📍 Ethics - the endogenous direction of the subject by himself. That
is, the premises which must be publicly visible by any subject on
viewing the action of another who has admitted them.
All criticism which cannot be enacted has no meaning.
All criticism which can be enacted must be so in a process,
which comprehends:
A problematic, consisting in uncertainty and ambiguity
A method, consisting in steps
A solution, consisting in certainty and univocal speech
All methods for the processing of criticism proceed as admission,
correction, and fixation.
Admission is the formal-public disclosure of one’s taking
responsibility for the content of the criticism.
Correction is the material-public presentation of information which
denies the content previously under criticism.
Fixation is establishment of a process to prevent the content under
criticism from appearing anew.
What does not proceed from “meaning well” is irrelevant to public
pedagogy.
What cannot be directly referenced through a determinate act is
outside of public actuality.
A meaning which cannot be publicly shown is not a public
meaning.
An intention without an active aspect is irrelevant to the
consequences of the action.
Anyone is “public” if and only if they can synthesize their
experiences into a premise which anyone else would admit.
Logo-ethics
📍 Logo-ethics - the above with respect to logos. That is, the
premises about any logos, or informational content, which must be
publicly visible by any subject on viewing the action of another who has
admitted them.
Anything without a reference is not worth saying.
Whatever violates subjectivity cannot be true. Subjectivity is
violated when
Information is incorrect (knowingly as a lie, unknowingly as
ignorance, and indifferently as bullshit)
Existentials are made categorial. That is, when any set of people is
universally predicated. (E.g. “All black people are…”)
Subjectivity is objectified. That is, when any person’s infinite
content is determined as finite. (E.g. “He could never do that
because…”)
Whatever pathologizes beyond its logology content is suspect.
Pathology exceeds logology when
Information cannot be understood without emotion
Substance cannot be acted on without emotion
Clarification cannot be understood without emotion.
Pathetics
📍 Pathetics - the above with respect to pathos. That is, the
premises about pathos, or the evocation of emotion, which must be
publicly visible by any subject on viewing the action of another who has
admitted them.
Whatever logologizes without pathology is inhuman. Logology exceeds
pathology when
Terms are definable only in and by scientific discourses.
Copulations are not conceivable outside average-everyday experience.
That is, premises overwhelm emotion.
Reason assumes audience familiarity with scientific discourses.
Emotional evocation without purposive reference to the logos is
specious.
The adventure of collective feeling cannot exceed the journey of
collective knowing.
Logically Considered
📍 Logology - the premises whereby any premise is admissable. That
is, the ground on which any subsequent premise can validly stand.
Logology
All thought is premissive
All premises are copulative
All copulations can be coordinated coincidentally as
Reason
Reason is speculative when it induces progressively integrated
conclusions from premises which it has analyzed out of its experiences.
Reason is always speculative.
Because it cannot know everything.
And is compensating for its finitude through infinite
speculation.
Reason is materialistic when its speculative wholes concern the
consequences of itself for “having.”
Reason is always materialistic.
Because it is seeking to objectify its premissive subjects.
And to have a concluding premise in-hand is to have one such
object.
Reason is pragmatic when its speculative consequences for having are
judged through their practical enaction.
Pragmatic reason opens all premises to criticism.
Because pragmatic truth is face-to-face in lived experience.
Thereby, pragmatic truth always begins and ends with active
recognition.
Ethology
📍 ethology - the premises whereby any subjectivity is admissable.
That is, the ground on which any subsequent premise about myself can
validly stand.
I am exposing myself. I can make no claims beyond this, nor promise
any more than this will or can be done.
Truth claims are incidental to my architecture.
I’m not doing anything over and above exposure.
Self-exposure requires dialectic with an object. It requires caveats
admitting where dialectic falls apart (e.g. race, gender, class,
etc.)
As critical, the project demands social concern, which I conduct
from a purely subjective, often comparative, vantage-point.
As exposure, I do nothing but appropriate for-me.
Pathology
📍 pathology - the premises whereby any emotional evocation is
admissable. That is, the ground on which any evocation of emotion can
validly stand.
Everything worth saying is informative. Informative speech
Is instigated by a premise. That is, a determinate problem
produces the speech as explicandum.
Is mediated by a premise. That is, a determinate method can
solve the problem.
is concluded by a premise. That is, a determinate solution
solves the problem as explicans.
Everything worth saying is substantive. Substantive speech
Can be affirmed in practice as a determinate action.
Can be denied in practice as a determinate opposition to an
action.
Can be explicated (neither affirmed nor denied) in practice as
speculation.
Everything worth saying is clarifying. Clarifying speech
either
makes one wonder, as feeling joy in existence.
makes one know, as feeling truth in existence.
makes one hate, as feeling injustice in existence.
