singularity

singularity 🔎

2.

• Nothing alienates like responsibility, this was Kierkegaard’s pain, because if one accepts responsibility, one has to maintain it all the way to causal principles, this isn’t a moral injunction but a determined preference, the zeroth either/or, but it is a choiceless choice for being is determinism exemplified. Hegel was less hesitant, if after all, the absolute sublates or condenses into dewdrops in the morning, the synthesis is an analytical fact, but the debate rages on whether the skepticism of the confounded ego should be considered a mask of fear and trembling.

• Whether or not dasein is determined to derive responsibility from the finitude of corporeal difference, an existential continuity decorates decay in patterns fashioned out of history. A face of historical resemblances continues to command and dictate the fracturing of pure and original difference - sometimes with care and precision, sometimes in seemingly stochastic and improvised loops.

• The oft-repeated refrain in either channel of lived experience is the dread and horror of absolute difference, the terror of absolute freedom from the “what if”s and from the fear of missing out on the thing happening elsewhere - the devouring of difference by difference is much more palatable than difference dividing itself into the dead eye of nought. In this dark and stormy night filled with thunderous rancour, resounding condescension, and retributive reproach of the gods is causality born.

• For dasein, causality is not the popular belief in the succession of time through events, but the appearance of pure difference inside of time, the double abduction of before and after in the shambolic now. Causality is Munch’s Der Schrei der Natur, an infinity resonating through discrete moments giving the appearance of pure difference peeking into each isolated sunset. To the dasein that is afraid, everything becomes constituted by fear, just ask a hypochondriac. But the being initially determined by fearlessness can see the wonder that is behind this screaming mask.

• What Munch percevied as his muse is infact what the Hindus optatively refer to as ॐ, and while it could be asserted that in his lack of enlightenment he interpreted as an eternal cosmic horror, but this is not the case. Like an average westerner, he had no ontology to grasp the import of his existential referendum both biophysically and in terms of his own desires. It wasn’t the case that Munch was retarded or lacked sophistication but it was simply a matter of epistemic tooling. If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. The horror of the scream on the obverse side becomes Monalisa’s enigmatic smile and perhaps this is the reason there is not a trace of paranoia and horror nearly equivalent in the entirety of Indian art.

• This is not to assert the counterfactual case that had Munch been an Indian or Chinese he would have interpreted it differently, rather that he was determined all the way to witness the hollow void of his historical existence realised as an inversion of cadence he understood as the truth. But its not just Munch, the quinian indeterminacy of translation often leaves an already traumatised being in a metaphysical lurch which is more dangerous than simple ennui. In a metaphysical lurch one is liable to act irresponsibly. When the symbolism of language breaks down, and economic harnesses appear to have failed, and when all one has seen is wars and crusades piled upon each other, nature’s paranoia gets weaponized in such landscapes of decay and one’s determination to see evil in the neutrality of space and time is reified.

• Such catachresis of desire in a more social setting makes for unsettling and even cautionary tales of the psyche getting lost in the lightlessness of dasein. Ontologies are born in such nights of the “soul”, but without knowledge of soul, the nights get darker, more often than not ending in therapy if not suicide, riots, revolutions, or the original exorcism - war. This ontological relativity between psyches is determined cosmologically as the microwave background - where stripped of its ancient overlays, radiation flows ceaselessly all the way back to and from the event tribally christened “big bang”. The reason Munch’s work got famous is the mimetic transmission of desire and its justifications - a literal parallel of how hysteria spreads from individual to society at large - the painting is a parable of the original negation.

• Causality is the nativity of time, recorded on the unterschied of difference. Through causality, time becomes a common resource to all other differences and their expression, a thread of similarity or self-similarity that runs through everything. To chance upon this similarity, this difference of difference, as a surprise is to witness the “scream” that permeates the mood in moments of acute paranoia, disorder, and anxiety.

• Any dissection of causality leads to a deterministic triple play of cause - embutements - effect. The ball let go from one’s hand does not land on floor immediately, but the fall is punctuated by a series of determined moments during which the ball is mid-air. This relative integration of absolutely determined states comes to define dasein between the liminality of terminating events known as birth and death.

• Similarity is the product of original negation by itself in that pure difference could but differ from itself, or two negative numbers multipied yeild a positive one. In the production of difference, history could but differ from both past and future. It is the involuntary, unconscious reaction of narrative - continuity is the difference that is Spinoza’s failing eyesight whereas causality is the familiar falling of the dust from the lenses being ground. However, post hoc ergo propter hoc so mere units of difference and pure difference cannot render the whole frame. The final piece of the puzzle is the deterministic relativity that interweaves interweaving pure and ‘impure’ difference, hitherto visible to the scientific eye as strong and weak nuclear forces.

• The determinism comes from the sheer purity of pure difference - it is the forcefulness of the lion’s roar understood by all - the relativity however, is a delicate canary in the coalmine chirping away twice in a single breath - it is heard by few who take heed and understood by fewer for like all dualities it is dissonant as a mercurial ocean breaking upon itself inside the context-free grammar of a Lindenmayer system which is its square basin. This is literally the flatness of time bending to accomodate space as general relativity has shown. This relativity is also deterministic for time could but cause space to arrive, just as on a Proustian trigger of the senses, dasein cannot help a flooding of memory incoming.

