem 1 (early 1960/August 1961)][Lingart: Poem 1]{Lingart: Poem 1 (early 1960/August 1961)} {\vskip 2em \centering [Instructions \vskip 2em} Any lines (a line may be repeated) may be read, in any @@ -86,7 +87,7 @@ Monsters prayed in screaming vinegar.\\ Bitter moons were carbon,\\ \clearpage -\section{Audart Composition (May 1961)} +\section[Audart Composition (May 1961)][Audart Composition]{Audart Composition (May 1961)} To experience this composition, one must be alone in a quiet, darkened room. Relax, and accustom oneself to breathing @@ -108,7 +109,7 @@ it is to seize on images as soon as they appear and concentrate to bring them cut. If done properly this should be a very strange experience, \clearpage -\section{Audart: A way of enjoying a Non-Controlled Acoustical Environment (July 1961)} +\section[Audart: A way of enjoying a Non-Controlled Acoustical Environment (July 1961)][Audart: A way of enjoying a Non-Controlled Acoustical Environment]{Audart: A way of enjoying a Non-Controlled Acoustical Environment (July 1961)} Let me distinguish what I will say, for want of better terms, are "highly select sounds", such as popular music and indistinct talking (like a radio in an adjacent room), as @@ -141,7 +142,7 @@ imaginings, and seems to be part of the non-mental environmental sounds, come from the non-mental environment. \clearpage -\section{Strange Culture Description: Instructions Accompanying Two Identity Structure Standards (April--May 1961)} +\section[Strange Culture Description: Instructions Accompanying Two Identity Structure Standards (April--May 1961)][Strange Culture Description: Instructions Accompanying Two Identity Structure Standards]{Strange Culture Description: Instructions Accompanying Two Identity Structure Standards (April--May 1961)} These standards are for determining the type of identity (continuity) structure of an exercise awareness-state in a @@ -184,12 +185,12 @@ that persons who do not know all this or are careless or destructive not be allowed to handle the standards. \clearpage -\section{Concept Art: Work Such That No One Knows What's Going On (July 1961)} +\section[Concept Art: Work Such That No One Knows What's Going On (July 1961)][Concept Art: Work Such That No One Knows What's Going On]{Concept Art: Work Such That No One Knows What's Going On (July 1961)} -[Ono just has to guess whether this work exists and if it does what it is like.] +[One just has to guess whether this work exists and if it does what it is like.] \clearpage -\section{Concept Art: Innperseqs (May--July 1961)} +\section[Concept Art: Innperseqs (May--July 1961)][Concept Art: Innperseqs]{Concept Art: Innperseqs (May--July 1961)} A "halpoint" iff whatever is at any point in space, in the fading rainbow halo which appears to surround a small bright light when one looks at it through glasses fogged by having been breathed on, for as long as the point is in the halo. diff --git a/extra/communists_must.tex b/extra/communists_must.tex index c219166..ac44bb7 100644 --- a/extra/communists_must.tex +++ b/extra/communists_must.tex @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ \newcommand\CF[1]{{\centering \vskip 1em \framebox[1.1\width]{\parbox{3.5in}{\vskip 0.5em #1 \vskip 0.5em}} \par \vskip 1em}} -\titleformat{\section}[wrap]{\normalfont\HUGE\filright}{\itshape\HUGE\thesection}{0.5em}{} +\titleformat{\section}[wrap]{\normalfont\fontsize{50}{60}\filright}{\itshape\thesection}{0.5em}{} \titlespacing{\section}{2em}{2em}{1em} diff --git a/extra/general_acognitive_culture.tex b/extra/general_acognitive_culture.tex index 24aed91..f839e1c 100644 --- a/extra/general_acognitive_culture.tex +++ b/extra/general_acognitive_culture.tex @@ -1,12 +1,12 @@ -\chapter{My New Concept of General Acognitive Culture (1962)} +\chapter[My New Concept of General Acognitive Culture (1962)][My New Concept of General Acognitive Culture]{My New Concept of General Acognitive Culture (1962)} {\itshape [This essay was written c. May 1962 and published in \journaltitle{d\'{e}collage No. 3.} This transcription serves to correct the typographical errors. Footnotes are written in 1992.]