“So… on the indistinguishability of descriptive and normative claims. The neutrality of the scientist is always more or less, like, relative, more or less arbitrary; more or less contingent on a kind of assumed ground, a kind of unconscious configuration that’s presumed to be natural. But anytime, any form of entanglement between the creatura and the pleuroma, or between prakriti and purusha, or between, essentially… you know, which is the binding of the creatura and of purusha… and such binding or configuration is always relatively arbitrary: relative to the, ah, stability of the environment. And ultimately the descriptive contents ground some interpretive framework, and vice-versa: an interpretive framework makes possible descriptive percepts; discrete labeling of percepts, we should even say. So basically there always, you know, description always rests on a kind of methodological prescription which has an implied evaluative content: you can’t see this unless you do this. So this is sortof the hidden practical basis of philosophy…” -7:52am – 10/26/12.
Two sides of Universe are not material and eidetic. That’s a misread of the inside/outside, subject/object split. Inside/outside isn’t like physical objects and mental ideas, or subjective feelings/notions and objective facts & things. Rather, what’s ‘objective’ are all objects. What’s an object? Well, Anything with form. Like Aristotle says regarding energeia and entelecheia, actualization requires form and energy. Being at work, and being at work being itself. These beings-at-work are precisely forms., and there are all kinds of forms, there are forms of existence & forms of change (Whitehead uses this dichotomy); there are forms of imagination (imagery, fantasy) and logical forms (syllogisms, facts); there are forms of affectation (feelings) and forms of material (things); there are so many kinds of forms, and they all work on one another, like Freud’s dreamwork: intertransforming, interacting, resisting, diminishing, augmenting, interfering with one another.
He is driven not merely to awaken congealed life in petrified objects–as in allegory–but also to scrutinize living things so that they present themselves as ancient, ‘ur-historical’, and abruptly release their significance. Philosophy appropriates the fetishism of commodities for itself: everything must metamorphose into a thing in order to break the catastrophic spell of things. (Adorno re: Benjamin, in Prisms, p.233)
The whole plastic world: virtual and actual as its two poles. Virtual as fragmentary form, partial form, actual as form-of-forms, formal substance, form of flow, the stream within which standing waves set up. Rather close to Bergsonism: discrete, definite ‘images’ are distinguished from continuous, flowing ‘stuff’. Samkhya offers the converse as alternative: Prakriti qua ‘imagery’ is distinguished from Purusha as pure consciousness, divine principle of perception. Aside from Prakriti’s dialectical world of forms, intertransforming like algorithms run on a universal, bootstrapping computer, we only have Purusha, pure seeing, which is not even yet a seer, not even a ‘thing’ seen (prakritic terminals, monitors, form-as-screen), but just the seeing. Not even sight as a concept, not even a medium, an eye or light, or maybe just pure light, pure medium; the aethereal as luminescent medium. Purusha is pure seeing: passive action is its pure form of action, with no goal, only reception, no discrete effect, only a kind of universal affect; an essential principle of nonlocal imprinting, or writing. Prakriti includes all discrete forms; imprints, traces, and memories.
Prakriti, emerging somehow from the folding-in-on-itself of Purusha (and perhaps topology has always been the quintessential metaphysics) becomes language qua principle of seeing-circulation (in-formation and/as trans-formation). Contemplatio has been dispersed, and will henceforth flow through the junctions and culverts of an underground tunnel-system of forms-within-forms. Language-work (as dream-work) becomes a refractory pattern-work: recognizing that our languages are always autochthonous and recursive, working ‘on’ themselves, we can begin to strive not for their entelechial completions, but for their canceling-out: yogaschittavrittinirodha. The turn, whose Sanskrit vritti thus finds a speculative relation to the Latin virtus, becomes the energeia or entelecheia of a cybernetic reason (whose eidos is the circle) freed from the either/or compulsions of conservative morality and liberal productivity; given a palette of trans-forms, ranging from the condensed self-refutation of the paradoxical statement (qua pataphysics) to the most rambling explorations of tautology (qua deconstruction). Self-canceling tropes become the interchangeably plastic machines, agents, and products of a techno-organic language-work; an ergology.