• Summarily, the eternal torture that is the being of pure difference cried out to the tune called time which imagined its own medium as a space to contain itself and the rest is history. Pure difference itself was born in the memory of being upturned, that is the being different in a way that there remained nothing selective about its memory - being with transcendental memory - or ‘om’niscient being, the being common-in-difference of all other beings. No wonder then that the entirely virtual image on the retina is an upturned or inverted one.

• Zooming into causality we find more differential determinations, but zooming out we find the differential smoothens out into a curvature. The event known as the “big bang” is thus an inverted, smoothened image of pure difference that belies its true form and consequence.

• The analytical circularity of truth is thus an illusory by-product to the being determined to inquire into it. To the being determined to go beyond appearances, truth is angular like cuts on a diamond or freshly mined coal. This angularity and curvature is once again a deterministically lowered interstitiality - chemical compounds are represented as straight lines and polygons, however upon zooming in we find the curved representations of atomic particles which in turn are built upwards from the geometrical one-pointedness of subatomic particles.

• Conversely, being’s position in the hierarchy of its evolution is another immediate cause for this dichotomy - insect vision is much less “anti-aliased”, computers have to work hard to achieve it, and human stands on the verge of losing it to gain the next straightening of the mind’s eye.

• In so far as raw pressed sugarcane can be identified from the bagasse and rolled up cuffs of can identify the shirt, curvature of things leads to a better understanding - but in the purity of the absolute truth is as straight as lines on one’s forehead - a knowledge which is infinitely symmetrical, certain, direct, and immediate without much beating around the bush. As Hegel correctly said, “spirit is a bone”, and its curvature the cage.

• The most important point isn’t the straightness or curvature of reality, but the interstitiality of the two - here is where the credits roll and one can leave the theater. Between the well-rounded figure of zero and the angular determination of One is an exit into pure difference. This is the essence of Buddha’s “middle path” and looking far enough into the workings of quantum gravity, the cause of the geodesic shape of the earth.

• Pure difference folded upon itself as layers of difference which themselves are woven in interlocking patterns of mutually relative binary systems present a reality that appears as space perforated with bits of matter and time punctuated not only with moments of timelessness such as sleep but also self-similar constituencies of time such as orgasmic or meditative states, switched-off or redundant states, coma, or alcohol and drug-induced states.

• Time is the perforation that marks the borders between one dimension and another, across the transverse of which extends difference as planes of angularly folded faces of a singular, n-polytope in a hilbert space (or Sobolev space). Our observable universe is one such face.

• The blind spot of the “big bang”, or a singular entry point of time into substance is therefore a myth perpetuated by parochial and limited scientific foresight, there isn’t a single original fold but as many as there are dimensions available for observation, which surely as mathematics confirms, are more than three (or four if one considers time as a dimension).

• The perforations themselves form a duality consisting of succession of stiches and gaps between them. Yhe stitch being an instance of difference and the cause of memory (difference welded to successive difference) whereas the gap is a stretch of pure difference and the field of transcendental memory (difference separated from itself).

• A lot could go differently between the disloging of the apple from the tree and it’s impact with Newton’s head, or between the time a bullet leaves the muzzle to meet its target, causal studies of time conclude into multiverses here. Our argument isn’t that causality branches out at each integral step of the way and we only experience but one of the multitudes, but rather that being is reminded of a singularity as opposed to recalling every permutation extant (which would be dissociatively irrational state of cognitive chaos).

• It is therefore pertinent to discern between causality and continuation - what binds the diurnal nature of being’s experience of time isn’t a predetermined chain of cause-and-effect, but a determined political economy of continuity that intends to tell a singular story instead of a cacophony of bewildering qualia.

• Continuity is linear time, while causality is quadratic hence can have more than a single solution or outcome of any possible eventuality. Continuity unfolds at the intersecting differentials of time and memory whereas causality is phenomenon witnessed by the integrity of memory. Indeed, there are mental afflictions that corrupt this integrity and result in a loss of faculties to establish causality but only death is the end of continuation.

• 

  Figure 2: Orders of curvature afforded at lower frequencies

• Clocks are to time what mirrors are to space, if the face of being is visible on a mirror, surely one should be able to see the face of time on a clock. Analog watches need at least two needles to tell current time - every minute on which is the state of the L-system that is space over which time is broken infinitely. Every degree of the shadow triangle on the face of a sundial is a similar representation.

• Cognitively speaking, the bend, crease, and fold dialectic is directly mapped to cognition, object, and subject. Alternatively, it can be stated as the dialectic of the observation, observer, and the observed subject.

• If time was matter, causality would be its density whereas continuity would be its volume. Causality is the repetition or purity of time relative to continuity which is causality recalled or the relative differential in each repetition. As Constantine Constantius reminds, “repetition and recollection are the same movement, just in opposite directions”.

