… This could be the stormy indication for a marathoner who determines himself in his mission touch the finishing line; a natural affinity that he always has driven himself by the self-motivated ‘will’ that he must touch the ending line at any cost. Contrary, this affinity leads him gone astray; standing on the finishing line he soon realized no time might be remaining for him to go back from where he starts. The moments he was passing over can never back to him due to the tireless force that insists him to run until he lies down on the running track to embrace death. Is death the ultimate finisher for this worldly runner? Does the ‘will’ he keeps to run may decline when death seized the vigorous pace he holds to touch the finishing line?… Life in this world reminds the awakening calling: —lively beings have a limit to exist certain while and then after they will vanish in the alternative world, from where once they were coming out… Continue reading Marks of existence ⇒ Kirno Sohochari
… The first man seated on a dark mountain peak, was dizzy to feel himself a lonely ghost. None was there except the whisper of dark waves that he is per se the undefined lonely ghost, covered by dark and seated on the mountain peak with an empty heart. Soon after a sickly ray of light appeared from the dark and faintly stumbled to his face. He was getting excited to see the first woman. She was beside him whom he could not see before. Both of them were perplexed to see them under the trembling lightwave. They asked each other “who are you?”, and simultaneously answered, “I am that.”
Dark has remained over there, and they were surrounded by this. The ghostly whisper with luminous rays then covered the mountain peak; dark omit instant and both of them screamed together, “we are the light”. The sparkling light rays then disappear and shady dark again covered the mountain peak. Both man and woman were bewildered to see the hoaxing game of light and dark, seated lonely on the mountain peak to mutter, “For God’s sake, we don’t know who we are; maybe we are dark; but we want the light to see each other for saying this, —“I am that.”… Continue reading All about darkness ⇒ Kirno Sohochari
… Today’s artist is unknowingly a repeater of the created events, they are actually inept to create something new by deconstructs all readymade meaning and values which human beings have trapped by wittingly. No God remains there who can rescue them; no Avatar never ever will come to guide them; none is visible in this meaning-manic barren land who can sweep all this garbage and lead humanity so it can recover the loss and get back its original “form”. It is impossible for contemporary artist deconstructs the real picture by using his imaginative power and super abstraction, rather it better for him to agree with this, i.e., the flavor of the classical and modern age is expired… No meaning might exist that a person can treat reliable to understand the real picture of this animated world. Reality is not an illusion but in which way human cognition materialized it by meaning and values, all these are a hypothetical extension but not the reality itself; as because nobody knows the reason why real objects appeared in this world and for what reason they make a relation between them… Once it motivates an artist trespass the reality-frame, so he can achieve his own ecstasy; once it made the breeding ground for him, and he started his spiritual journey from variant extent and “form”; the opportunity now obscured in vain due to the confusing nearness between a real object and its reflection in painting frame. No spirituality has left over for an artist that can help him reconsider his subjectivity in light of previous techniques that he gets from abstract, surreal or hyperbolic art. The only “form” he can use at this moment and that is, deliver his artwork a perplexing illusion of the reality which itself is elusive due to its inconsistent addition and subtraction of meaning and values. Baudrillard mentioned Duchamp and Warhol artistic venture to remind the truth once again… Continue reading Fountain of ‘Déjà vu’ ⇒ Kirno Sohochari
…The new reading of Aristotle influenced Thomas Kuhn to rethink about the systematic approaches of modern science. It drives him to think about the narrow-line from where science detached itself to think or reconsider other knowledge disciplines with positive postures. Modern methodical approaches where any part of thought if appeared anomalous or mismatched with observation and experiment, the science community instant leave this thought, and without giving a chance that we should reconsider our thought by taking a new approach to it. This rigidity as Karl Popper thinks inevitable for science if it wants to ground its theory with a pragmatic dataset and plausible logical sequences. However, Kuhn’s designed his thought in reverse. He believes such stereotype approach make science non-realistic and it might be a practical loss for science itself… Continue reading The Paradigm of Normal Science ⇒ Kirno Sohochari
… Only the geek knows cloggy hot days will back
just after the banishment of dried burflowers.
I hug my woman’s chin to remembering this.
Replacement of things is eternal… Cloggy sweat will appear again in my woman’s thin chin
The pigtailed burflower will dry by oozing its last raindrop.
Beauty is just for a funeral… Continue reading Wintry moments ⇒ Kirno Sohochari
… The sunny clouds are comin’ and goin’ like lonely thunder.
From where it comin’? Goin’ where?, I ask myself
Croak croak…, the rainy toad answered me by seated in its toadstool./ … Multicolored butterflies flying surround the tea leaves.
From where they are comin’ with these multicolors? Goin’ where?
I ask myself over again,
Croak croak…, the rainy toad leaps on the pond to its toadstool./ … From where this chatterbox arrives? Now goin’ where?
