Dublin exists to undermine itself. The British built it that way, and we having inherited it from them gleefully continue the practice by way of an ironic romantic relationship with its best day descriptions. We know and contribute to its filth, but nuzzle in its bosom through memory, when we are far away enough from it to blind our noses. The undermining was first wound up within the heads of residents as their residence was in the “second” city of the empire, thus second residents in a city which will not be allowed to surpass itself. Today, however, it is performed by its forever failing to exploit the potential it shamelessly possesses as the capital city of a well bled for republic hanging out with the bigger kids of history in the European union.
This piece intends to appropriate Dublin's self-undermining, irony, and never arrived at contentment, into a form thematic of this Basta issue, and illustrative of an ineffable point about instructions and externality for the sake of our inner piece. It is directly inspired and dedicated to that most wicked ambition best performed by Dubliners, our saying of something without having to actually say something. And thus, these 1700 words are soaked in a turgid irony familiar only to advice given but never asked for by kin both sides of the Liffey when our eternal indignance floats to the surface.
INTRODUCTION
Contingency and Capacities constitute reality and our description of it. Recognition of considerations that inoculate this undermines the authority of absolutism and intellectualism on description, leading to cognitive emancipation. This piece intends to inject you with the ineffable recognition of this. Where then we can fully embrace the breadth of finitude, and the image of thought will have a newly revealed capacity, that being the capacity for thought as principled performance toward the aim of an ineffable exchange so we can share the unsayable! This allows thought to move in directions which by way of ineffable example dissolve the necessity of terms and methods inoculated prior through inherited “reality.” All directions in experience both spoken and unspeakable will become receding points to arrive at for movements of principled practice (immeasurably in finitude). This piece is an attempt to exploit both ends of thought. The topic chosen to practice this is “The reduction of our existential responsibilities.” I aim to lighten the load of privacy, and express this idea totally, by attempting to exploit both ports of thought.
INSTRUCTIONS
The following piece contains numbered sentences indicating their statements derivative. A new first number indicates no derivative. First numbers followed by a .1 or .2 etc. are direct derivatives. Sentences with a number a + number are necessarily linked, do with that information what you will. Please arrange these sentences and their derivations in an order you find satisfying and consider the sentence numbers of 5001 to be pearls of the pieces emphasis which will work following any ordering, placed however you like. You may also read it in its initial order. My terms and your movements are thus under a consented bondage. See how we run.
INNER PIECE - CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE REDUCTION OF EXISTENTIAL RESPONSIBILITY
1. The world is constituted in a multitude of contingent planes by the expression of immeasurably finite capacities upon an inherited description of said fields.
1.1. The behavior of description occurs between capacities interaction with environments of said planes, as well as with itself in self-reference.
2. In description, due to the failure of “representation” or “thought as the mirror of nature” all utterances allude to, by way of example not instruction, alternatives of description.
3. The act of description inoculates an exclusively interior ineffable acknowledgement of expression as a “process”.
3.1 This expression will be shaped in part by the immeasurable field of our finite capacities, and in part by the field of those capacities already expressed in the form of our world “inherited”.
4. Capacities are discovered ineffably, by way of example not instruction, through interaction with our inheritance.
4.1 + 2. By way of example, new directions are made and alluded to through the flattening of thick experience, which prior to flattening, exists virtually, and can be moved to, via the bulge made in the borders of reality by way of automatic allusion.
5 + 1. The legitimacy of each description is decided by consensus from those using these descriptions.
5.1. In most observable instances, descriptions inherited, and descriptions created, display their will for a-historical dominance. Utterances aim and often claim to be “the last word” of the world inherited, performed with capacities they are often aware of.
5.1.2. Whether or not a population agrees that “the last word” has been uttered of a describable, the process of uttering, performs in itself an ineffable suggestion toward alternatives as possible (a bulge in the walls of “the world”).
5.2. Inheritance has its fields reimprinted and or augmented, whether in the minds of one or many, simply by re-description at all.
6. There is no non-circular appeal to claim that an utterance is a-historically “True”, for its constituents in the road to this conclusion make it so that its truth is immanent, pre-described, genetically modified in its supposed evolution toward.
7+5.1.2. “The last word” claims flattened experience to be the border of reality. though such flattening suggests, phrased or not, our capacities to continue flattening.
5001. This is why, no phrase of any poet nor philosopher nor scientist, nor any discipline of modernity or history, satisfies reality toward an applicability worth leaning back on without its objections and noteworthy eventual annihilation.