• We now begin to see how observed time cannot be a finite expression of the infinite, just as any solid, liquid, or gas filling a container cannot express more than the contours of the container will allow it to. In other words, just as all possibilities and probabilities of the life of a rotting wound are already contained within the cauterization, time is the sum of all memories, the sum of all differences in itself.

• Exactly which of these probabilities is alotted to observation is a dependent chain of differences leading all the way to the first one. this is the essence of the buddhist doctrine of pratityasamutpada.

• This apparent chain of causality is dense locally but at levels of abstraction greater than sensory data allows, the chain grows sparse until both cause and effect cease to exist.

• This density of time, this inescapable labyrinth of events that dictates our everyday life is a deconstriction decoupled from the actual state of affairs to the point that it appears to ensnare us with it’s magnified, exaggerated version the real until we are enslaved to follow it like a perforated page being torn from a diary.

• However, a page being torn from a diary need not necessarily follow the perforation. Occasionally, albeit rarely, and of late increasingly rarely, by acts of omission or commission, by dint of will or chance, a peek is affored into the obverse of time.

• A being a determined thus, can break the loop of eternal return to arrive at transcendental memory, which is memory in superposition, a door which opens into pure difference itself. Though this journey is so fraught with existential, mythical, and symbolic dangers and fears that few attempt and fewer still arrive at the destination.

• Transcendental memory is a disembodied phenomenon. It isn’t a recall of all time in the mind but a recall of all time outside of any and all minds - in terms of its interface with pure difference, it is the rememberance of all forgetting - the realm of all things lost, the kingdom of the imaginary. It is a leak in memory however imperceptible, minute, or seconded from mainstream of time - a phenomenon strong and unnatural enough to be equated with stepping out, for the first time, of Plato’s cave.

• Though the superhighway of time be marked into lanes and exits, there is a difference between the mere existence of an exit on the difference superhighway and the act of taking said exit. Just as there is a difference between witnessing a different lane and switching in or out of it. Usual time does not allow even the observation of the existence of such an exit from time as we rush past it preoccupied with the baggage of all moments preceding. Thus buried in every moment is its negative, and openly hidden within time - like Poe’s purloined letter - is a timelessness.

• On the rare occassion such an exit is witnessed it gets ignored, or bypassed as a two-bit deviance from the norm - the symptoms of which may include anything between seasonal affective disorder to full blown schitzophrenic attacks. Rarer still is the occassion, whereupon one either takes said exit willingly, or is left with no other route - herein not only the destination changes, but the point of original departure changes as well. Pratityasamutpada can be raised to the nth degree, dependent origination in a quantum flux is the sanctum sanctorum of pure difference.

• Arriving at the sanctum sanctorum of difference is not just emancipatory, but emancipatory to the nth degree. However, the elucidation of such a frozen artifact of timlessness and memorylessness is not a function of language, for language is a phenomenon occuring in time - thus it is impossible, to clearly articulate (weather through words, heartbeats, clock cycles, rotations or other means) what a being for whom the doors of transcendental memory open witnesses, or even how exactly such a state could be achieved.

• Infact, language (which here means any symbolic system of communication) is the first thing to go out the window and an immediate, irreversible invocation of the Wittgenstenian dictum of “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent” suffuses through one’s being. Even where one could describe the it to others, it is generally a good idea to refrain from doing so for the departure from norm is so great that the risk of expression overpowers all urges to aid the fellow cave dwellers.

• How language is invalidated by an interface with pure difference is also a rather interesting phenomenon which can be understood with a thought experiment. Suppose an interdimensional being visits earth with the intention to marry an earthling who can speak a shibboleth in a language of earth. Assuming that the shibboleth signifies something earthlings are familiar with, the ontological gap is such that the challenge quickly devolves into an NP-hard problem and cannot be ascertained in any nondeterministic polynomial time. Even with quantum computing, arriving at a single solution seems a likely overreach.

• Language itself as an L-system is broken over the being’s ontological and logical apparatuses, to someone with no knowledge of english the word “rabbit” would signify anchorless gibberish. As a result, descriptions of such a skip in the recording and ordering of time are conscpicuous by their absence in the annals of human philosophy, including spiritual literature. Therefore transcendental memory as a concept is ill-understood, and underreported as various states of “enlightenment” such as “nirvana” or “moksha”, even though it is a well understood goal of the geist to achieve this state of affairs.

• This break in this encoding of time is itself an event within the political economy of time which swallows it as a whole, expressed either as a glut of memory or a bankruptcy of forgetting - causing, in either case, a grounding of being into the time by way of returning to it every possible recallable event and, as a consequence, a grounding of being into eternal return. Into that place referred to in revelation 10-6 where “there shall be time no longer”.

• The binary system of time knitted along the horizontal and vertical movements of memory as causality and continuity belies the expression of being as a finite, different subject of an infinite, indifferent object. Causality is not the “good and perfect” that falls like mana from above, rather a continuous by-product of the arrow of time, the verticality of time in its continuity is the more important, longer axis.

• How precisely continuity appears as a causal system bears correlation in language in that it is the same assignation via association which marks the continuity of alphabets into separate words, and the continuity of individual words into phrases, the continuity of frames into an animation and the continuity of individually conscious cells into a synthetic experience of consciousness that is dasien.

