Foundation: Matter the Body ItselfNow that the absolute itself actually exists for the first time history there is no question of the transcendent difference being overcome by the simple form of speech, as it were, by the mere saying. Nor is it overcome by the absolute saying itself. Indeed, the transcendent difference is overcome by the absolute itself prior to the saying itself, by thought itself prior to the silence itself. Indeed, now, the transcendent identity of the silence itself is the absolutely unconditioned word itself thought, now formally predicated on the material perfection of thought itself before now: the thing which is now being absolutely thought for the first time in history is the priority of the body itself to the saying: the absolute grace of existence itself to which there is no alternative absolute. Clearly there is no question of absolutely nothing in essence overcoming the transcendent difference overcome before now by the conception of matter itself (there is no denying the matter of fact of the history of intelligible matter, namely, the absolute occurrence of of an eternal actuality, the perfect elimination of the irrational element of matter itself). Such a redundancy of the irrational is inconceivable now except as a mask of the desire to conceal the perception of the body itself, as the attempt to put on the inconceivable absolute, essentially incapable of attribution—this essentially insatiable desire to exist—specific, perpetual non-existence—now in fact simply inconceivable (for the time being unmasked). Overcome in the meantime by the priority of the absolute saying itself, it knows nothing itself of freedom itself: an irrational redundancy conceivable only as the immediate non-existence of the absolute contradiction: the absolute confirmation of the immediacy of the existence itself precluding in essence an automatic response, the categorical imperative of the absolute saying itself being that nothing is able to be said now except it be said in essence, i.e., except it be immediately intelligible in terms of the fact in essence of history itself, namely, that the transcendental object is known to be so absolutely. There is now absolutely no alternative in fact to the absolute constitution of the absolute love except it be itself a chimera in essence, i.e., except it be itself unintelligible: there is only the silence which now itself is thought for the first time in history. Absolutely nothing is thought except it be the existence of the absolute itself—the existence of existence.
That teeming mass of sentences that seemingly have no meaning is an excerpt from a book that is written by someone who was not only a college professor, but someone who had five books published. It was written by D.G. Leahy in his book Foundation: Matter the Body Itself. Not only that, but it's actually a modern work, published in 1996. I found it interesting how something could be so entirely incomprehensible. Do you think it's just bad writing or is the subject matter just so in depth that it means nothing to your average person?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._G._Leahy
https://books.google.com/books/about/Foundation.html?id=HvMVC4_xcN0C
[quote=Foundation: Matter the Body Itself]Now that the absolute itself actually exists for the first time history there is no question of the transcendent difference being overcome by the simple form of speech, as it were, by the mere saying. Nor is it overcome by the absolute saying itself. Indeed, the transcendent difference is overcome by the absolute itself prior to the saying itself, by thought itself prior to the silence itself. Indeed, now, the transcendent identity of the silence itself is the absolutely unconditioned word itself thought, now formally predicated on the material perfection of thought itself before now: [i]the thing which is now being absolutely thought for the first time in history is the priority of the body itself to the saying:[/i] the absolute grace of existence itself to which there is no alternative absolute. Clearly there is no question of absolutely nothing in essence overcoming the transcendent difference overcome before now by the conception of matter itself (there is no denying the matter of fact of the history of intelligible matter, namely, the absolute occurrence of of an eternal actuality, the perfect elimination of the irrational element of matter itself). Such a redundancy of the irrational is inconceivable now except as a mask of the desire to conceal the perception of the body itself, as the attempt to put on the inconceivable absolute, essentially incapable of attribution—this essentially insatiable desire to exist—specific, perpetual non-existence—now in fact simply inconceivable (for the time being unmasked). Overcome in the meantime by the priority of the absolute saying itself, it knows nothing itself of freedom itself: an irrational redundancy conceivable only as the immediate non-existence of the absolute contradiction: the absolute confirmation of the immediacy of the existence itself precluding in essence an automatic response, the categorical imperative of the absolute saying itself being that nothing is able to be said now except it be said in essence, i.e., except it be immediately intelligible in terms of the fact in essence of history itself, namely, that the transcendental object is known to be so absolutely. There is now absolutely no alternative in fact to the absolute constitution of the absolute love except it be itself a chimera in essence, i.e., except it be itself unintelligible: there is only the silence which now itself is thought for the first time in history. Absolutely nothing is thought except it be the existence of the absolute itself—the existence of existence.[/quote]