} -\plainbreak{2} +\vskip 2em Of the adult (human) activities I discredit explicitly, consider pure mathematics (and structure art and games of intellectual skill), and Serious Culture\slash all art\slash literary culture\slash science fiction\slash music. I show that these activities (as such) should be repudiated. Now humans are likely in any case to resist this radical idea of repudiating these major institutionalized activities; but especially if nothing were to take their place, if the idea were negative only. Even when the activities' Serious Cultural pretensions have been discredited and repudiated, and their obvious confusions of purpose have been noted,\footnote{cf. \essaytitle{Concept Art} on music} humans are likely to be interested in them still, to like them in at least one respect: for their entertainment, recreational value; for their value as \enquote{ends,} in themselves. (And are thus likely to fear that to repudiate these activities without anything's taking their place would be to give up all recreation, doing things \enquote{just for fun,} doing things just liked.) Now this chapter will be first, an analysis of the concept of entertainment, recreation, of doing things just liked, which will criticize the activities even as just entertainment. (And will discredit my own initial notion of \term{acognitive culture,} as not going far enough.) -I discredit these activities, show they should be repudiated, for \enquote{everybody,} adult humans and creeps. Now since I am a creep, my primary constructive concern is to point out something rather than these activities, for creeps: my new concept of \term{creep acognitive culture.} However, I am going to \enquote{do adult humans a favor} in the hope that it will keep them from just changing the discredited activities into something no less wrong and confused, and will encourage them to repudiate the activities. \enquote{Creep acognitive culture} is, to speak generally, a concept of \enquote{recreation} (resulting from analysis of the concept of recreation) for conscious organisms. Part of it is applicable for adult humans (as well as creeps), in replacing the discredited activities for them. I am going to give that general part here, in this book\footnote{This essay was a chapter in a book in early 1962; that book must have become From Culture to Veramusement.}---my new concept of \term{general acognitive culture.} (The specialization for creeps I will give in Creep.) The specialization of this concept for adult humans I will leave to them, since that is their concern. Incidentally, even though generally applicable, the characteristics of general acognitive culture may be reminiscent of creepiness, but they will not in any case embarrass mature adults, which is where I draw the line between the adult human and the really creep. +I discredit these activities, show they should be repudiated, for \enquote{everybody,} adult humans and creeps. Now since I am a creep, my primary constructive concern is to point out something rather than these activities, for creeps: my new concept of \term{creep acognitive culture.} However, I am going to \enquote{do adult humans a favor} in the hope that it will keep them from just changing the discredited activities into something no less wrong and confused, and will encourage them to repudiate the activities. \enquote{Creep acognitive culture} is, to speak generally, a concept of \enquote{recreation} (resulting from analysis of the concept of recreation) for conscious organisms. Part of it is applicable for adult humans (as well as creeps), in replacing the discredited activities for them. I am going to give that general part here, in this book\footnote{This essay was a chapter in a book in early 1962; that book must have become From Culture to Veramusement.}---my new concept of \term{general acognitive culture.} (The specialization for creeps I will give in \essaytitle{Creep}.) The specialization of this concept for adult humans I will leave to them, since that is their concern. Incidentally, even though generally applicable, the characteristics of general acognitive culture may be reminiscent of creepiness, but they will not in any case embarrass mature adults, which is where I draw the line between the adult human and the really creep. To give a better idea of the major area of life, \enquote{recreation,} I am concerned with here, let me mention, along with the activities mentioned above: games, possibly athletics \enquote{for fun,} conventional entertainment and recreation, and children's play. Or \term{acognitive culture} in my initial sense. Further, let me suggest the area with respect to its place in (adult) human life today. Naively, a worker has a job, job hours, an occupation, does work (which produces material wealth), to obtain his means of consumption. His job is a \enquote{means}; even though he may like it he is pretty much forced to do it. This can be extended to apply to the whole area of his responsibilities to society. Then he has after-hours, time when he doesn't have to do anything, and does what he does more as an end, in itself, \enquote{for fun,} because he likes it: here is where recreation is included. This is when workers listen to music, read science fiction, play games, and the rest. A thing is more purely recreational the more it is done just \enquote{for fun,} the more is it is not an extension of the job, a means. This can be extended to apply to the whole area of what he does just because he likes it; and the area can now be conceived as existing (presumably as a matter of course) side-by-side what he does \enquote{for society.