• Seconds turn to minutes turn to hours to days, weeks, months, and years - all of which are purely virtual entities appearing only in memory of past or future. Similarily, streaks of associated moments stitched together give the appearance of isolated causes igniting isolated effect - all of which are virtual in the cause of causes and effects of effects that is pure difference.

• Thermodynamically, there is a line of causality established from the shadow such that the vector of time points towards the object casting the shadow. Though this vector (called T-symmetry) isn’t traversable by being, it is nevertheless traversable by light. In certain mental afflictions such as narcissism, this vector is found as the needle of a moral-compass gone haywire, flitting indefinitely between an imaginary north and symbolic south, inside a failure of the real east-west continuum. Indeed most mental afflictions are spot failures or lapses in the real. Think of narcissus, forever confused whether the reflection is causing him or vice versa.

• Ordinarily though, psychological fixtures and apparatuses forbid such an unfolding of causality and continuity of being beckons it onwards towards dissolution, making entropy apparent but the loss of being’s corporeality is but an event in the memory of being - a recognition which can last for ages.

• Just as the shadow unfolds out of matter upon the incidence of light, pure difference casts difference as its shadow in a recognition/recall of itself.

• This extant, existential, inescapable, inevitable inseparability of matter with its shadow or substance with its attributes is memory itself, and traced all the way back to its origin, the memory of memory itself, i.e. transcendental memory.

• The dialectical is here refactored as constituting its synthesis, which anyway is always already a product of thesis and antithesis, seen this way, synthesis is a mediating agency representing the relationship between master and slave. Permeating through difference and its offspring without interval, like the holy ghost at once transcribing and circumscribing the bond between father and son.

• The attempts of psychology and psychoanalysis in enumerating and enunciating this rubric of cascading differences end up in a jumbled mess where language devours itself in a sequence of petty differences - interpreted variously as various improbabilities and various impossibilities. Freud is right in so much as the cure for the deafening silence of pure difference is “talking”, but more often than not fails to recognize the pivotal role of silence in talking.

• Any language is inherently incomplete to the extent it is unable to “return to the fold”. Silence which is the meaning of all meanings, or zero which is the number over which all numbers are inscribed forms the core of all systems symbolic. Thus any cure based off of uses of language is bound to be merely symbolic - in the sense of being superficial, prolonged, and prone to lapses. In the upper echelons of any epistemic domain, a cure is real to the extent it is repeatable or recallable.

• The first word ever to be uttered by human must surely have been a cry for help, just as the first sound of a newborn is also a cry for help, not from the outside world because the newborn has no concept of “help” or “outside” yet, but from within, from the source, the ejecting singularity. With the difference between inside and outside the womb inverted in the nativity of time - the world without becomes different from the world within the womb.

• Similarly, the unterschied or underside of the word ‘difference’ which represents here the difference that is the world “without” is comparable with its sanskrit counterpart ‘antar’, only one syllable short of ‘antara’, sanskrit for ‘within’. The under/antar here owes it phonetic similarity not to any nebulous, Chomskian “deep structure” but to the unified grammar of all things real, language being but one mode of its expression.

• Thinking of difference in terms of its opposite, similarity does not help our cause, additive synthesis is the more addictive part of the illusion but the gardener and the garden are not the same, no two parts in a duality are identical, this is the very foundation of any exploration of pure difference with a mind full of binary persuations. Pure difference allows for no similarity except itself. Similarity is function of finding patterns in sense data, but the fact is pure difference all the way.

• If similarities are derivative, surely the primordial negation that constitutes similarity is the engine of history. This fundamental ‘not’ is the reason dialecticals render better under examples of negations than addition. The perfect reductive example of this apparent movement is division itself, a process by which a singularity explodes into a multitude.

• Study the self as contituted during moments of irony, even for the first time, irony strikes as already familiar. The hint of nostalgia itself is the product of memory at work. “Irony as infinite and absolute negativity is the lightest and the weakest form of subjectivity”, wrote Kierkegaard and the “humorous or emphatic effect” Plato detected in it lasts just a bit longer than its welcome, causing a sourness of mood - especially under moments with its uglier cousin, sarcasm.

• Irony and sarcasm quickly lose everything in translation if you are senile, or have a tendency to forget the past quickly, just as death would be meaningless if you had never died before, memory of just this moment would be meaningless without recall of moments before and hence.

• Irony is as good a gateway to understand motion as any, as a kind of movement within and across memory. there is nothing exceptional or profound about it as an emotion or as a literary technique, but what could be “infinite” about something as mundane as everyday irony? could it be that in irony blooms a negative fractal, a flower of not that opens up all the way to the ‘neverhood’ of pure difference.

• Is it not a difference that is, in theory at least, supposed to suggest a fracture in the self - a singular crack connecting birth and death with the nostalgia of the void in each moment - a gaping hole in the superego baring for all the fundamental lack connecting desire with itself. Irony is desire undressed until all that remains is a fantasy, hence the sobriquet of “weakest form of subjectivity”.

