Towards an Analysis of The Logomachy of Zos
I had been holding off on these two but now seems the right time, here ya go:
"If all realization is by our relatability to different co-existences, then making the more variable is one purpose of being."
(Although this sounds awkwardly worded, it corresponds to the few versions I have looked at... so I don't think it is a typo).
"The Life-force and the Ids have their logic, which does not preclude our having our own diversity of will. There is virtue in all non-conformity because it makes new forms."
seems to suggest that all "realization" (knowledge?) arises through
our relations to things (an interactive theory of knowledge? we know through relation
and connection?). Now, despite the difficulty with the wording of the second part,
the point seems to be that an increase in this variability, in how many things
we are related to and in how many possible ways, is one purpose for existing at
all. Thus we should multiply our relatedness in the world and the plurality of
our purposes. Why, howevever, does this follow? The argument is incomplete. Why
should the dependence of realization on relatablitiy actually make it a purpose
of being to increase these relations and variabilities?
Autonomous Individuals Network:all rights reserved
* 23 *