} All this can be said about recreation today. @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ Since acognitive culture is what one would do anyway, does entirely because one All this leads to the idea of (one's) acognitive culture as a part of oneself---as within oneself, at least so far as specifications are concerned. This would seem to be the opposite of contributions to impersonal Forms. Acognitive culture (being what one would do anyway) would not, it would seem, consist of artifacts built up outside of, separate from, oneself, to be gone back to (for ex. recordings, writings); or specifications one would have to be concerned about remembering. If one is wanting \enquote{what one likes, would do anyway,} one will have it; one shouldn't have to be concerned about retaining it. -The reader may have been asking, 'But may not merely what one would do anyway be less interesting than the pseudo-recreation which is created by special exertion, such as Flynt's \essaytitle{Reproduction of the Memory of an Energy Cube Organism}?' Strictly speaking, this question doesn't make sense: how could anything be more interesting to oneself, likable, than what one just likes, than what one would do anyway \enquote{prior} to \enquote{knowing} the real, right thing to to? However, I will give a heuristic answer to the question. Asking the question shows that one has as yet no idea of what specific doings would be included by the category of \enquote{acognitive culture} as I have defined it. They may well be so different from the discredited activities, the traditional, established, common real right Forms supposedly for recreation and self-expression, as to be irrelevant to them, so to speak. They are going to be indefinitely\footnote{incalculably?} more \enquote{new,} \enquote{different,} interesting, just as individuality is more so than anonymity. It is a matter of one's realizing that what fulfills the supposed function of the discredited activities are things one would not have thought of as replacements for them. All this will become obvious, when one considers what specific doings of oneself meet all of the specifications, are included by the category of \term{acognitive culture} as I have defined it. It may further be asked whether doing just what one would do anyway won't lead to a nihilism of acognitive culture's becoming indistinct, being absorbed in undistinguished personality, life, leaving only \enquote{nature}; or a nihilism that if acognitive culture needs to happen it will just happen, a nihilism of not doing anything. Well, something disappears, namely trying to do things just liked as a real right objectively valuable Form, a profession, by special exertion. However, acognitive culture doesn't disappear, because conscious organisms in any case just do anyway things just liked, which are distinguished, and which are \enquote{then} included by the category of \term{acognitive culture,} \enquote{people have their recreation}---the category of \term{acognitive culture} represents a selecting out of things which presumably the life of any conscious organism will include, for which there will presumably be a place in any life. +The reader may have been asking, 'But may not merely what one would do anyway be less interesting than the pseudo-recreation which is created by special exertion, such as Flynt's \essaytitle{Reproduction of the Memory of an Energy Cube Organism}?' Strictly speaking, this question doesn't make sense: how could anything be more interesting to oneself, likable, than what one just likes, than what one would do anyway \enquote{prior} to \enquote{knowing} the real, right thing to to? However, I will give a heuristic answer to the question. Asking the question shows that one has as yet no idea of what specific doings would be included by the category of \enquote{acognitive culture} as I have defined it. They may well be so different from the discredited activities, the traditional, established, common real right Forms supposedly for recreation and self-expression, as to be irrelevant to them, so to speak. They are going to be indefinitely\editornote{incalculably?