Traitor (Tarot)

Tarot – Traitor [Club Teatria 24.3.2007]

Hundred lashes!
-The battles are fought outside.
Count your blessings!
-The war is in the head.
Hundred lashes!
-Try to suffer less than learn.
Count your blessings!
-I try to be fair with both.

Hundred lashes!
-Walk proud to the pole.
Count your blessings!
-The seconds are really short.
Hundred lashes!
-Don’t forget how to breathe.
Count your blessings!
-They’ll carry you away.

I won’t stand your cowering.
Your selfpity disgusts me.
And here you’re just wallowing in you feces.
You’re a traitor…to your species.

I want my secrets kept.

The hand’s hard for the curious.
Iron grip, the whip flies furious!

I won’t stand…
You’re a traitor…to your species.

I want my secrets kept.
You kneel, I accept.

M. Hietala

Confused Questions

1. Does it make sense to construe norms into the discourse of epistemology?
2. What are the status of the theoretical norms?
3. What theoretical norms are there?

We could have:

i. Ontological unity (naturalism – strong)
ii. Methodological unity (naturalism – weak)
iii. Conceptual unity (Transcendental)
iv. Systematicity (Transcendental)
v. A set of peacemeal norms, induction, parsimony etc.

4. Question-begging, how is induction set into a norm? This relates to the following question

5. If we assume inductive behaviour is inevitable (which, it kind of is), then there is a fact of the matter about the fact that we do use it; further, there is an inevitability about our use of it. Given its inevitability, is there an ought implies can consideration to be made? I see contrary tendencies as to the question of the rationality of questioning the epistemic practice that we deem inevitable (Cf. Stern 2000)

6. We may have epistemic norms of differing graces: strong norms like induction, or systematicity is stronger still, but we may have rules of thumb like parsimony; it may seem that the image is far from systematic, but Quinean-web-like

Destre (and Michael)

What is the transcendent?

The transcendent is that which we cannot otherwise but believe, yet cannot prove; the a priori principles which, so fundamental, we may not prove, yet we must presuppose to legitimate all else of reality.

What makes something transcendental, if there is anything to be transcendental at all?

A Transcendental Deduction must be found; whereby we prove that an enthymeme is in place in our everyday epistemic practices and metaphysical construals, however; we must not, as a contingent matter, not have proved this relata in any other way.

What kind of things are transcendent? Belief in the external world, possibly induction and the place of other epistemic norms, or other metaphysical beliefs like the endurance of particulars, which, even in the face of rational doubt, we must otherwise assume.

Destre, Michael

The desiderata of “the reasonable”

does the question prefix the answer?

1.1. Many people think that a question dictates the kind of answer it has. If we prefix a question of mathematics, or social affairs; we expect an answer of the according vocabulary. So, it makes no sense to ask what colour is the number 2? or, what is the meaning of life? [when the answer is 42].

1.2. So, we may prefix the first thought as a question: quest the question prefix the answer? Consider itself the very question “does the question prefix the answer?”; determines a bivalence in our answering scheme, the world of answers are limited to “yes” and “no”, rather than “blue” or “it is what you believe it to be”. For we consider the latter two to be a misunderstanding of the presuppositions of the question, a misunderstanding of the semantics of the question itself; and perhaps, a misunderstanding of the pragmatics in hand (for the more pretheoretic of you).

1.3. Lets say we throw up a counterexample; lets say, the meaning of life was actually 42; or it was a meaningful question to ask about the blueness of the number 2 (some people see numbers as colours, for instance). If this is an absurd thought, then read no further. But if it is within the realms of concievable thought to envisage a states of affairs in a close or far possible world, where the states of affairs are construed in an odd way; the very concievability may tell us that the truth contiions of propositions are not imbued within the logical syntax of the langauge.

As such, we may come up with, or question, a desiderata of the reasonable; which sets the definability of questions in relation to what kind of answers the pragmatics of the question entails. So, “are you free tonight?” presupposes “are you willing to come out with me?”; not “‘are you free tonight'”?




Anyone who is under 35, or, who hardly engages in the drudgeries of celebrity culture and the ultramodern world of bloggospheres, heat magazine (my perennial enemy), and other such nonsenseries, may not have come across the phrase, or expression “noughties”.

Noughties is a parody of a term, it is a bricolage (breaking up of words and fusion of a new concept), and as such, it fulfills two aspects of the postmodern social condition. Noughties is a pun on ‘Nineties’, but ‘nought’ referring to 00s. To refer to something as xx-ties is a late 20thC convention; noughties represents the continuation of this concept, but demonstrating the ineptitude of actually having a xx-ties about a ‘nought’ . As such, it is an empty, redundant term, much like the emptiness and redundance of normal social interactions in this bleak, plastic, social world; and it is a sad remnant of a generation of people who had lived and enjoyed the late 20thC.

What defines the noughties?

What defines the age of today? In a lot of ways, it seems to be a continuation of the nineties; in a way, it seems to be a self-aware parody of the past; celebrating era like the 1970’s, 1980’s, as if they were characterised only by its music, and its attire. Overshadowing the historical events like the cold war, vietnam, or Thatcherism.

I was with Michael at a talk a week or so ago, by a philosopher named Morgan; talking on the issue of Seduction. There was a passing comment where Morgan said “I’m a noughties man, I meet girls on the internet…”. I thought then, what is it that consists when we say someone is encapusulated by a period of time; there used to be a phrase “it’s the nineties”, which denoted that it was a positive time for change, in terms of ecology and our attitudes towards society and nature. Now, the noughties seems to be a time of self-indulgence and cynicism. The noughties seems to be an age where men are obsessed by appearance (metrosexual), ambivalent about social issues, but only providing lip service to causes (slacktivism – an actual word, I looked it up).

What defines us today? I suppose it is that we care so little about things; where doctors and teachers care not for their duties, but league tables; where academic funding bodies care about reputation and bureaucracy; where help is as long as the money notes from whence it came.

Someone once said “It is not an enlightened age, but it is the age of enlightenment“; what a sad day when not even that is true…

Sapere Aude…