gautama333
Trismegistus
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2026
- Posts
- 61
- Reputation
- 45
We have identity as evident experience. This is, however tautological, absolutely evident. By experience, Should be clarified, I don't mean experience in the multiplicity of space-time, in perception, etc.
Before that, the subject is a merely given apparition.
I experience the pure apparition of the subject as radically given (without an active "giver"). I make the second decision, radically different from the performative experience of the given. This is, objectify the subject, and stablish the correlation of that material with the Real. I can proceed in a variety of ways with the same result (to reflect the essence of this decision): divide the thought of ego (cogito) and the substance of the self. For this divide, the thought of the ego refers to a substance that it's different from, but that can be thought.
This is problematic as it already presupposes the mixture: thought needs to have the authority to think difference, hence have total authority over substance, as it presupposes the correspondence of the real and its contents. At the same time, it needs to have absolute servitude towards the other, as it's contents, that determine the real, express it's differentiation from the Other, or substance, through a relationship that divides thought from the real in that one refers to the other, and the real determines the authority of thought to sepparate itself from it.
To put it simply, cogito (thought) needs absolute authority over the real to recognise itself as being, but all content that can be expressed through that "relational" authority, sepparates thought from substance, in that one needs a relationship to refer to the other. Otherwise it wouldn't be differentiated, and wouldn't be verifiable. Hence, would be purely performative.
Opposed to the structure of egology, where the Real is divided into correlative terms; where thought has authority over the real and determines it to be analog to it's structure, the first instance of purely given apparition avoids this duality resolved through a third term (the relation) and presents the non-correlational indifference of the Real towards it's material (as the content of thought).
This isn't negation, assertion, difference, etc. but a non-correlational instance in which the Real doesn't interact with it's phenomenological contents, even if the contents have the possibility of the second (philosophical) decision.
I'm not self or non-self, neither, or both, etc. I'm is content, material of the Real, that is radically performed. My thoughts, feelings, my entity, etc. is just correlational material that ultimately begs the question when taken as ultimately real, unlike the radically indiferent, axiomatic, real, which isn't reflexive material for it's contents.
My desire is neither there or not there, but possibility for the Real to be presented through (and not determined through) as an occasional cause
Before that, the subject is a merely given apparition.
I experience the pure apparition of the subject as radically given (without an active "giver"). I make the second decision, radically different from the performative experience of the given. This is, objectify the subject, and stablish the correlation of that material with the Real. I can proceed in a variety of ways with the same result (to reflect the essence of this decision): divide the thought of ego (cogito) and the substance of the self. For this divide, the thought of the ego refers to a substance that it's different from, but that can be thought.
This is problematic as it already presupposes the mixture: thought needs to have the authority to think difference, hence have total authority over substance, as it presupposes the correspondence of the real and its contents. At the same time, it needs to have absolute servitude towards the other, as it's contents, that determine the real, express it's differentiation from the Other, or substance, through a relationship that divides thought from the real in that one refers to the other, and the real determines the authority of thought to sepparate itself from it.
To put it simply, cogito (thought) needs absolute authority over the real to recognise itself as being, but all content that can be expressed through that "relational" authority, sepparates thought from substance, in that one needs a relationship to refer to the other. Otherwise it wouldn't be differentiated, and wouldn't be verifiable. Hence, would be purely performative.
Opposed to the structure of egology, where the Real is divided into correlative terms; where thought has authority over the real and determines it to be analog to it's structure, the first instance of purely given apparition avoids this duality resolved through a third term (the relation) and presents the non-correlational indifference of the Real towards it's material (as the content of thought).
This isn't negation, assertion, difference, etc. but a non-correlational instance in which the Real doesn't interact with it's phenomenological contents, even if the contents have the possibility of the second (philosophical) decision.
I'm not self or non-self, neither, or both, etc. I'm is content, material of the Real, that is radically performed. My thoughts, feelings, my entity, etc. is just correlational material that ultimately begs the question when taken as ultimately real, unlike the radically indiferent, axiomatic, real, which isn't reflexive material for it's contents.
My desire is neither there or not there, but possibility for the Real to be presented through (and not determined through) as an occasional cause