} more \enquote{new,} \enquote{different,} interesting, just as individuality is more so than anonymity. It is a matter of one's realizing that what fulfills the supposed function of the discredited activities are things one would not have thought of as replacements for them. All this will become obvious, when one considers what specific doings of oneself meet all of the specifications, are included by the category of \term{acognitive culture} as I have defined it. It may further be asked whether doing just what one would do anyway won't lead to a nihilism of acognitive culture's becoming indistinct, being absorbed in undistinguished personality, life, leaving only \enquote{nature}; or a nihilism that if acognitive culture needs to happen it will just happen, a nihilism of not doing anything. Well, something disappears, namely trying to do things just liked as a real right objectively valuable Form, a profession, by special exertion. However, acognitive culture doesn't disappear, because conscious organisms in any case just do anyway things just liked, which are distinguished, and which are \enquote{then} included by the category of \term{acognitive culture,} \enquote{people have their recreation}---the category of \term{acognitive culture} represents a selecting out of things which presumably the life of any conscious organism will include, for which there will presumably be a place in any life. As I have mentioned the possibility that the reader may as yet have no idea of what specific doings would be included by the category of acognitive culture as I have defined it, it might seem in order for me to describe some examples of such specific doings. Actually, however, it is just not in the spirit of acognitive culture to try to describe such examples. Real acognitive culture is not likely to lend itself to reduction to words. And trying to describe examples of acognitive culture cannot but be a tendency to make them into works; actually, there is no reason why one's acognitive culture should mean anything to another, or even to oneself at another time. Thus, although I might informally describe examples in conversation, I am not going to try to write any up. The reader who does not yet understand what specific doings are included by the category will just have to study the specifications of acognitive culture some more, and then consider what specific doings meet all of them. When the reader does understand, then he can discover the parts of what he does anyway, already does, that are included by the category of acognitive culture: they are his acognitive culture. diff --git a/extra/misleading_newness.tex b/extra/misleading_newness.tex index d8c7a9b..8ece251 100644 --- a/extra/misleading_newness.tex +++ b/extra/misleading_newness.tex @@ -1,28 +1,28 @@ -\chapter{The Supererogatory, Misleading Notion of "Newness" (1960, 1975)} +\chapter[The Supererogatory, Misleading Notion of \enquote{Newness} (1960, 1975)][The Supererogatory, Misleading Notion of \enquote{Newness}]{The Supererogatory, Misleading Notion of \enquote{Newness} (1960, 1975)} \signoff{\uline{From ``Culture'' to Brend}, Addition, Chapter 4.} \vskip 2em Quite apart from Serious Culture, metaphysics[, -Serious Cultural Neoism]; in "culture" a production is sometimes -said to ha "new." A production is sometimes said to be (positively) -valuable because it is "new." There are controversies over whether -productions are "new;". and over what "real newness" is. There -are controversies over whether "newness" is good or bad. In general, -there is the notion of "newness," not limited to "culture": things -are said to be "new;" things are said to be valuable because "new" ---- here is the vague, general, valuational notion of "newness." +Serious Cultural Neoism]; in \enquote{culture} a production is sometimes +said to ha \enquote{new.} A production is sometimes said to be (positively) +valuable because it is \enquote{new.} There are controversies over whether +productions are \enquote{new;}. and over what \enquote{real newness} is. There +are controversies over whether \enquote{newness} is good or bad. In general, +there is the notion of \enquote{newness,} not limited to \enquote{culture}: things +are said to be \enquote{new;} things are said to be valuable because \enquote{new} +--- here is the vague, general, valuational notion of \enquote{newness.