on normativity and subjectivity // sur le normatif et le subjectif

« Normative is what institues norms. »
« Normativity is invention, what allows an organism to attack its environment or to resist it. [...] Vitality escapes facticity, positivity. »
A norm is: a more or less precise measure from a fact of life that is the average out of a population (point of view from a fact, from the past), or, a socially established ideal from that fact of life (point of view from an idea, from the future).
The fact of life that the norm is based upon is related to an attribute: moral, aesthetic, subjective desirability.
Normativity is philosophically opposed to positivity (i.e. descriptions, explanations) when describing types of theories, beliefs, or propositions.

I believe that:
Attributes (good, beautiful, just) and judgement claims are based on objectivity, but that objectivity in those case especially suffer from two issues: complexity, and lack of accessibility.
E.g. complexity: an act is righteous in respect to a rule of law or moral, and this rule can be defined objectively however would require a lengthy amount of work.
E.g. accessibility: something is beautiful by its mathematical closeness to the particular combination of psychological processes (such as comparison, projection, etc.) and ingrained cultural references, however is too obscure for our era to know how to define them.

Thus subjectivity is always a condensed expression based on a hidden objectivity.

What defines human intelligence is that its way of apprehending information is through the computation of averaging, dissecting and pattern-matching (whereas digital intelligence for instance handles information by direct one-to-one representation) thus allowing highly condensed forms to be appropriated over time, albeit always without even partial equality (capacity to reproduce exactly).


Canguilhem (approximativement):
«Le normatif est ce qui institue des normes. »
«La normativité est invention, ce qui permet à un organisme d'attaquer son environnement ou de lui résister. [...] La vitalité échappe à la facticité, à la positivité. »
Une norme est: une mesure plus ou moins précise d'un fait de vie qui est la moyenne d'une population (point de vue d'un fait, du passé), ou un idéal socialement établi à partir de ce fait de vie (point de vue d'une idée, de l'avenir).
Le fait de vie dont est basée la norme est lié à un attribut: moral, esthétique, de désirabilité subjective.
La normativité est philosophiquement opposée à la positivité (c'est-à-dire descriptions et explications) lorsqu'elle décrit des types de théories, de croyances ou de propositions.

Je crois que:
Les attributs (bon, beau, bien) et jugements subjectifs sont fondés sur l'objectivité, mais l'objectivité dans ces cas souffre particulièrement de deux problèmes: la complexité et le manque d'accessibilité.
Par exemple. Complexité: un acte est juste à l'égard d'une règle de droit ou de morale, et cette règle peut être définie objectivement, mais nécessiterait une longue quantité de travail.
Par exemple. Accessibilité: quelque chose est beau par sa proximité mathématique envers la combinaison particulière des processus psychologiques (comparaison, projection, etc.) et les références culturelles enracinées, mais est trop obscur pour notre ère de savoir les définir.

Ainsi, la subjectivité est toujours une expression condensée basée sur une objectivité cachée.

Ce qui définit l'intelligence humaine, c'est que sa façon d'appréhender l'information consiste en calculs de moyenne, de dissection et d'appariement des formes (alors que l'intelligence numérique  par exemple gère l'information par représentation directe un-à-un) permettant ainsi l'appropriation de formes très condensées au fil du temps, mais toujours sans égalité même partielle (capacité à reproduire exactement).

If you have too much (needs rework)

1. If you have too much, you have no thing to lose 

2. i.e there is nothing you can lose (since you have too much)

3. you can no longer really reject anything in your possession

4. things become attached to you

5. you become a thing-being, an object-subject

6. you lose the capacity of removal

7. and gaining has lost its sense

8. there is no longer a goal in winning

9. or a need for this goal

10. and minor, fun risks have become actually dangerous: you can either die, which is losing too much, or not lose at all.

11. Dying means losing too much in the same way as losing too much means dying.

12. Having too much is like being on a cliff: losing means falling, hence having too much also means losing too much automatically, and implies dying. A poor person cherishes their possessions but does not die from losing them. There is a unit of measure for possessiveness which acts like mass acts with gravity.

13. Like gravity, having too much transforms you into a black hole, possession being attracted to possession, like mass and gravity.

14. The possession unit contains a psychological dynamic of joy:


15. If you have too much, you forget the struggles and the sense of life.

16. By losing incentive, you lose desire.

17. By losing desire, you lose identity.

18. You lose the capacity to really lose but gain all meaningful losses: the Big Loss(es).

19. Paradoxically, by gaining too much, you also reach something really meaningful.

The above came as a flash. It's really an cryptic allegory, it doesn't correspond to anything real. If this was taken as a description of what commonly means to own too many of something, one would logically say this never happens, that owning some category of things in large amount do not reach such a terrible state. So what does? I am of the opinion than if we can think it, it must exist.