• All fantasy is ironic in this sense. Indeed a fantasy without irony is almost a desire without an intention to pursue it. A mask is a perfect prop for the ultimate fantasy, to be pure difference - desire to be anything but “this”.

• Except pure difference is exactly the slippery slope of lingiustic and existential meaning, grasped by few and misunderstood by most, it is an elusive color of understanding that is seldom made self-evident in difference, even though all things around us bear its imprint and are essentially its copies. The moment one puts on a mask, one dons on infinite masks. To behold difference without a mask is, to put it mildly, look at the face of God, at once sympathetic and scary, disfigured and disfiguring.

• At the core of all consciousness and qualia is pure difference. The product of consciousness and qualia is an abstraction - a difference - qualia is consciousness with its mask on.

• Irony is “infinite and absolute negativity” as a pointer to the first negation (of pure difference) - the first difference, and the resulting primary dualism of two systems of pure difference. This system is the first mask of God - the same system we witness upon seeing a mother bird feed its offspring, or a lorenz attractor.

• The Hegelian absolute has hitherto resisted structural interpretations, and rightly so, for structure implies extension and “the identity of the inner and outer” “does not externalize itself”.

• Yet a self-contained absolute as already constituted by an “inner” and “outer”, cannot “become” anything other than itself, thus already there is a structure of within and without in the very least. This paradox of externalization apriori at the very heart of Hegel’s exposition of the absolute needs further unpacking.

• While to look at pure difference, i.e. difference stripped of all masks is “to stare the negative in the face”, perhaps adding the impurity of the first mask allows us a better understanding of the absolute. The phenomenological reduction employed here must be infinitely thorough though, for even a single coat of abstraction over pure difference implies duality, and thus infinity.

• Such a well-defined, sandboxed system containing a unit each of chaos and it’s negation is infinitely attractive, infinitely destructive, infinitely stable and at the same time, infinitely unstable. But at least it is a unity that can be studied as opposed to the pure chaos of origins.

• History, in so far as it is the collective memory of being at any given point in time, identifies this unity of mutual differences as myth. Thus, it is no stretch to call the separation of the first difference from pure difference as (the first) myth.

• A myth is the perfect mask for reality for it includes in it both the simulation and the simulacra, both the “inner” and the “outer” in a steady enough state for one to draw meaningful inferences, even structural ones. Infact, to counter Hegel linguistically, the negative cannot have a “face”. It is myth that makes the chasm yawn.

• Myth is no random apportioning of history, it is not a story told now and then in cultural settings for educative or entertaining purposes. It is the very scaffolding upon which the edifice of history is built. Myth is the first and last unit of history, the very schema of all memory.

• Conversely, subtract the myth from any duality and one is left with unadulterated difference, a noumenon representing the chaos of pure difference forever feeding upon itself.

• Take away myth from a mathematical relation (which is a duality existing on both sides of an equality or inequality), to get incomprehensible gibberish instantly.

• For example, take the equality 1+3=4, here the myth is embedded not only in the number literals and operation symbols, but also in their arrangement vis-a-vis each other, their relations with each other and their relations with themselves in the form of the shape of their respective glyphs, the quantities/operations these glyphs came to represent and so on. 1 is thus the story of 1, just as Jesus is the story of Jesus and all philosophy is the history of philosophy. Devoid of the myth that started it on its historical adventure, 1 (both the number and the symbol/mask representing it) is swallowed back into pure difference.

• Myth is the umbilical cord binding the noumenal with the phenomenal. It is pure difference in an “embuted” state, at once pregnant with consequence and the ennui post-partum.

• Surely, a derivative of memory can be observed as the sum of sense data at that point in time. However, a derivative of time already tends to timelessness and observing a derivative unit of memory is akin to observing a bud that might literally take forever to blossom. Which is to say myth as the ultimate mask of time is already one end of a hypnagogic mirage, the other end of which is pure difference.

• It is almost pointless to say then, what the second, third, or n-th removed difference from pure difference is. Inductively, we have seen that difference once-removed causes time. Nth removed difference thus also causes time, albeit the subjective interpretation, and experience of time might vary at each ‘n’.

• Being is thus forever trapped in tunnels of faustian bargains. Hanging on a thread between a cataclysm and a catechism, where the beginning is an entanglement of an all-consuming chaos and end is a horizon that makes for a lovely sunset or a nice story but itself remains ever elusive and groundless.

• All time, from the apparent meaninglessness of birth to the apparent purposelessness of death, appears as memory - the quanta of myth. Memory unknown becomes myth known through the life lived, imbuing the otherwise purposeless, meaningless events of birth and death with meaning, however local.

• Meaning, which is nothing but the curvature of space-time which is a by-product of the local(ly observed) movement of memory in difference - the “universe” is flat. Meaning appears out of the same hyperlocal declensions of observation that ferment rational numbers out of whole ones. It is no stretch of imagination to say that rational numbers are imaginary just like we can show that imaginary numbers are real.