} -A few "culture" producers, taking this existing vague -valuational notion of "newness" for granted, try to produce "culture" +A few \enquote{culture} producers, taking this existing vague +valuational notion of \enquote{newness} for granted, try to produce \enquote{culture} (which is (for the present, to be appreciated now; all -right, but) valuable entirely because it is "new";) which is -primarily "new," is "new," "different" \uline{as such}; without any +right, but) valuable entirely because it is \enquote{new};) which is +primarily \enquote{new,} is \enquote{new,} \enquote{different} \uline{as such}; without any thought of other value, irrespective of its other characteristics. In their attempt, one thing they do is the intellectualistic, consciously experimental rearrangement of the elements of productions -or an activity just to obtain a "different" production. +or an activity just to obtain a \enquote{different} production. One can play this little game indefinitely. Of course, what has enabled artists to believe in rearrangement as much as they have is that the results do have a little curiousness, surprise value. @@ -35,10 +35,10 @@ to infinity. Note the similarity to the central Dadaist techniques, which are relevant because the Dadaist technique of satire (Dada's principal purpose) is to change a thing so it appears to have its original purpose, but can't possibly fulfill it. Then, thinking -about "newness" without regard for other value has led by several -paths (for ex., from taking "newness" as next in a tradition to +about \enquote{newness} without regard for other value has led by several +paths (for ex., from taking \enquote{newness} as next in a tradition to identifying anything as such a next thing) to the conclusion that -anything is new. Attempts to do "anything" naturally tend to take +anything is new. Attempts to do \enquote{anything} naturally tend to take the form of doing free-floating, purposeless, trite, simple things. An example was my own rolling a tall across the floor, supposedly in the context of no activity or purpose. Then, they try to think @@ -48,57 +48,56 @@ ritual which would magically make a toy car roll across a desk. Finally, those who are a little more sophisticated theorize that the appearance of newness has something to do with complexity and real purposiveness, and, although still merely trying to do -something "new," try to make their productions \uline{appear} to have these characteristics.\marginpar{\textit{giving a quasi-aesthetic experience of surface newness}} +something \enquote{new,} try to make their productions \uline{appear} to have these characteristics, giving a quasi-aesthetic experience of surface newness. The notions of principal interest, the most problematic notions, the principal notions to be analyzed are the existing -vague valuational notion of "newness," and the notion of "newness" +vague valuational notion of \enquote{newness,} and the notion of \enquote{newness} \uline{as such} (irresoective of other characteristics). (Incidentally, - -such "newness" cannot be identified with the exciting, the shocking -as "new" sometimes seems to be used to refer to; certainly the -most exciting, shocking things are not "new" in any sense, but +such \enquote{newness} cannot be identified with the exciting, the shocking +as \enquote{new} sometimes seems to be used to refer to; certainly the +most exciting, shocking things are not \enquote{new} in any sense, but are as old as humanity and well-known to it --- religion, obscenity, -violence). The key point is that valuational "newness" is, "newness' +violence). The key point is that valuational \enquote{newness} is, "newness' \uline{as such} \uline{as a value} must be, valuational notions. In the -non-valuational senses, everything can be considered "new"; but +non-valuational senses, everything can be considered \enquote{new}; but the connotation of the notions of principal interest here is that -only selected things "really" deserve to be said to be "new" --- -one speaks of "real newness." The best explication for the term -"(really) new" here is that one applies "new" approvingly to a +only selected things \enquote{really} deserve to be said to be \enquote{new} --- +one speaks of \enquote{real newness.} The best explication for the term +\enquote{(really) new} here is that one applies \enquote{new} approvingly to a thing \uline{one is encountering for the first time}, which one finds -\uline{has some major value} quite irrespective of "newness," quite -irrespective of whether it is "new." The "newness" of interest here -is best explicated as not a "primary" value or characterisic of -a thing, but rather an extra, "accidental," "secondary" characteristic +\uline{has some major value} quite irrespective of \enquote{newness,} quite +irrespective of whether it is \enquote{new.