Monday, December 14, 2009

I want philosophy to look like this:

The Fragment as Digital Transcendentalism                 


1.     [s] refer to some whole, always.

2.     To dub any text a fragment, implies two things: wholeness and fracture.[1]

3.     There is always a supervening whole.

4.     Thoughts are not fragmentary[2]; fragments refer to thoughts with meta-linguistic properties.



‘The early bird catches the [    ]’

          -Is this a fragment?

                        (A: Yes and no, this series of words has a transcendental intelligibility that corresponds to processors with an understanding of the idiom and it’s meaning. The words refer to that transcendental understanding but are not the understanding itself.[3] However, insofar as this group of words exists in a grammatical series, it is a sentence fragment)

5.     Fragments are digital information with transcendental properties.




Digital (dij-i-tl):

                                             Of or relating to a system of data employing

                                   discrete values communicated through

                                                  a language understood by sender and receiver.

TranscendŸentalism (tran-sen-den-tl-iz-uhm):

                         <> trans: beyond   +  <>scandere: to climb

                         <>talis: such   +   <>isma: action, condition, doctrine


            The digital realm transcends the natural realm, as the digital realm is not subject to natural laws. Digital information (words, symbols, numbers, etc.) refer loosely, among other things, to conscious thoughts, but are simply incompatible with them, so misunderstanding or subjective relevance or serendipitous context gives language power beyond intelligible representations of our conscious thoughts.

[Fragments become enticing to people because the meaning of a fragment must change based on the individual person.[4]  Fragments allow the mind to bend the laws of nature[5] by providing us a transcendental input (an input with properties outside of the laws of nature) and thus giving our minds causeways between neural groups that would never naturally cross otherwise.]


Digital language has provided us a construct in which to think of our world and ourselves. However, language does not seem to fit correctly everywhere.[6] For example, attempting to cope with ‘freedom’ in light of determinism causes a philosophical dilemma. But what could we possibly mean by the word freedom? The ontology of the universe is determinate. What could ‘freedom,’ the way we use it, even mean? The language falls short. The word takes on a transcendental property in light of its unfounded meaning.





1.              In light of any and all skeptical arguments, language must exist as we experience it. Language is the vehicle in which we say, “I am a thinking thing” or “cogito ergo sum.” It is subjectively intelligible and objectively intelligible.[7]

2.              Perhaps also digital artwork or communication can avoid the blade of skepticism in that the language between sender and receiver is intelligible, and therefore only material that an entity in this reality can understand is communicated.

3.              If we were to become the evil daemons and build an alternate reality using a digital system, would it be a reality devoid of skepticism? Considering digital transcendentalism, the answer seems to be yes.

[1] Fragments of fragments?

(A: context considered, a fragment is part of one whole. ex: a fragmented sentence in a chapter of a fragmented anthology is a fragment of a supposed whole chapter despite the fragmentary nature of the chapter and/or the anthology)

adjacent conclusion: there is always a supervening  whole.

[2] They are electrical and, therefore, have no necessity for complete compatibility in a digital system i.e. German, English, C++…

[3] The words stimulate corresponding neural patterns in the brain, but are not the complete manifestation of them due to the overwhelming epiphenomena that accompany the mere reading (and understanding) of the words as they appear.

[4] Each individual person (or conscious entity) will have a different array of mental context in which to cognize a given fragment, especially if the fragment’s meaning is unintelligible in a grammatical or logical context. The mind will, nevertheless, cognize the fragment and form concepts solely through its reasonable faculties.

[5] Partially providing a sort of freedom of the will.

*DISCLAIMER: This is not true free will in any sense of the word unless one is willing to accept that the subject is nothing more than acquirer and processor of sensible data, which it is.

[6] This is Philosophy.

[7] Our language as a digital system has standard rules that make them fit methods of communication, but (as previously stated) there is always subjective interpretation.

No comments:

Post a Comment