Paroxysm and Paroxysm

IN 1313 WE COULD

OH My God that was kind of Lucky for feinmann

STRIP (IF IT WAS WRO -- RBB) YO U

STR I PP O (TO) I

STRIP 

STRIP STRIP

THEY'RE USUALLY FAT SO

YOU COULD BE A GOD

THEN THEN

HEY

NO y

YOU'RE NOT ADDICTED TO THE SMOKY ATMOS

UNFORTUNATELY

THEY'RE ALL ALONE IF YOU KNOW

NO NO YOU KNOW YU

RIGHT GHGH

GHGHGH

"GHOULES" mm m

HE DOES EAT SOMETHING DELICIOUS

M M M  M

YES E E m THAT

"WAREHOSS HOOKER DARKLING DOO" S

SOH

SO (M)

MM M

13 H 14 14 15 1514

SHE'S WORTH

000 1000 NQ NNQ

00011000 NNQ

THAT'S ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE WORTH PICTURE I MET CARROTE DEFEATED THE VISIGOTHS ACTUALLY THE PICCTS THOUGH I WAS ON BOTH SIDES

IT HAS IT GOING WITH DIAMOND TO SPARE LET IT KEEP IT MOVIE

I

0001

IOO IO

MM m

Im HAO T TT 0

YOU WANT TO READ

Planeswalker ES e 13H -- HH 1313 H -- 131313 -- MMM13 -- HHH (1313) -- VV V1513 1513 -- ... (131313 -- MMM13) M -- MM 13VV(V V V) -- 151513 HH

Jean Baudrillard writes a number of things which appear to pre-figure my concept of the philosophical paroxysm. Even more convincingly, these statements appear in a book called (aptly enough) 'Paroxysm', however the writings have simultaneously a sense of genius and a sense of lack of achievement. He writes:

"What, then, is the obsession, the secret motive, the endless finality underlying this progression? Finding the irreducible point which gives an unimpeded view of the world." (Paroxysm, p. 113).

This prefigures my concept of the 'mote of meaning'.

However, Baudrillard's quest, unlike my own, ends in despair:

'We must not believe that the truth remains the truth when we strip it of its veil' --- thus, truth has no naked existence. We must not believe that the real remains the real when its illusion has been dispelled --- thus, the real has no objective reality. (Paroxysm, p. 116).

Although this is interesting, and has led me to develop a theory of 'applicationism', on this point I feel that Baudrillard is being contradictory. He is admitting that he has not solved the general problem of the paradox. He is also admitting --- rather than brandishing --- his lack of objective knowledge.

In points like these, I defer to my own work, where it is clear that a paradox can be solved by reaching for the opposite of the most meaningful component terms, in the same order, and that objective knowledge can be reached by finding four polar opposites (in which opposites are located along the diagonal), and combining them in a cyclical order. Statements of wisdom surely would dispell this sexual nihilism that Baudrillard proposes.

HERE IS A LINK TO BAUDRILLARD'S BOOK

HERE IS A LINK TO MY BOOK ILLUSTRATING PAROXYSMS [or search Amazon for 'paroxysms philosophy' to find both: the top two results]

HERE IS A LINK TO ANOTHER OF MY BOOKS WITH OTHER METHODS, INCLUDING A SHORTER SECTION ON PAROXYSMS

More recently I have posted the method on my blog with a full explanation, in the interest of research.