5001. Texts of antagonism toward this end suspiciously in self-digestion, or intended failure toward the hope of an ineffable exchange.
8. Part of what we inherit is responsibility, and definitions of how, where, and who this responsibility is assigned to.
8.1. The further along our redescription without awareness of its contingency has gone, the more responsibilities have become assigned to privacy. Anxieties of the future, workplace, discomfort in political present, pleasure, creativity as a born capacity, sexual attitudes and the world of presented effigy, being “received”, have all been placed within the hands of private life, where then the failures of which to satisfy the equally as inoculated immanent conditions for success becomes the failure of these hands, not of externality as part-constituter.
5001. I do not offer criticism of the inheritance of attitudes, or make allusions to attitudes free from or prior to inheritance, but rather I criticize the a-historical failure judgement which engenders self-harm in the mask of self-care, performed by the undermining of both the constituents of and the conditions for success of these attitudes intending to by way of inevitable ineffable bulge allow the flattening of an alternative, where one lives with the reduction of their existential responsibilities.
9. Understand yourself as contingent, as well as reality and all its immeasurable finite fields, capacities, and descriptions of inheritance.
5001. The felt diseases of inheritance are then revealed as a singular operative squeeze performed by invisible pressure loaded pulses, emitted from and influencing further contemporary attitudes, often pulsing circularly with augmentations from capacities and inheritances interaction with where they pulse (contingently built fields of reality).
9.1. This allows these felt diseases to lose their felt quality of internality and too also the subsequent will to cure.
9.2 + 1. The will to cure is exploited as to further load the weight of an individual's existential responsibility by the powers that be exercising their own will to a-history in their descriptions.
9.2+1(.1). For the often-revealed practical failure of such descriptions must have their failures cause be redirected toward personhood, rather than people at large, or itself, as to retain the descriptions assertion of possessing the quality of “Truth”.
10. If we exploit the instrument of contingency for indignance toward externality we can assert that it is the fault of our utterances and what we have built in uttering that we are dissatisfied. It is not your failure to attain success in your personhood.
10.1. You need not primarily work harder privately to feel satisfied. Anxieties of society are no longer to be dealt with individually and can be interpreted as a private expression of a public failure (on a greater level than prior).
5001. I offer no healing, nor any particular direction to move in, but I present an alternative attitude which defends our private lives from the internal squeeze we create in feeling incapable to “solve” the external squeeze.
10.2. Our energies can become better directed, at least by whatever that term means in our inheritance.
10.3. If description is to be understood ironically, its performance can then conclude in terms that will not assert a-historical dominance and will open itself up to the theatre of criticism as edifying discourse, most importantly with the merit of practicality.
5001. Conditions for success are easily replaced on the stage of contingently understood edifying dialogues.
10.3.1. And more than anything else, we can place our stress on economic and social structures more than we do the failure to privately practice “discipline” or any adopted suggestion of “self-improvement.”
11. + 5001. The intention of this piece’s undermining of a-history, and attack on hidden externality, is not to present cognitive tinctures against our interior squeeze, but to allow us to deem certain elements that inflame and escalate this squeeze as elements irrelevant, at the very least in the understanding of our private responsibilities.
1.1. The behavior of description occurs between capacities interaction with environments of said planes, as well as with itself in self-reference.
2. In description, due to the failure of “representation” or “thought as the mirror of nature” all utterances allude to, by way of example not instruction, alternatives of description.
3. The act of description inoculates an exclusively interior ineffable acknowledgement of expression as a “process”.
3.1 This expression will be shaped in part by the immeasurable field of our finite capacities, and in part by the field of those capacities already expressed in the form of our world “inherited”.
4. Capacities are discovered ineffably, by way of example not instruction, through interaction with our inheritance.
4.1 + 2. By way of example, new directions are made and alluded to through the flattening of thick experience, which prior to flattening, exists virtually, and can be moved to, via the bulge made in the borders of reality by way of automatic allusion.
5 + 1. The legitimacy of each description is decided by consensus from those using these descriptions.
5.1. In most observable instances, descriptions inherited, and descriptions created, display their will for a-historical dominance. Utterances aim and often claim to be “the last word” of the world inherited, performed with capacities they are often aware of.
5.1.2. Whether or not a population agrees that “the last word” has been uttered of a describable, the process of uttering, performs in itself an ineffable suggestion toward alternatives as possible (a bulge in the walls of “the world”).
