Whether We (thesis) should give the Antithesis a Platform: On Free Speech

Now that’s some bullshit.

I think first we start with Kant in establishing “power.” Power is a function. We relate function with results but results are not the end-all-be-all. Results are structured by action. Action is defined by results.

Theoretically, we can approach the existential functions that result in our Reality but practically, we cannot know the difference between our approach towards understanding and understanding itself.

So there is a direct and necessary correlation when we talk about functions in math, biology, physics and the functions that govern the universe (and govern our correlation of correlation).

For example, there is a function inside us that can be mapped to calculus. From one perspective, our movements and capacity is limited by the functions of calculus because somehow the functions of calculus reflect a deeply embedded function of all Reality. From another perspective, the mapping of calculus is not just looking at a piece of paper, watching figures being transformed as they pass from function to function. While watching the paper, we’re also creating ourselves simultaneously. How do we create ourselves? In part by the understanding calculus, in part by being a functioning calculus.

After that you have Hegel. So the functions are not just objective functions in themselves, but the functions are functions that are functions insofar as they function. Functions are like the Grand Canyon being shaped and excavated by small streams of water. And the water is also a function. How do functions act together and against each other? How are functions formed? How do functions functions?

Any assessment we make is based on a function. Our understanding of the function has a recursive impact where it functions to function itself into functioning. This can be interpreted as nihilism. Like busting a nut seems nihilistic if there’s no baby produced but we most still like to bust they nuts.

Here we have an example of existential functions that take nihilism as a relevant function of all functions but this doesn’t follow. Nihilism is just a function that assess the productivity of another function. The only relevance of nihilism is how it impacts the functions going further. If the functions function further, then they’re not nihilistic. So why does busting nuts without producing a baby function? We don’t know but we know it generally feels good.

We come to the conclusion that busting a nut may have psychological functions. But why do we want to feel good if we’re not reproducing and “fighting” against the nihilism of busting a nut without fertilizing an egg?

Regardless of the functions we wish to examine, we can extrapolate general relationships that correspond/correlate with results. Results that act as shadows of the real mechanization of Reality.

If the result is a result of morality and our morality is defeated, we still exist but morally deflated. How do we act? Can we go against our instinct to feel deflated and celebrate/be happy against a moral-less Reality were disgusting, nasty, raw shit is celebrated as a victory over our own failings?

blooms — crazy rants masked as abstract experimental philosophy. s/o CS Peirce