# On the (Im)possibility of Closure

Reconstructo

Wed 24 Feb, 2010 02:19 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;131795 wrote:
Well I have obviously to believe in Closure... implicitly everytime... how would we comunicate without it ? Explicitly with the end of History...
(as Arjuna pointed out I guess)

I suggest that closure is an archetype. The we are the philo/eros aimed at Sophia. To me "the impossibility of closure" is one more attempt at closure. Late in the game, the paradoxes surface. Just like Art since Duchamp.

Scottydamion

Wed 24 Feb, 2010 02:30 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;131929 wrote:
I suggest that closure is an archetype. The we are the philo/eros aimed at Sophia. To me "the impossibility of closure" is one more attempt at closure. Late in the game, the paradoxes surface. Just like Art since Duchamp.

So you mean it as in a stopping point? That if it were decided that closure was impossible, that would be closure? Lol, what a great paradox of meanings. I'm kind of addressing this on the "Definition of Reality" thread, the idea of different levels of inquiry.

btw, what is the "1i/0" in your status? Are you dividing an imaginary number with zero?

Reconstructo

Wed 24 Feb, 2010 02:49 pm
@Scottydamion,
Scottydamion;131933 wrote:
So you mean it as in a stopping point? That if it were decided that closure was impossible, that would be closure? Lol, what a great paradox of meanings. I'm kind of addressing this on the "Definition of Reality" thread, the idea of different levels of inquiry.

btw, what is the "1i/0" in your status? Are you dividing an imaginary number with zero?

Yes, closure is a stopping point, satisfaction with one's method/attitude/philosophy. It seems to me that closure/satisfaction is the carrot, you might say.

Yes, it's one of many great paradoxes I've bumped into. It's possible because of the relation of proto-symbols and concepts, in my opinion. The "carrot " or the "numen" is the bottom layer. The concept is its mask/husk/representation.

Yes, that equation is sort of a joke and sort of a poem. One i over zero. Or another version is "i won over zero." An imaginary number divided by zero. An impossible calculation that hints at ERROR and also a lazy imaginary 8.

Scottydamion

Wed 24 Feb, 2010 03:14 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;131941 wrote:
Yes, closure is a stopping point, satisfaction with one's method/attitude/philosophy. It seems to me that closure/satisfaction is the carrot, you might say.

Yes, it's one of many great paradoxes I've bumped into. It's possible because of the relation of proto-symbols and concepts, in my opinion. The "carrot " or the "numen" is the bottom layer. The concept is its mask/husk/representation.

Yes, that equation is sort of a joke and sort of a poem. One i over zero. Or another version is "i won over zero." An imaginary number divided by zero. An impossible calculation that hints at ERROR and also a lazy imaginary 8.

Kind of a chicken or the egg appeal, which is the cause, which is the effect.

It is interesting how useful imaginary numbers become in higher level math. I do have a note on the limits of dividing by zero, if you consider the line y=0 in terms of x, it is undefined. It is almost like these special conditions represent parameters that can only be explained in another dimension. For instance, the simple calculation of the slope of a line: 1/0 is undefined in terms of y, but in terms of x it is 0/1. I am afraid I never got around to asking my teachers more about the idea, but I certainly plan to! It makes me wonder if division by zero would be solved if equations were done in two or more dimensions, defined in one, undefined in the other.

Reconstructo

Wed 24 Feb, 2010 03:28 pm
@Scottydamion,
Scottydamion;131955 wrote:
Kind of a chicken or the egg appeal, which is the cause, which is the effect.

It is interesting how useful imaginary numbers become in higher level math. I do have a note on the limits of dividing by zero, if you consider the line y=0 in terms of x, it is undefined. It is almost like these special conditions represent parameters that can only be explained in another dimension. For instance, the simple calculation of the slope of a line: 1/0 is undefined in terms of y, but in terms of x it is 0/1. I am afraid I never got around to asking my teachers more about the idea, but I certainly plan to! It makes me wonder if division by zero would be solved if equations were done in two or more dimensions, defined in one, undefined in the other.

I'm no expert, but I feel like the had to just come up with a rule for division by zero. I've read some philosophy of math that indicates how creative math is. Simpler math is so intuitional that feels universal. But something like division by zero is both absurd and stimulating. It connects to infinitesimals and infinity I would think. I suppose that to reference division by zero is to reference the unknown as well as the absurd. Tragicomedy. (Impossibility of closure?) Also if 1 is divided by 0, then one isn't cut down by anything. So 1/0 = 1? it's a strange move, but I think that mathemes can function poetically. Lacan did this. But Lacan is as obscure as anyone. Still, it's fascinating.

