Carlo Parcelli

Syllogism /

Super-Quantophrenia IV

‘Garbage in. Garbage out.’

70.1  To everyone I’ve spoken to or who’s read my thinking on this matter or read my work, at first glance it seems like a harsh indictment to sum up the entire western epistemological enterprise as “Garbage in. Garbage out.” Not much more than a snarky, juvenile assessment.

70.2  But what other conclusion can one draw when in a mere 500 year time frame the mathematical sciences have brought the world to some sort of denouement resembling extinction, even biblical end times.

70.3  People argue after all look at the material advantages, varying patches of the world’s populations have enjoyed due to this very mathematically based episteme even if it was at the expense of the vast majority of the other people’s of the world. Even if at the heart this episteme has all of the underpinnings of classic imperialism e.g. murder backed up by reason.

70.4  Many commentators have pointed out that the mathematical episteme is chauvinistic, even xenophobic. And certainly over confident when one observes its supreme fuck, the dissolution of life as we know it.

70.5  These qualities are systemic, so systemic that they leave no room for compromise. Without the language of western formal episteme, the rest of the world is incomprehensible. But when translated into western episteme the ‘other’ ceases to be what it is and is therefore rendered false and driven by misinterpretation and error.

70.6  But so chauvinistic is the western enterprise the error in interpretation is nearly always the fault of that which is misinterpreted.

70.7  It’s undeniable that even at our current quasi-primitive, selective largesse of scientific advancement that the entire world could not be raised up to current levels without bringing about the very denouement the correspondent seeks to deny.

70.8  What is it about western formalized systems of thought that make them so short sighted, so stupid, so utterly banal? At least, some forms of religious belief incidentally generate a sustainable superstition.

70.9  Many of the answers can be found70.8 in a close critique of ‘positivism’ which has already been discussed broadly in this text.

71.1 What is most absurd is how minutely documented the very episteme that has destroyed the planet has been recorded and encoded. How proud some appear to be about their handiwork and the handiwork of their forbearers.

72.1  Algorithms are a form of conjuring, a form of prophecy.

72.2  Ballistics is a form of prophecy whereby you can project and predict contact between the a launched entity and its target either moving or stationary.

72.3  Again, alchemy, more by hit or miss, gradually morphed into chemistry whereby the ‘predictable’ results were sanctioned and recorded in detail

72.4  Likewise failures were recorded in detail so as not to be repeated and waste precious time.

72.5  And, finally, though gold was never alloyed by any of these processes many valuable chemical processes were discovered among the more numerous useless ones in the process of failing.

73.1  The business of consciousness is projection.

73.2  This is to say that consciousness is not neutral. Consciousness is not simply a portal for perceptions. 

73.3  Consciousness creates objects which bear varying degrees of comprehension of the ding an sich.

73.4  Unless consciousness contained all of the qualities of the object, becomes that object, under observation it cannot know that object. How do we know it cannot know? Because consciousness retains its self as consciousness, the observer, during the process of perception and clearly does not become nor desire to become ‘the other’ as this would not only supercede the necessity to investigate the object, ‘the other’ but would leave it unexploitable.

73.5  But we have a vocabulary that claims ‘we know’ what the object is because otherwise how could you justify its exploitation. What are the origins of this?

73.6  Successful prophecy. We owe much of our power of prophecy to ballistics or how to hit a moving target. For this we not only sacrificed the planet but abetted in its destruction. 

73.7  We don’t call our modes of prediction prophecy. We call it calculation.

73.8  This clearly places the ritual of the “mathematization of science that accelerated after Galileo and Newton, and is now the sin qua non, if not the ne plus ultra of rational knowledge” as the priesthood of contemporary prophecies only tool. 

74.1  But for consciousness it’s always garbage in since ‘projection’ is the internalization of the other. It would have done well not to neglect this fact especially when the garbage in declared itself universal and then went on to establish the global as its techno-context.

74.2  Even the standard syntax becomes conflicted as well as notions of existence. This is not a value judgment. Just a reminder that no one has actually seen a muon in the same sense that they seen a cow.

74.3  Only the impossibility of absolute perception contains or at least has the prospect of comprehending the ding an sich. The rest is left to interpretation, not universal laws.

74.4  The Chumash Indians close cultural/religious ties to salmon notwithstanding, over fishing in a certain region 5000 or 500 years ago did not have the same consequences of global over fishing today which presses upon the upper limits of the planetary paradigm.

74.5  Hence, population is a key factor in planetary dissolution and the hopelessness for any solution. 

74.6  Further, it is absurd to think that the same epistemology that brought about the planet’s dissolution can reverse the situation when all it has as its disposal are the same mathematical tools that caused the dissolution in the first place.

74.7  Of course, this entire project is in vain. Circumstances of climate change have caught up with any need for enhancing the efficacy of its causes. Who now cares that the true impetus for planetary dissolution is and was the mathematization/formalization/quantification of the sciences. The damage has been done. All true alternatives have been excised. And who needs a treatise whose conclusion is that there is no hope.

75.1  Perhaps the end of the world and the rise to ne plus ultra a of the mathematical sciences is merely a coincidence. Perhaps, the dependence of every construct of modern science and technology derived form the ‘natural world’ is utterly dependent on formalizations/mathematizations/quantifications for its very existence is mere happenstance.

75.2  No. Well?


Syllogism Part 1 appeared in FlashPoint 15

Syllogism Part 2 appeared in FlashPoint 16

Syllogism Part 3 appeared in FlashPoint 16

Syllogism Part 4 appeared in FlashPoint 17