A Hesitant Condemnation of Philosophical Blindness

Apparently, “Academic philosophers,” and I use those words very carefully, are aligned with Empire and its seeming claimed necessity, systematic death. At least “philosophically,” though since they are themselves philosophers, I can’t imagine any worse professionality.

I can show this through long and involved argumentation, or simple revelation that the list head claims I do not fall within the Academic scope, when I talk of things so coherent as evil, or objective as time, in a context of neologos and autopraxism – word-play and hard-headedness. Empirical proofs of freedom.

“Reduction” is the academic watchword. This is not simplicity, but simple-headness. You can tell because reduction of predicates of time, a thought experiment, though analogous to a reality, is taken by them to be not worthy of comment, or at the extreme a very few among them think it philosophy, but not quite understandable. Or, they would simply “dissolve” my reduction story, and claim that “through time” and “with time” are the same thing, and no one knows what time is anyway... Because in choosing analycy, [=analyticity], diatex[t]icy, by choosing to reduce communicy (syntexy) and the with-text, inter-talking in other words, to a pale Academic shadow, most likely designed to distract critics with countless errors while the real “game of thrones” goes on behind closed doors.

I think I am not a sign of the new, but its symptom. There is nothing unique about my philosophy. I predict or calculate that many thousands of people around could have read the same books, had similar teachers, etc... The new philosophy, which does not reduce, and is not a regime of self- censorship, is a Parallelism or a Nonintersectionality.

You have to point to death and call it something bad. In any or all cases, if “evil” or systematic murder exists, or is taken to exist, it is instrumentalist, I safely wager. In other words it uses humans. As the world is governed in print, and elections are held on tv, people are conditioned to text. Through “text,” which includes movies and groups, through reading and regimes of writing, they are molded and made, “socially constructed,” if you will. This is diatexic. It is done through “text,” or with worldly means.. Diatex thought would in all probability be aligned with analycy, or the implementation of technical analysis in order to more fully control the world.

Analyticity is a game of thrones. It is a “game,” as controlling the world is a foolish end. Communicy, the concomitant of syntexicy, on the other hand, is a field of minds, minds which are by the way non-actualized as of yet. Ever nonactualized, in fact, until they are dead. This is where my first question to you comes in. My introduction of parallelism or nonintersectionality as the meaning of the thought experiment of the reduction of predicates of time is now seen in its potential import. Not to say we want or don’t want to reduce, or that meaningfulness equals goodness, but that my identification of the phenomenon of reduction and my interpretation of its meaning are rational and with educational result.

The game/field opposition is exactly, I here posit, analogous to the parallelist non-reduction of predicates of time. “Intersectionals” (opposing parallelism) as I will now call the instruments of systemic death, would of course “de-sense” beings – kill them, by, with unwanted intersectionality, not mutual communicy, or rather a non reduction of reality to instrumentality. Imagists, what I will provisionally call agents of the good, virtue, humanity or whatever, would instead “give” “birth.” That’s all. I have explained “to say.” Verbal being. It is to intersay, like “being” is an inter-being. The old word “intersubjectivity” thus is seen to have foreshadowed the new word “communicy.” “The circle is complete.”