Perhaps it's the concept of possession that should be replaced with something else, for instance being immortal:
 - if you are immortal, you have no thing to lose...etc
down to:
 - Dying means being immortal in the same was as being immortal means dying.
And the unit of measure would be our capacity to survive.
This works quite well.

What about: living fully every second of the day:
 - if you live fully every second of the day, you have no thing to lose...etc
This works well in a way, a more positive way than the dying one.

What else?

Perhaps it's a play on the words "too much". What does "too much" mean in the concept of ownership? "Too much" means breaking the rules. If I break the rules of ownership, it means I cannot own anymore, I no longer own, I don't have the capacity OR THE RIGHT to own. 

What else?

Freedom Fallacies

Right at this moment, I have a sudden feeling of freedom.
Freedom implies the absence of limitations, a loss of barriers. So if it's a loss, it should be painful.
The sudden disappearance of sweet protective coating that made us not have to think about possibilities that were impossible, this should be painful, as some of those limitations were our own creations. Like a dam breaking, a simultaneous invasion of a dangerous substance happens. Here, dangerous possibilities. Feeling really free would be like winning the lottery, bringing too many possibilities, some of them harmful and tempting.

The delight that we associate with freedom must thus be usually a feeling of power within our own space, a feeling that we can do more with what we have, a circumscribed reevaluation, an energy inside our sphere. Not a true freedom. Is the key to hunt those invented limitations to look for the pain behind the "what-if" of their dismissal? And then to accept that pain, to master the resulting flow.

There probably are many other fake feelings, that disguise themselves and trick us.

Interestingly, the value and sense of a limitation exist only/mostly by the danger it protects: when the dam breaks, people get focused on the water getting in, they think "water is coming!" and not "the dam is broken!", yet there is a minimum value we attach to the barrier, but don't feel it and don't even have time to feel the loss of it. I'm wondering is there are examples of barriers we create that have a strong intrinsic value, that perhaps we hold on to even though there are no dangers, e.g. a golden dam protecting us from nothing. Like a crazy person afraid to go outside their zone, pretending there are dangerous animals, holding on to their own mirages.

Pokemon Go and Donald Trump. (nonsense title just for fun)

Notes on jet lag

JL makes my mind feel like a swamp full of mire, but in an elegant fashion.
No feelings inside: no complicated thought, no envy, no inspiration, no sadness, and yet... I feel the amazingness of JL, but the absence of feelings makes my enjoyment seem inexistent, it is hidden behind a perfect mask of perfect contentment.
JL is not like anesthesia, not a lobotomised state, not a tired state.
People respond well to the JL aura as it looks like apathy (or wisdom?).
This is a blocking state of mind, it's a mode, "the" mode - { Difference between feelings and state of mind/mode, the latter being how we process information, the former a particular mental snapshot. }

A mode that excludes negative feed-back, excludes fear, that removes some of the self-analytical filters we apply on our imaginative creation of world states (WS).
The mode of JL allows for a complete freedom of imagination - although it may remove the need for imagination. JL removes the fear, impulses, cravings, memorisation of anything, sympathy.
Final exclusion of personal feelings. A door opened to the universe? the opening to let the world flow in?

Notes on a totally different state of mind

Not a jet lag, but after another trip and not enough sleep. Light inspiration, or rather, aspiration, extremely pleasant, not artistic, as if my soul was lifted, and ready to focus (which means already focusing) on the higher spheres. Easiness to reject the lower things.
It's... that happy emotion we get from a challenging and obscure mental endeavour, that emotion which is always too small. This feeling makes it bigger, almost tangible, makes the hypothetic effort worth it. It's about seeing the lights that shine from the worlds We Should Discover, the non-mundane worlds. The confirmed knowledge of unlimited areas of sphere fields.

Observations on reading and free doom / freed homes / free dom / freed Om

When I read, unless I am in perfect harmony with the text, which doesn't happen often, or if the content is a fiction describing an intense active moment, then my mind often wanders away, and it sparks other points, and I follow those sparks like an innocent small child following anything shiny and promising, and that is not only natural but a good thing, as the benefits of a mature control would clearly counter the energetic dynamism of young freedom/free youth. That however would be different would I be a professional reader e.g. a proper philosopher or philologist.
By following my wandering mind, various activities can follow, which makes their origin lost, and my activities seem random.