I ask myself by seeing the jumping toad,
Torrential rainfall begins at this moment, to stop me… Continue reading Momentary talks ⇒ Kirno Sohochari
… Philosophy is not science because it begins from where science has ended with its apparently proven condition. Alike philosophy has nothing to do with religion when it followed the same fashion and gripped conclusion. Philosophy is the utterance of disagreement; a penetration, that is, something has remained in the conclusion for further refutation… Philosophy is for chaos, not for the peaceful settlement of decided propositions. Those who are afraid of chaos they are the believer; who are fearless they might be the seeker of truth… Truth in religion means settlement. It means reverse in philosophy; and that is, —disagreement… Continue reading Thoughts on essential philosophy ⇒ Kirno Sohochari
… Anyway, Indians are more specific in that context. They treat this position as awareness and separate it from consciousness. Consciousness is the experience of awareness-driven actions; a conscious act happened when creation generates the material world or its agents throughout the composition of awareness. That means consciousness is “created” but awareness possessed uncreated state… This material world is the game of inclusion and exclusion. Indivisible uncreated played a vital rule there to make the corporeal agents conscious, so humanlike agents can feel they are the phenomenon of uncreated. That’s why “divisible created” means inclusion and exclusion of indivisible awareness-driven elements. Awareness is such element what Tononi tried to mean in his theory by facing the abusive charges from his fellows… Continue reading When consciousness speaks ⇒ Kirno Sohochari
… We were once the member of suchlike common; nobody possessed it but everybody has its own right to use this according to the demand. The economy of this common tried to mean that… everything on this planet is created and evolved in such way so that physical agents can occupy each other through the common sharing principle. Charles Darwin once named it “the economy of nature”; nobody is the owner or caretaker of this economy, rather Nature itself the caretaker and rule-maker of this common sharing principles. The whole notion sounds awkward today, but it was normal on those days when we were literally the forager, have used to live a healthy life through hunting, breeding, and gossiping… We might remember this before goes further on thinking about the common. We are often reeling on the fence thinking that how we can utilize maximum Natural resources by taking the minimalist ways!.. Is it Nature a property for humans? Why do we think like this? Who gives us the authority to treat Nature and its agents a property for us, only to ensure our own wellbeing?… The answer might be critical because indiscreet manipulation of common has already blurred the picture with dubious destruction… Continue reading Death of “common” ⇒ Kirno Sohochari
… Maybe it sounds weird but anxiety and displeasure is the mother of philosophy. Not only Heidegger, as well Hegel, Nietzsche and many other great original thinkers are critical on the logitimacy of “being”. They criticize the logicians who use any particular point of history to understand the beginning and beingness of the “being”. That means they tried to legitimate the beginning problem of “being” by pick some historical event for this. The risk is there, that is, we can consider this logification of history an ultimate solution for the original questions of “being” or the beginning of “being”. How all this begins and how “being” has maintained its beginnings through the continual process of appearance and disappearance of things in the world? —suchlike question lead us to stumble on the history; it provoked us grounded the historical point a fact to solve the unknowable state of original beginnings of the “being”… Continue reading Duel with language and the way Slavoj Žižek encoded Heidegger (Third Segment) ⇒ Kirno Sohochari
… Every unspoken state of “being” prolonged the uncanny silence and human-like “being” cannot resist this, nor he is capable to escape from it. Dealing own existence with instinctive animalism might easy for all other “being” but the same thing is difficult for a human “being”. Humans can talk through language where they try to mean their beingness by this. Language is Nature to other animals. It helps them to survive in Nature oriented environment. Humans differentiate them by escaped from the Natural animalism where language itself the part of yonder isms. This separation is the first dialectical step for human beings, and now he bound to express his beingness through the dialectical language that he got from the unknown source. Language is the only medium that can speak for him, despite the threat that is, —every spoken word rewarded the “being” suffering pain and contradiction… Why the interception happened when “being and language” coexists to make a connection between them? —this question insists Žižek differ with Heidegger… Continue reading Duel with language and the way Slavoj Žižek encoded Heidegger (Second Segment) ⇒ Kirno Sohochari
… It might have appeared a fault-line to Žižek when he dissects Heidegger. We dwell and duel with a paternal neurotic and that is language. Heidegger’s peaceful home bring the motherly fragrance to us, but this home is not a comfort zone for “being”. Žižek hired Lacan for the reminder and that is, —this home is paternal. It behaves like a sturdy father who is very persuasive to his attitude. This ambiguity makes this home dialectical and as well the reality of “being”. Heidegger’s searching for originary beingness of the “being” in that context might the Utopia, it resonance poesis and tried to hide it in the antiquity. According to Žižek’s interpretation, Heidegger appeared there an escapist. Is it? If we want a plausible answer, it must be necessary for us to follow Heidegger’s explanation (with an enclosure of Hegelian discourse) before coming to any decision about the great mind of philosophy… Continue reading Duel with language and the way Slavoj Žižek encoded Heidegger (First Segment) ⇒ Kirno Sohochari