That teeming mass of sentences that seemingly have no meaning is an excerpt from a book that is written by someone who was not only a college professor, but someone who had five books published. It was written by D.G. Leahy in his book [i]Foundation: Matter the Body Itself[/i]. Not only that, but it's actually a modern work, published in 1996. I found it interesting how something could be so entirely incomprehensible. Do you think it's just bad writing or is the subject matter just so in depth that it means nothing to your average person?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._G._Leahy
https://books.google.com/books/about/Foundation.html?id=HvMVC4_xcN0C
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJLhnts9-oQ[/youtube]
Relevant
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZCRxxb_rwY[/youtube]
Basically what's going on here is the author is working with the Hegelian concept of the Absolute - which is normally capitalized, but isn't here for some reason? Along with the Kantian and Heiddegerian conceptions of objects hence why they keep saying "itself" all the time. I'd have to actually read the book to understand much beyond that.
The point of the above tract is that traditional conceptions of the Absolute are, by some hand-waivey thought-magic, not actually all that absolute, and that the *real* Absolute is existence (material existence) itself or, dare I say, Dasein.
So, basically, you'd need to have taken a few collegiate level philosophy courses to really get at what he's talking about. His word choice is, I would assume, also influenced by having read Wittgenstein and some of the other "analytical philosophers".
I can at least respect this - when I was a freshman in college there was a course I had to take called "FYC" First Year Colloquium - basically a class on how to take college courses and to make sure we could all write papers properly and understood how to cite things. We had to read this shitty god-awful self help book called "the identity code" - which at the time the only amazon review for it was written by the author's wife. I do understand now what they were trying to get at - since much of the angst felt by 15+ year olds is actually a classical identity crisis, but captain corporate self-help didn't really get that point across in a meaningful way. So I read the book as the course required, and then took it out back and shot it several times with my Mosin Nagant and brought it to class in that ruined state for the rest of the semester.
Basically what's going on here is the author is working with the Hegelian concept of the Absolute - which is normally capitalized, but isn't here for some reason? Along with the Kantian and Heiddegerian conceptions of objects hence why they keep saying "itself" all the time. I'd have to actually read the book to understand much beyond that.
The point of the above tract is that traditional conceptions of the Absolute are, by some hand-waivey thought-magic, not actually all that absolute, and that the *real* Absolute is existence (material existence) itself or, dare I say, [i]Dasein[/i].
So, basically, you'd need to have taken a few collegiate level philosophy courses to really get at what he's talking about. His word choice is, I would assume, also influenced by having read Wittgenstein and some of the other "analytical philosophers".
I can at least respect this - when I was a freshman in college there was a course I had to take called "FYC" First Year Colloquium - basically a class on how to take college courses and to make sure we could all write papers properly and understood how to cite things. We had to read this shitty god-awful self help book called "the identity code" - which at the time the only amazon review for it was written by the author's wife. I do understand now what they were trying to get at - since much of the angst felt by 15+ year olds is actually a classical identity crisis, but captain corporate self-help didn't really get that point across in a meaningful way. So I read the book as the course required, and then took it out back and shot it several times with my Mosin Nagant and brought it to class in that ruined state for the rest of the semester.
A lot of academic writing is just as poor as this. I've read so many research papers which are pretty much just incomprehensible jargon.