} The \enquote{newness} of interest here +is best explicated as not a \enquote{primary} value or characterisic of +a thing, but rather an extra, \enquote{accidental,} \enquote{secondary} characteristic a thing, which has some major value quite irrespective -of "newness," can have; the characteristic of being encountered +of \enquote{newness,} can have; the characteristic of being encountered for the first time. My conclusion readily gives the solutions -to all the problems about "newness." The notion of a thing having -just "newness." "newness" \uline{as such} irrespective of its other +to all the problems about \enquote{newness.} The notion of a thing having +just \enquote{newness,} \enquote{newness} \uline{as such} irrespective of its other characteristics or value) as a characteristic, as its value, -is absurd, inconsistent; represents taking a "secondary" characteristic -as a "primary" value, represents a confusion of the -formal and the substantive. The case of "newness" \uline{as such} is like -the case of "ability" \uline{as such} or "freedom" \uline{as such} or competition +is absurd, inconsistent; represents taking a \enquote{secondary} characteristic +as a \enquote{primary} value, represents a confusion of the +formal and the substantive. The case of \enquote{newness} \uline{as such} is like +the case of \enquote{ability} \uline{as such} or \enquote{freedom} \uline{as such} or competition \uline{as such}; it represents taking a formal matter, a matter of context, as a substantive matter. (As usual, the mere formal matter isn't worth making an issue of, thinking about.) In fact, it can be concluded that it is better to omit -the issue of "newness" in determining whether a thing is valuable. -The thing is "new" only if it is independently valuable, can't -be known to be "new" before it is known to be valuable (and anyway, -even if it is valuable, its "newness" is only a matter of when +the issue of \enquote{newness} in determining whether a thing is valuable. +The thing is \enquote{new} only if it is independently valuable, can't +be known to be \enquote{new} before it is known to be valuable (and anyway, +even if it is valuable, its \enquote{newness} is only a matter of when you happen to encounter it). And, thus raising the issue of -"newness" does lead to the notion of "newness" as an independent, -primary value, and to resultant confusion. Further, "new," in +\enquote{newness} does lead to the notion of \enquote{newness} as an independent, +primary value, and to resultant confusion. Further, \enquote{new,} in the neutral uses I listed, can easily be eliminated, by replacing it with the underlined equivalents I gave for it. Thus I see no -case where the term is uniquely useful: the notion of "newness" +case where the term is uniquely useful: the notion of \enquote{newness} is supererogatory. As the term \uline{is misleading}, I suggest that it be consigned to oblivion, at least as a term for rigorous discourse. \vskip 1em -\signoff{["Newness is dropped."]} +\signoff{[\enquote{Newness is dropped.}]} diff --git a/extra/repressed_content.tex b/extra/repressed_content.tex index 511125c..125a4e4 100644 --- a/extra/repressed_content.tex +++ b/extra/repressed_content.tex @@ -332,8 +332,8 @@ When is an a priori conceptual system (embodied in language) considered to be es \item Can a logic based in psychology account for the difference between `2 exists' and `a square root of 4 exists'? No! \end{itemize} -When is a meaning brought into objective existence? When does a public object acquire a structure absolutely inherent in it? (Looking at the following figure, -\parbox{4in}{{\centering\includegraphics{img/strokes}\par}} +When is a meaning brought into objective existence? When does a public object acquire a structure absolutely inherent in it? (Looking at the following figure,\\ +\parbox{4in}{{\centering\vskip 0.7em \includegraphics[width=3in]{img/strokes}\vskip 0.7em\par}} \\ are there two groups of three, or four sets of singles and pairs?\footnote{Or, much worse, are there three bracketed gaps?}) And, how does this interact with the compulsion to recognize that a derivation is legal? diff --git a/extra/structure_art_pure_mathematics.tex b/extra/structure_art_pure_mathematics.tex index 78b5557..fecc5f4 100644 --- a/extra/structure_art_pure_mathematics.tex +++ b/extra/structure_art_pure_mathematics.tex @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -\chapter{Structure Art and Pure Mathematics (1960)} +\chapter[Structure Art and Pure Mathematics (1960)][Structure Art and Pure Mathematics]{Structure Art and Pure Mathematics (1960)} In some art---music, visual art, poetry, and the rest---there is a tendency for "structure" to predominate. When structure tends to predominate in art, then \emph{if} the |