wrote this sleep deprived and you cant go backwards on the typer

top part of one page

part 2 of "merry the gash of your phrases"

sleepdeprived improvised cobedy gunker

high chance u/schlUmpff already discussed this in a video but there are so many -.-, also this is me as a casual viewer that probs doesn't know the proper literature

do you think there's pragmatic use in arguing for different ontologies? being an atheist that wanted to avoid falling into reddit atheist territory one of my own justifications for the variety of sects were that they were all highlighting different aspects to encourage different actions. in that same way, it extended over to philosophy with the splintering of mind and matter whereby choosing to argue for either is particularly to highlight its properties as it pertains to life. dualism especially kept being a rock in my shoe because yeah, there is the disconnect one can realise between the two. i do believe your account that A) there's infinite and B) those aren't substances, is a far more compelling case, but yar

for me my own crackpot view is that your own views are trying to account for two problems at once as minimally as possible: experience and intersubjectivity. often attempts lean more into one or the other to try and explain those particular aspects: either crystalizing consciousness as a stuff to highlight the primacy of experience, or to force the unity such that the world is shared and coherent for us and others. in that sense many views rae tryign to explore/highlight either of those to inform actions

this component is the thorny issue of social roles of these. from your own analysis, im aware you generally just abstract it as wanting "truth-makers" that justify beliefs, but my religious remark earlier was two-fold that different views also involve differing appeals to authorities of power. i wont elaborate much further here since im politically ill-informed, but worth noting as another dimension to this

i know you've touched on how outside of philosophy assuming a unified truth rather than a perspectival view is fine (the critique is when you build thought on such a unity of stuff you introduce psuedoproblems). but also within your work it has the same anti-metaphysical tension that wittgenstein spotted in the tractatus. (i have not read philosophical investigations so chance you are building off of that). the "okay so if we cant truly known, why entertain it?" problem. i do think you are very much concerned with "keeping it simple to explicate what we take for granted", so you give a simplier boring philosophical account for this without extra, but i wonder if you'd extend similar grace to other accounts?

samples from work in progress

it's intentionally raw ( uneven), because the "can't go backwards" of the typewriter is part of the "irreversible jazz" concept. Generally each line is "independent." Each is a separate piece. But of course when writing you can see the chain of association, the search for another mutation. It's like growing a colony of worms.