A lot of academic writing is just as poor as this. I've read so many research papers which are pretty much just incomprehensible jargon.
i was trying to read some Albert Camus (The Myth of Sisyphus) and it had the same effect on me. i couldnt tell if he was just talking in circles and speaking about so much meta thinking bullshit that it really meant nothing, or if i was just not "smart enough" to understand it. well im am are a pertty good readerer, and i knows ims some kinda of a smart, so i's just figure he was talkin all that there nonsense.
i was trying to read some Albert Camus (The Myth of Sisyphus) and it had the same effect on me. i couldnt tell if he was just talking in circles and speaking about so much meta thinking bullshit that it really meant nothing, or if i was just not "smart enough" to understand it. well im am are a pertty good readerer, and i knows ims some kinda of a smart, so i's just figure he was talkin all that there nonsense.
Echoing what Marxist said - I read through the excerpt and felt fairly certain that Leahy was going to be a professor of Philosophy focusing in the analytic tradition. It's dense work to be sure, but I'd agree that rather than bad writing it actually is just a) in-depth and b) written like philosophical works tend to be. This took me back to trying to muck through Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Blech.
You do need some academic background in philosophy to get through readings like this, and even "easier" excerpts like you might read in Aristotle's Metaphysics, Plato Republic, or Descartes' Meditations (not saying they're easier to be pretentious, but because they are often the go-to works for introductory philosophy courses) are written and translated - essentially, presented - using language in a way that is completely different from how we're accustomed to reading works in other academic pursuits (including any other humanities, social sciences, fine arts).
That being said, while I was in school I found the best way for me to try to get through texts like the one you shared here, whymeo, or the ones I mentioned (or the authors Marxist mentioned!) is by reading them aloud. It forces you to slow down a bit and figure out where the emphasis is supposed to be and how the sentences are actually supposed to be understood. Some of the work I found most valuable and challenging, especially in my freshman year, was writing summaries of excerpts in my own words.
Thanks for sharing, I'm kind of interested to read this (I probably won't end up doing it, but maybe I'll find a summation online). :) Also, everyone should consider taking an intro to philosophy course if you get the opportunity. Bit off topic but the widely accepted view of philosophy in popular culture is grossly misinformed and based loosely on those pesky continental quacks who ruined it for the serious guys! (No offense to those of you who are into continental philosophy!)
Echoing what Marxist said - I read through the excerpt and felt fairly certain that Leahy was going to be a professor of Philosophy focusing in the analytic tradition. It's dense work to be sure, but I'd agree that rather than bad writing it actually is just a) in-depth and b) written like philosophical works tend to be. This took me back to trying to muck through Kant's [i]Critique of Pure Reason[/i]. Blech.
You do need some academic background in philosophy to get through readings like this, and even "easier" excerpts like you might read in Aristotle's [i]Metaphysics[/i], Plato [i]Republic[/i], or Descartes' [i]Meditations [/i](not saying they're easier to be pretentious, but because they are often the go-to works for introductory philosophy courses) are written and translated - essentially, presented - using language in a way that is completely different from how we're accustomed to reading works in other academic pursuits (including any other humanities, social sciences, fine arts).
That being said, while I was in school I found the best way for me to try to get through texts like the one you shared here, whymeo, or the ones I mentioned (or the authors Marxist mentioned!) is by reading them aloud. It forces you to slow down a bit and figure out where the emphasis is supposed to be and how the sentences are actually supposed to be understood. Some of the work I found most valuable and challenging, especially in my freshman year, was writing summaries of excerpts in my own words.
Thanks for sharing, I'm kind of interested to read this (I probably won't end up doing it, but maybe I'll find a summation online). :) Also, everyone should consider taking an intro to philosophy course if you get the opportunity. Bit off topic but the widely accepted view of philosophy in popular culture is grossly misinformed and based loosely on those pesky continental quacks who ruined it for the serious guys! (No offense to those of you who are into continental philosophy!)
This looks like a job for Captain Metaphysics!
http://existentialcomics.com/comic/47
This looks like a job for Captain Metaphysics!
http://existentialcomics.com/comic/47
Thanks for the replies marxist and translucent. I'm impressed you guys are able to make some sense of it.
Thanks for the replies marxist and translucent. I'm impressed you guys are able to make some sense of it.