… On the other hand, the philosophical problem of unintended extension of ‘originary’ led Heidegger to think about such state where ‘origin’ contained its own ‘ontology’ and ‘throw’ itself over again. Anyway, it unable to answer any question about its ontological beingness. As we can say (not literally, just for argument’s sake) God (if we imagine God as ‘prime mover’ in Aristotle’s context) himself is unable to answer the question: —why He is God or how He exists as a variable to generate his beingness which moves everything for the creation. Because which is uncreated it cannot answer any question through ‘itself’. As Heidegger’s Dasein cannot answer why it Dasein. Like this manner, Putnam faces the basic analytical problem of the meaning in semantics when it means ‘something’ original and origin… Continue reading Meaning of the meaning – Heidegger in Hilary Putnam’s case ⇒ Kirno Sohochari
… Heidegger might be the dare mentor who trained us how to read our own ‘self’ without philosophizing it anymore. More we philosophize anything (in any light of discussion) the more we trapped ourselves in the nominative meaning. Philosophy is not a nominative ‘meaning’, rather it could be non-nominative, an action which leads us to embrace the real ‘being’. Philosophical idioms are the barrier to touch the ground where ‘being’ has ‘thrown’ itself by using its own ‘is’. This Gestellation of ‘being’ as a ‘thing’ is non-ontological. It can be questioned but never be answerable… Philosophy is not an answer of ‘being’ (or whatever it is), rather the restless refutation and Destruktion of answers through new questions. That is Heidegger, and that could be the ‘essence’ of ‘what he meant by the philosophy’. If we realize it, philosophy can guide science; otherwise, the death of philosophy is inevitable… Continue reading Martin Heidegger and the ‘Destruktion’ of philosophy ⇒ Kirno Sohochari
… Thought can explain only which is functional but it cannot explain which is transitive to its state through its inner traits. Apparent is explainable when it appears. The causal state of apparent can be explainable through cause-effect relation when it appears to perform. Cause-effect is not applicable for which belonged beyond over the causal. The apparent reality can be explainable considering causal consequences, whereas which is not apparent but belong in the always-possible state of apparent, thought cannot explain that reality through causal consequences. The apparent reality could have a beginning; opposite, the cause of this apparent reality might be had a beginning of the beginning, or it might have no beginning… Continue reading The problem of ‘beginning’ ⇒ Kirno Sohochari
… His offer to consider this apparent world as responsible for the appearance and as well the disappearance, it indicates his realistic approach to the beingness of things. For the correction of sensual recognition, he invited us to concern about ‘act’; because ‘act’ triggered things in reality; on the opposite, the same ‘act’ can prevent things to be appeared in here or revokes them for appearance; thus, idealized other world ‘as real and true’ except the ‘apparent world’… it is illusion… Continue reading Friedrich Nietzsche and the tales of empty fiction ⇒ Kirno Sohochari
… What makes things reflexive? What provokes it to come out in the world? Above all, what makes things automaton? These questions are vital for the observer who exercises his sensual network and cognitive kingdom to find the plausible answer at best he could. However, it is not necessary for the things examined their existence through above-mentioned questions. Things have their own automaton becoming in the ‘what is this (?)’ state, —as for why (?); the answer could be, —as for action, and as for make the world real to the observer. Things are there because of that they can act… Continue reading Something is present ‘there’ ⇒ Kirno Sohochari
… Technology itself the presence of things in the creation-shield and the presence is unintentional and purposeless, autonomous to its activism, but man’s desire can make it meaningful for him… Technology is meaningful when human mind has driven to apply a meaning to it; otherwise, the meaning is useless. Unconcealed things are the valid existence of autonomous presence, they belong in the creation just they belong ‘as it is’ in the creation… Continue reading When Heidegger is talking about technology (First Part) ⇒ Kirno Sohochari
… There have always two worlds exist and a man is the residence of both wonderland like Alice. One world is imaginative and spectrum and built by the man himself. He built it by using his immense capacity of firing neurons and preserved them in the memory storage. Another is the imageless rabbit-hole but certainly have always ‘being there’… Continue reading Mind the gap, it has always ‘being there’ ⇒ Kirno Sohochari
… The experience of impermanence, the feeling of banishment, the apprehension of ‘things fall apart’ is me, who is now levitating in the infinitesimal energy waves with his real ‘I amness’, and with his great frictional capacity in zeptosecond. This reality is the third wave reality, constructed by the infinitesimal vibrant waves of energy… Continue reading The third wave reality ⇒ Kirno Sohochari