This essay solves the paradox of desire, in a definitive way, that to my knowledge has not been done before.
Using a thoroughgoing application of Buddhist logic and its
technique of negation, implicit in Buddhist apoha linguistics, a logical solution is achieved, avoiding both the unnecessary and strained mystifications of prior academic treatments, as well as the prevailing and dominant, positivist and substantialist metaphysical habits, that continue to afflict contemporary culture and thought in detrimental ways.
The essay proves the inadequacy of such detrimental positivity.
Any thing that we could call desire is an error in sequencing from the (non)viewpoint of the machine.
What distinguishes the assumed correctness of mechanical sequence from the alleged erroneousness of libidinal linkage constituting desire?
Words are clumsily things, especially when I’m writing them.
Is there any sequencing which is not erroneous? Isn’t the nature of error the impetus of the sequence and is it not error that is, far from being terminal in the machine, rather generative, at all times and in all ways, of the machine’s output?
Of course, I don’t mean just any machine, such as the stupid coffee machine. I mean the ideal machine, upon which biological life takes its model.
By sequence, I mean the sequencing of life, its decoding, encoding and storing of experience within the Kantian continuum.
The ‘libidinal linkage’ I think would work just fine if not for the err-uption of the subject.
Separately, your writing here is really excellent! I should comment here much more as I get the chance.
Hi Artxell,
to clean up what I wrote because it was late last night when I was writing
it is the mechanical sequence that is in error and it is the libidinal network with its dialectic of satisfaction that is errorless
the error is a result of the epistemic vacancy between knower and known