5.2. Inheritance has its fields reimprinted and or augmented, whether in the minds of one or many, simply by re-description at all.
6. There is no non-circular appeal to claim that an utterance is a-historically “True”, for its constituents in the road to this conclusion make it so that its truth is immanent, pre-described, genetically modified in its supposed evolution toward.
7+5.1.2. “The last word” claims flattened experience to be the border of reality. though such flattening suggests, phrased or not, our capacities to continue flattening.
5001. This is why, no phrase of any poet nor philosopher nor scientist, nor any discipline of modernity or history, satisfies reality toward an applicability worth leaning back on without its objections and noteworthy eventual annihilation.
5001. Texts of antagonism toward this end suspiciously in self-digestion, or intended failure toward the hope of an ineffable exchange.
8. Part of what we inherit is responsibility, and definitions of how, where, and who this responsibility is assigned to.
8.1. The further along our redescription without awareness of its contingency has gone, the more responsibilities have become assigned to privacy. Anxieties of the future, workplace, discomfort in political present, pleasure, creativity as a born capacity, sexual attitudes and the world of presented effigy, being “received”, have all been placed within the hands of private life, where then the failures of which to satisfy the equally as inoculated immanent conditions for success becomes the failure of these hands, not of externality as part-constituter.
5001. I do not offer criticism of the inheritance of attitudes, or make allusions to attitudes free from or prior to inheritance, but rather I criticize the a-historical failure judgement which engenders self-harm in the mask of self-care, performed by the undermining of both the constituents of and the conditions for success of these attitudes intending to by way of inevitable ineffable bulge allow the flattening of an alternative, where one lives with the reduction of their existential responsibilities.
9. Understand yourself as contingent, as well as reality and all its immeasurable finite fields, capacities, and descriptions of inheritance.
5001. The felt diseases of inheritance are then revealed as a singular operative squeeze performed by invisible pressure loaded pulses, emitted from and influencing further contemporary attitudes, often pulsing circularly with augmentations from capacities and inheritances interaction with where they pulse (contingently built fields of reality).
9.1. This allows these felt diseases to lose their felt quality of internality and too also the subsequent will to cure.
9.2 + 1. The will to cure is exploited as to further load the weight of an individual's existential responsibility by the powers that be exercising their own will to a-history in their descriptions.
9.2+1(.1). For the often-revealed practical failure of such descriptions must have their failures cause be redirected toward personhood, rather than people at large, or itself, as to retain the descriptions assertion of possessing the quality of “Truth”.
10. If we exploit the instrument of contingency for indignance toward externality we can assert that it is the fault of our utterances and what we have built in uttering that we are dissatisfied. It is not your failure to attain success in your personhood.
10.1. You need not primarily work harder privately to feel satisfied. Anxieties of society are no longer to be dealt with individually and can be interpreted as a private expression of a public failure (on a greater level than prior).
5001. I offer no healing, nor any particular direction to move in, but I present an alternative attitude which defends our private lives from the internal squeeze we create in feeling incapable to “solve” the external squeeze.
10.2. Our energies can become better directed, at least by whatever that term means in our inheritance.
10.3. If description is to be understood ironically, its performance can then conclude in terms that will not assert a-historical dominance and will open itself up to the theatre of criticism as edifying discourse, most importantly with the merit of practicality.
5001. Conditions for success are easily replaced on the stage of contingently understood edifying dialogues.
10.3.1. And more than anything else, we can place our stress on economic and social structures more than we do the failure to privately practice “discipline” or any adopted suggestion of “self-improvement.”
11. + 5001. The intention of this piece’s undermining of a-history, and attack on hidden externality, is not to present cognitive tinctures against our interior squeeze, but to allow us to deem certain elements that inflame and escalate this squeeze as elements irrelevant, at the very least in the understanding of our private responsibilities.
LAST WORDS
If you are sympathetic to the undermining of a-historical truth, and sympathetic to seeing truth instead as a contingently double handed made organ of currentness, there is greater ease in diagnosing the illness of said organ, particularly in diagnosing how its discharge makes its way into us and blocks the sight of poison in origin. Our description of it as an organ intends to highlight both its operative power when healthy, but also its inevitable decomposition, and need thus, for replacement. Our sickness is subjugation. The source of this subjugations pulse must be examined with the highest scrutiny. At the very least, with a scrutiny equal to our current examination of our private failure to tolerate these pulses.