Emotionally Considered
Ethopathy
📍 ethopathy - the relationship between myself and the emotions I
evoke.
My feelings’ determination of pathos can only proceed in proportion
to my experiences’ conditioning pathos.
Logopathy
📍 logopathy - the relationship between logos, or logical content,
and pathos, or emotions evoked.
Feelings’ overdetermination of inhuman content is irrational.
Feelings’ underdetermination of human content is irrational.
Reason’s determination of feelings for any content is
rational.
Pathopathy
📍 pathopathy - emotions’ self-determination. That is, the abstract
limits of any emotions’ being evoked at all.
Pure feelings evocable by any content are always either positive,
neutral, or negative.
Impure feelings evocable by any content are always either
subjective, individual, or objective.
Subjective feelings concern the relationship of subjects to each
other.
Individual feelings concern the relationship of subjects to
objects.
Objective feelings concern the relationship of objects to each
other.
Feelings as such are both pure and impure. (e.g. a positive
subjective feeling = joy about philanthropy; a negative subjective
feeling = hatred towards greedy capitalists; a neutral individual
feeling = indifference towards ecological crises)/
Content
Indeterminate
📍 indeterminate, contentful premise: major premise for any deductive
hermeneutic syllogism
Method carves up the world - the more one knows-how, the more
refined are one’s slices. (Aristotle/Hegel/Marx/Dewey)
The unexamined life is not worth living. (Socrates, Augustine,
Peirce)
The cash-value of a belief is it’s consequences for practice [as the
ideal end of inquiry.] (James/Dewey/[Peirce])
All falsehood is a partiality which mistakes itself for a totality.
(Hegel/Adorno)
All history existing hitherto is the history of (existential, class,
libidinal, moral) struggle. (Hegel, Marx, Freud, Durkheim)
Wonder is the beginning of wisdom; play is the beginning of freedom.
(Plato/Theatetus, Schiller).
“I” am responsible for the man I am, the Self I give. (Descartes,
Kant, Brandom)
Love is unconditioned givenness of the Self to Other, admission of
Other into the Self. (Jesus, Hegel, Levinas, Marion, Pope John Paul II,
Maurin, Day)
For all our thinking, we cannot cease being men. (Hume, Montaigne,
James)
1
method - life - practice
2
freedom - struggle - play
3
I - love - you
Determinate
📍 determinate, contentful premise: minor premise for any inductive
hermeneutic syllogism
Society is a work of the One and the Many.
We must improve ourselves.
We must improve Wholes.
Improvement is unending.
Secret knowledge is always waiting to be revealed.
There are indefinite limits to human knowledge.
Historical conclusions are never definite.
The One is the only True Whole.
All other Wholes are false.
Whoever claims a True Whole has an agenda.
An internal logic is always at hand.
Categories are illusory, names irrelevant.
Men are more important than things.
Things are more trying than men.
The tangible is always better than the intangible.
No one can say more than their own experiences warrant.
No one’s perception allows them unconditional speech.
No particulars can furnish unconditional generals.
An ulterior motive is always possible. (Doubt is always
reasonable.)
more clearly divide (combine)
the premises under determinate and indeterminate; these are not accurate
and require further pruning #projects/youtube
Structure
Semiotic
📍 semiosis - any act of hermneusis which falls into it through its
insufficiency
e.g. hearing what one speaks; one begins acting as hermeneut when
they realize the insufficiency of mere hearing - that is, when realizing
that sound must mean, that it is purposive
the semiotic syllogism thus concerns Peirce’s
sign-interpretant-object triad; each conclusion is one such
insufficiency of another
NB: a practical syllogism is the transition (⇒) between each
semiotic
📍 hermeneusis - any two acts of semiosis in which the second
completes the first
e.g. (1) hearing one speak to you and (2) thinking of what they mean
- hearing is completed by thinking, but thinking was only instigated
(and thereby was made possible for a further completion) by
hearing
inductive hermeneutic syllogism (“first
hermeneutic”) 📍 instantiating a determinate universal: reading it
into an individual → content filled in by the universal; universal
completes the individual (e.g. Marxism, psychoanalysis)
Pᴹ: indeterminate individual
Pᵐ: determinate universal
C: [[20220905112650 Epistemy and its limits|idiolectical]]
particular conclusion
deductive hermeneutic syllogism (“second
hermeneutic”) 📍 instantiating an indeterminate universal:
practicing it → content filled in by the individual; individual
completes the universal (e.g. pragmatism)
Pᴹ: indeterminate universal
Pᵐ: determinate individual
C: dialectical particular conclusion
abductive hermeneutic syllogism (“third
hermeneuetic”) 📍 universalizing the inclusive whole whereby a
conclusion already-achieved was possible: forming a hypothesis of
law, of habit (e.g. statistical inference) → content is
problematized through formal machination