I am baffled by the fact that there are those who believe AI could somehow be the equal of human intelligence. My objection is this: human intelligence clearly has an organic component, which makes it rooted in, and part of, time.

Marko Pajevic, in his book Poetic Thinking. Now, says something similar (by way of Nietzsche):


“Nietzsche’s Zarathustra speaks of the great reason of the body, which he contrasts with the small reason of the mind. In fact, the mind must be placed in the context of the greater reason of the body, in the sense that everything is rooted in living form and in the making of forms. The juxtaposition of mind and form is obsolete, a form without a mind is nothing and a mind without form is unthinkable.”

One might also add that the artificial amputation of the mind from living form has been part of Western myth since at least Plato, as has the annihilation of time.

Whenever philosophers, discussing some essential aspect of life, begin to enumerate- two paths to transcendence, three categories of substance- I think… why? Why exactly two, why exactly three; immediately, it all seems like nonsense, and I stop reading. Nothing real can be delineated, chopped up, assigned a number.

I am honored to announce that a piece of my lyrical philosophy, “An Untimely Meditation on Religion and Politics,” has been published in the spring issue of The Agonist, the peer-reviewed journal of the Nietzsche Circle. This work examines the degree to which the ideological Left has secularized and sublimated the Christian ethos, thereby creating a nonreligious alternative for dogma, self-righteousness and, most crucially, a way to limit one’s exposure to life.

You can access it here: https://www.nietzschecircle.com/agonist

There are two kinds of thinkers: those who consider the unknown, the unknowable, paramount, and those who wish to deny its existence. Similarly, there are two kinds of people: mystics and fools.

When it comes to Western intellectualism, strait is the gate and narrow is the way.

Apropos Rilke: A god who speaks is almost certainly not a god. Language is all-too-human.

A rejection of rationalism is an embrace of life. And vice versa.

We always think we must deliver the “final word.” However, apropos Meschonnic, there is no final word, only the flow and movement of discourse, changing us, changing with us.

Everything seems to get exaggerated in our society. This is, I think, to a large degree the result of specialization. Specialization, too much focus on one thing, leads to a lack of balance, and of course one wants one’s field to be important, as important as possible.

My work: using ideas to escape from ideas.

My work: To take religious ideas, or really the religious feeling, and transform it into something intellectual. Of course this requires, primarily, negation. This is fairly easy, as the intellectual always negates itself.

Sayable truth is certainly individual and historical, but… unsayable truth?

It seems that what one learns, at least in my case, is determined by what one values, what one considers worth knowing: and what is worth knowing, for me, it is that which leads us back to reality, as opposed to the mass of knowledge that is there simply because it is useful, but comes at the price of leading us farther and farther away from reality. This is why I favor the anti-philosophers, the skeptics.

As soon as one expresses something definite one creates its counterargument. This is the nature of finite human expression.

Today’s skeptics are Cartesians who forgot that Descartes needed God.

This rather astonishing and beautiful passage is from William Franke’s On What Cannot Be Said. I believe Franke is one of the most poetic academic philosophers writing today, and one of the very few who has not given up on Meaning.

“…human finitude transforms all things after its own image in an infinite process of metamorphosis. In our very evanescence is lodged our cosmic task: by saying the things that are and that vanish, we give them the present-perfect status of eternally having been, once, once and no more, never again, yet irrevocably having been.”

I am honored to announce that “Broadside For Already Sinking Ships,” a work of lyrical philosophy, has been published by EgoPhobia, a Romanian journal of literature and philosophy.

“Broadside For Already Sinking Ships” is a sort of philosophy/literature hybrid, written in the Russian Slavophile spirit. It aims to attack all rational dogmas, and the very essence of Western certainty, including the obsession with political identities, in favor of an “apotheosis through groundless,” as Lev Shestov wonderfully put it. The thinking of Western, educated people has become dogmatic, radically conformist, and hence ossified. This work aims to smash it. Call it philosophizing with a hammer.

You can read it here https://egophobia.ro/?p=16095