I haven't really used imaginary numbers much. I know what they mean, and its quite poetic. Half-negativity is how I think of them. The square root of negative one. For me, the numbers one and zero have symbolic meaning.

The 1 is the I and the i. The first "I" is the personal pronoun, the transcendental ego. The second eye is the square root of negative one. An "imaginary" numerical transcendence of the positive-negative dichotomy. The 1 is also, for me, a minus-sign on its side. This ties into Kojeve and Hegel for whom Man is Negativity. The 1 is also a phallus, for similar reasons.

Man is negativity because as he lives in the Spatial Present, he fantasizes about the future based on knowledge from the past, and ACTS on the spatial present to negate its current shape. Were it not for man's accumulation of concepts, time would not be meaningful. So as far as meaningful time is concerned, Man is Time. His mind is how the past and the projected future cut into Space, or the present.

For me, the zero equals Space, woman, presence, closure.

I'm presenting it to you as a salad, but it's distinct in my mind. There's a strictly philosophical aspect to it and also a poetic-numinous aspect. There's two dimensions for you! Excuse the long post but this Kojeve book continues to blow my mind. And he hooks up with older thoughts and myths in my skull.

Scottydamion

Wed 24 Feb, 2010 03:41 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;131959 wrote:
I'm no expert, but I feel like the had to just come up with a rule for division by zero. I've read some philosophy of math that indicates how creative math is. Simpler math is so intuitional that feels universal. But something like division by zero is both absurd and stimulating. It connects to infinitesimals and infinity I would think. I suppose that to reference division by zero is to reference the unknown as well as the absurd. Tragicomedy. (Impossibility of closure?) Also if 1 is divided by 0, then one isn't cut down by anything. So 1/0 = 1? it's a strange move, but I think that mathemes can function poetically. Lacan did this. But Lacan is as obscure as anyone. Still, it's fascinating.

I haven't really used imaginary numbers much. I know what they mean, and its quite poetic. Half-negativity is how I think of them. The square root of negative one. For me, the numbers one and zero have symbolic meaning.

The 1 is the I and the i. The first "I" is the personal pronoun, the transcendental ego. The second eye is the square root of negative one. An "imaginary" numerical transcendence of the positive-negative dichotomy. The 1 is also, for me, a minus-sign on its side. This ties into Kojeve and Hegel for whom Man is Negativity. The 1 is also a phallus, for similar reasons.

Man is negativity because as he lives in the Spatial Present, he fantasizes about the future based on knowledge from the past, and ACTS on the spatial present to negate its current shape. Were it not for man's accumulation of concepts, time would not be meaningful. So as far as meaningful time is concerned, Man is Time. His mind is how the past and the projected future cut into Space, or the present.

For me, the zero equals Space, woman, presence, closure.

I'm presenting it to you as a salad, but it's distinct in my mind. There's a strictly philosophical aspect to it and also a poetic-numinous aspect. There's two dimensions for you! Excuse the long post but this Kojeve book continues to blow my mind. And he hooks up with older thoughts and myths in my skull.

A tossed salad at that. Kojeve must really be a mind****. It censored ****? Oh come **! I think it may be brok**. All I said was mind****!.... ****!

Reconstructo

Wed 24 Feb, 2010 05:17 pm
@Scottydamion,
Scottydamion;131962 wrote:
A tossed salad at that. Kojeve must really be a mind****. It censored ****? Oh come **! I think it may be brok**. All I said was mind****!.... ****!

Kojeve is very tight on the logic. From him I get the strictly philosophical element. The rest is an application of Jung, Joyce, and Onanismo.

What's interesting about the mind-truck offered by Kojeve is just how integrated and rational it is. And yet how unexpected! But all he claims to be doing is explaining Hegel. So it's really Hegel who's the mind-truck. But Kojeve knows why Hegel matters, and focuses on that. He convincingly points out Hegel's errors. If you like Kant, Hegel is the next step up the widening spiral staircase. Never believe the haters. He's a tough nut to crack. Think of the fox and the grapes.
Quote:

ONE hot summer's day a Fox was strolling through an orchard till he came to a bunch of Grapes just ripening on a vine which had been trained over a lofty branch. "Just the things to quench my thirst," quoth he. Drawing back a few paces, he took a run and a jump, and just missed the bunch. Turning round again with a One, Two, Three, he jumped up, but with no greater success. Again and again he tried after the tempting morsel, but at last had to give it up, and walked away with his nose in the air, saying: "I am sure they are sour."
"IT IS EASY TO DESPISE WHAT YOU CANNOT GET."