• Actually, rational numbers are just quantized natural numbers, quantized for purposes of measurement precise in terms of sense data. At an ontological level, apparent reality is dual i.e. binary. Something either exists or it doesn’t, and what does exist is not a fraction but a whole.

• What then could it mean to say that being exists (or doesn’t)?

• Simply stated, being is a whole. A singular synthesis of an objective simulacra that comes “batteries included” with its own simulation. A recursive iteration of pure difference.

• Important to note here is the difference between being as a defined here and Hegel’s concept of geist or spirit. Spirit is the metaphysics of being, but being can occur at varying levels of this cognition, such as animals, insects, inanimate objects, cartoons, works of art, artificial intelligence etc.

• Spirit can be reduced to its cognition, but being can only be reduced to pure difference. In linguistic terms, any standalone receptacle of meaning.

• A single tear born in an eye, rolling down a cheek before finally hitting the linoleum is an underrated example of being. The life of a tear starts before it is born, an adjacence of sheer will disguised as happenstance seems to bring about the watery discharge to fruition. Anyone lacking in will cannot start and/or stop crying, similarly, one lacking in will cannot live, die or even be born.

• But will is a contextual apparition, it has been experimentally proven that will is a finite resource of mental faculties - context has an end conginitively speaking but not continuity. The context of a situation has bearing only on elements in a local range (any event is a local event) whereas continuity can appear to carry it infinitely across time.

• The ontological reason for impossibility of faster-than-light movement is the impossibility of forgetting. Each impression of difference in time, each recall and each repetition leaves behind a trail of consequences, however recorded and “it takes a lot of memory to forget”.

• Buried inside such an impossibility of any movement or “will”, is its memory. But like time and memory aren’t willed, nor is will self-created, as stated previously, difference is externally introduced - a gap without which it would be impossible to differentiate between one moment and the next.

• In short, being recalls entropy and re-creates its birth in death in the same way a tear wills itself in the memory of a hurt long gone.

• The deduplication of origin will lead us to an indivisibility, a sigularity that resists further differentiation and has us all trapped in the glory and magic of being. Called by various names in the reglious literature, this pure difference affords and opportunity to understand it by dissection of its extrusions - i.e. substance, matter etc. however, any attempt to do so is a fool’s errand - as if trying to understand the body by cutting up the shadow.

• The transition of the absolute into the relative is not a process, it is as instantaneous and as it is spontaneous. It is also reductive as a substractive synthesis of time. In terms of cellular automata, it is an n-state machine reducing itself to an n-1 state machine. Much like the lived experience of being, the absolute observed is contained in a reductive paradigm of self-expression wherein, for each order of observation, an order of expression is subtracted.

• Epistemeic concerns can be laid to rest thanks to this reducibility of chaos into order. Pure difference is by definition a subtractive entity, and neither convenes nor is prorogued additively. Contained in its negative multitude is every possibility, every story, each of which gets told, is laid bare and made explicit, in formal or experienced time. leaving the original difference that much less different from itself and that much more different from all its expressions.

• Had this not been the case, the very question of knowledge would not have been possible. for to know itself means to ‘identify’ or ‘recognize’, which is thoroughly and decisively an act of negation. An apple is not a pear, nor a banana, nor is it any other fruit, it is nothing except that which it ‘is’, or anyway seems to be to the senses.

• Nor is knowledge a ‘process’ of elimination, for that would imply every fact to be confirmed by an infinite negation. one does not have to arrive at the “A=A” by way of comparative negation of the other 25 letters in the alphabet, one is capable of spontaneous recognition as afforded by memory and the signifier.

• The subtraction of everything from everything still leaves behind a zero, which if computer science has taught us anything, is a more appropriate place to start counting. Out of the four singularities of zero, inifinity, unity, and duality, zero is unique because it contains the other three. It is simultaneously an infinity, a unity, and a duality all folded up into one.

• It intrigued one to no end to find out that multiplication can be substituted by addition but division cannot be substituted by subtraction, it is as if there is a crack in the symmetry of arithmatic.

• Addition and subtraction can be substituted for example 3-1 = -1+3 but division cannot really be substituted in the same way using only the operands and completely ignoring the other side of the equation, not even by its counterpart - multiplication.

• To substitute division and multiplication we need rational numbers, where one must again divide one of the operands by one, leading to more division and a reductio ad infinitum.

• \[x * y = x \div (\frac{1}{y})\]

• Division thus can be said to the be primary modality of difference, division is the only relation difference has with itself and indeed, this is reflected in its first and only “act” - that of a de-cisive cutting itself into two parts, the former we address as pure difference and the latter as simply difference.

• Peering down pure difference is like looking at an infinitely long division that feeds on itself - like two mirrors faced towards each other, or the feedback from a video screencast - with the caveat that constraints of matter and energy imply that the feedback loop ends at a singularity but in terms of pure abstraction, the simulation goes on timelessly.

• In terms of difference, the dividend is a whole, the divisor is also a whole, and the operation leaves no remainder. Pure difference is precisely an infinite negation divided by itself, cognition is the quotient of this division. Pure difference is being that remembered everything all at once.

• When the absolute comes undone into an unhinged clockwork of time, space, and matter, it does so out of an involuntary, sympathetic inner volition - casting outwards like rays from the sun - what appears as negation is always self-negation.

• This inversion of polarities between the state of pure difference and the first difference is paramount. Pure difference launched out of itself due to an unbearable violence of being whereas difference extrudes from and into a comparatively peaceful, less violent and more existential proposition.

• Out of the closeted, claustrophobic denseness of infinite negation arose the possibility of synthesis, like demand being introduced for the first time into an economy of pure supply. Instantaneously, pure difference was “sold out” and has been so ever since.

• We must undermine all Aristotlean notions of causation to better grasp this pivotal schism in the scheme of things. The reason why narratives such as the “big bang” create an untrue illustration of the origin is because, among other things they imply that there is, out there somewhere, a singular source of pure difference still spewing its guts out into an expanding universe. Whereas what is more likely is an utter exhaustion of pure difference into an eternal expression of a mutating parallax - with nothing remaining of the original pure difference except a fired cartridge case or a husk or an empty wine barrel for Diogenes to dwell in.

• Ex nihilo nihil fit, and both as noumenon and phenomenon, the absolute is an outreach of a ‘nihilo’ par excellence. But Aristotelian causality would have you believe otherwise. Objectively, not only is the absolute uncaused, it is also thoroughly unobserved and as lonely as planet Earth.

• A Humean understanding of causality is more condusive to our purposes, although it is also only an instructive instrument - but the idea of a habitus informing a difference engine of information apparent is a more fitting description.

• Living inside such an elusive flux of self-negation, does it even make sense for an entity to ask “why”? An epistemological fog quickly envelopes us, growing denser by the minute, and especially when we have neither the crutches of faith nor the torches of any make-believe metaphysics to guide us.

• The journey undertaken by the synthetic apriori has delivered it to its own frontier, giving rise to fundamental inquiries into the nature of “self”, but such epistemic concerns are false and illusory for how can the “self” not know itself? and we’re not talking about a darwinian idea of self as relates to fishes or insects, but a self on the precipice of dissolving into a fully mechanised consciousness of its own creation.

• Something doesn’t add up here, for it isn’t a failure of memory that epistemological paradoxes go unanswered, memory is replete with information from the very first cellular being and all is encoded in genome. Surely then, the epistemic error is an ontological malfunction of language. The loss in of memory in its translation into words.

• The first of the two dogmas of empiricism is that different explanations of analyticity are circular, but nobody has applied this to Aristotle’s model of causation. Not seeing the purlioned letter is one fact, looking for it everywhere it isn’t is a completely different matter and the four causes of aristotle make us do just that, for it very much appears to be the case that the analyticity behind the very question “why” cannot be explained except in circular terms.

• Another reason for our recent epistemic confusions is that causal appropriations of time were useful when things were more mechanical, when newtonian physics was the norm as opposed to quantum and post-quantum paradigms that are now emergent. Causality today is simply the packet size for any memory of time transmitted, history is after all, an unbroken chain and thus the notion of continuity over causality continues to inform our discussion.

• Armed with this dictum, how to reason differently about cause and effect? about before and after for surely, causality is clearly exposing that the onion was cut only after the knife fell on it.

• Usually when lovers quarrel, or when wars are fought, the immediate cause of conflict is not the same as the actual one. There is, almost always, a discontent simmering for some time that finally boils over - to call the event preceding this boiling over the cause is akin to saying the ripening of the fruit causes the tree. Modern conception of causality is similarly a product of a mechanically short, survival-oriented attention span. The seeds of the tree were sown long before the fruit ripened, but we only notice the tree due to it’s fruits. In simpler terms, water that reached a 100 degrees was not caused by the water that reached 99 degrees but by the continuity of heat.

• Likewise, the onion was split into two long before the knife fell on it, not in the creation of the context that brought about itself and the knife in the same location in the first place, not even in the context that preceded such a context, rather the onion was cut first in memory of the observer, in the first division of difference from pure difference and then in the declinations, declensions, inclinations, and intentions of differences ever since.

• The difference between the apparent and the real cause of something is the remainder left after an infinte division of memory, for what appears is always already recalled and what appears to remain is that which though recalled, cannot be reconciled in the infinite annals of time. Conversely, there is no such thing as a “new memory”, memory is old apriori.

• This failure of reconciliation is not inherent in the system but a pollutant in it, one that can only result from a total exhaustion of memory.

• The further away we get from pure difference, the more is memory obscured from its original cause, the more corporeality is needed to recall.

• If we now return to our original system of pure difference and its first branch, we can see the very creation of space itself, for space is nothing but the memory of the first division of pure difference and difference, and time the memory of time prior to this division. It is the memory of created when pure difference attained at first a distance from itself. Structurally, this primary duality happens to be (or could be likened to a high degree to) a Lindenmayer system or L-system for short.

• This L-system is mutually associative in the first order, and mutually exclusive in the second. Where an ‘order’ implies a certain duration of observation, the emergent shape is a very primitive two-dimensional mobius strip, or a lorenz-attractor - not yet a butterfly but the dream of one.

• If then, writing from from the n-1 th dimension, this penultimate structure of the first Hausdorffian dimension apperas to have more parallels in cellular and molecular biology, it is because everything is ultimately an expression of the absolute.

• Because the system is mutually associative and reflexive, memory is associative by design. It is its goal to divide itself by an infinity until it reaches zero. The infinity in question here is the re-collection of the causal chain of events that lead upto (and including) the present recall, with the whole apparatus finally rolling up in a manner not unlike a retractable measuring tape.

• Memory is a difference unable to differentiate itself any further. Did that pen cost 9.95 or 5.99? It was 9.95. Were Stella’s eyes blue or hazel? What was the sum of all angles of a triangle?

• The limit of pure difference tends towards a singular memory that is a difference but this singularity itself isn’t necessarily not a plurality.

• Pure difference as a singularity is an observer sutured as a strange loop forever gazing its own naval, with the duality introduced with the introduction of differernce, it is able to gaze at other parts of its constitution. The introduction of difference is invariably thus an act of violence against the status quo and memory is precisely that violence.

• This introduction of illusory choice in absolute choicelessness is an involuntary inevitability. Involuntary because pure difference is a dimension devoid of alternatives and inevitability because it contains all possible differences downstream, stable and unstable alike. Illusory because memory cannot be produced outside the virtuality of images.

• Each possible downstream flow of difference charts out a passage for causality to unfold, a kind of abstract mathematical labyrinth that dasein traverses in memory alone - with each step, each moment in subjective time being a waypoint connected all the way to pure difference via the causality in n-dimensions.

• Perhaps now it is clear why we must emphasize on continuity over causality for the latter conveys a very parochial, prescriptive rather than normative, narrowly understood meaning of time. causality is continuity quantified for the purposes of survival, it is eternal return packed and sold as social and biological ‘time’.

• Not only is all time a perception of memory, (including history and future, this corroborates with the fact that unlike matter, time is infinitely subdivisible) but perception itself is also a memory of difference recalling difference.

• Time is rendered discrete to perception because at the birth of difference, no midwife cut the umbilical cord. Thus what connects difference to pure difference is a memory of self-similarity - hence the simulation - although pure difference itself is a collective differentias recolligentes.

• Memory however, is neither discrete nor infinitely subdivisible. It is self-evident and crytalline, what is remembered is beheld by the mind as undeniable and timelessly true “as if it were yesterday” - what is forgotten is simply obscured by other memories.

• There is no (hierarchical or otherwise) relationship between memory and difference, memory concretely is an instance of difference itself, albeit made palatable through sentience and consciousness into a cognizable whole - a happy hour at the bar, an old favorite song, an orgasm - all objects of memory confirm the subject’s existential narrative and give rise to mirages such as the “self”, ego, or identity.

• It is possible for being to die without being born or having lived, as any aborted fetus will confirm. But existence (meaningful or not) assumes memory apriori. Whether it is the nebulous, shell-shocked memory of the newborn rapidly learning the new and forgetting the old, or the patchy, selective reminiscences of being on its death bed, there is no getting around Socrates - all knowledge is recall.

• The orthodoxy of entropy (which manifests, among other things as the indeterminacy of translation) paints a misleading picture in that it presents the subjective perception of time as something that is external - something existentially decoupled and emperically isolated from the observer - yet in every instance of dasein, time ceases to be with the observer.

• Time is the road difference takes to reach it’s origin, it is the orbit of memory. It is not the road that moves or travels but the traveller. Similar to how a “light year” measures distance travelled by light in one year, an “year” is the sum of all recollections made during one revolution of the earth, and so on.

• Memory is not a generative recording of events but a deterministic playback of differences, it is a post-mortem of dominos already toppled made by sense data to look like they’re still falling - just as a twinkling star has long since moved from where the twinkle was broadcasted, the object of memory is always the past, even when one contemplates the future.

• Hume was correct in assuming there being no connecting glue between one moment and the next, the contiguity of seconds is a function of perception alone, the observer and the observed both are memories, interlocked such that the observer appears to move through the observed like a river moves in a channel or valley. The operative word in the previous sentence being appears for in the absolute there is no movement, just pure difference locked in an endless circle like an ouroboros.

• There can be another, less abstract and perhaps more helpful metaphor for what was earlier referred to as a division of pure difference into itself and difference. That of peering in, or “looking” inwards, as if through a pin-hole in itself or perhaps through its navel - somehow gaining access and just watching itself. Upon first looking in pure difference sees nothing else but difference. Thus is the first memory born, and starts an infinite process of generalising downwards creating the differences contained in space, time and everything contained within them. It is important to note here that pure difference needn’t have a single naval to peer into, but we need to imagine at least one for our own understanding though it does not matter at which point on the circumference the circle begins.

• Upon seeing the difference within, pure difference was reminded of itself - extrapolating from this we can conclude that the ultimate ontological purpose of being is to look within and be reminded of itself, or to let its memories lead it to itself.

• This gaze is the synthesis of the imaginary from the real and the symbolic. Out of this negative introspection of difference responsible was born the image made apparent as being in a network of proliferating images.