We live our lives in Orders, frameworks of orderly arrangements of tasks and responsibilities and structure, that invade us and obscure the actual limitations they impose on us. However, Order is not the opposite of freedom: captivity, dependence, liability are true antonyms, however, Order has the sneaky effect of hiding them under a veil of apparent perfection. One could describe the world history since the beginning of industrial times as the adventure towards the right kind of Order - first social, then (in the last decades) also moral and personal - that would keep the benefits of both clarity and manageability while retaining capacities of freedom and equality. Most modern wars and social issues can be seen through this filter:
 - current issues with Islam, Soviet failures, unemployments,...etc down to the personal wars of all modern humans to accustom themselves to the rat race, are due to capitalism and globalisation being the Simple Order of Money, hiding the atrociously inhumane consequences that have created atrocities of all scales
 - hidden issues from a hidden war that we haven't even fought yet: the architecture and contemporary design, the Order of Efficiency, hiding any sort of decoration and differences and poetry, having created a tyrannic self-perpetuating machine producing the industrial factories that we call cities
 - hidden issues from another hidden war: the Undefined Order of Free Choice: the fact that we have created absurd amounts of offerings and personal choice, creating the fantastic nervousness we don't even see as unnatural.

Deeper thoughts: the paradoxical nature or eleutherophobia (fear of freedom), mastering Order to bring back its infantile nature, the necessity to invent/rediscover a biological process/path to get to the Right Order (the path towards it not having the same mechanical/rigid aspects than its end - we wish the evolution resemble its ending, but both evolution and endings are always surprising).

Some art: the beauty made by neural networks:

Flow, Path, Work, Fear and Stress, Side Ways, Openings

I am a sick victim of Extreme Selfishness in the process of acquiring any sort of external input. One tells me information and I immediately judge it towards its relevance to a small set of personal factors. "Do I even like this?" is the first filter I apply, and the level of exigence to anything crossing my senses has always been so high it is a surprise I was even able to be part of society. This is my drama. At some point in childhood, I must have had a sense of urgency, awareness of life threatened, enough to lower the bar enough. How can I read a book that is..

Nakamura and Csíkszentmihályi identify the following six factors as encompassing an experience of flow.
  1. intense and focused concentration on the present moment
  2. merging of action and awareness
  3. a loss of reflective self-consciousness
  4. a sense of personal control or agency over the situation or activity
  5. a distortion of temporal experience, one's subjective experience of time is altered
  6. experience of the activity as intrinsically rewarding, also referred to as autotelic experience
Those aspects can appear independently of each other, but only in combination do they constitute a so-called flow experience.

Skill here is really the capacity to open the faucet of the mental machine, not the pre-existingability to complete a task, but rather the preparatory disposition to deliver intelligence. 

What I LOVE in a flow: the absence of bullshit and the absence of anxiety, worry, apathy.

We forget: the important is the path, not the goal: in how we got to a state, by going through a way/channel/behavior that doesn't look like the goal: we take off/transform part of reality. I need a light imaginary world before doing anything. Some forget superstructures. Manipulating the goal-objects immediately, "à froid", is a resistance.


 It's forced work, in a relaxed state, that shapes the grounds, the mental walls, of what is needed to advance. An absence of distraction. It reminds me of special Sunday afternoons (it is Sunday) where school work was advancing positively. A shade of control and controlled neutrality and focus.


Fear and Stress.

They deserve eulogies and constant resuscitations.

  • My best teachers were disciplinarian
  • I believe in smart authoritarianism
  • Humans are lazy
  • I feel best when concentrated and heavily mentally occupied
  • Happiness comes after but through concentration
A truth hidden from all self-help medicine. The need for the right balance of protected non-anxiogenic stress and fear.
  • there is such a thing as the right balance, the perfect medium
Translations of Swedish word "frisk": fresh, sweet, healthy, sound, snappy, lively, well, good, strong, lusty, whole, hale, smacking. Stark: strong. Kall: cold.

Frisk och Stark.


I think in side ways, hence need more work than others to get something complete. I'm not good at focusing clearly.


The structure by which a word that is put down brings back and up its vivid lives.

The poet. The writer. The something. As spoke Alain.

The immanent emptiness of country life.


A word on transparent structures, superstructures. The-thing-that-really-matters. Really, as in, pertaining to reality, yet intangible.
(As in, the scientific image of physics and biology, the understanding of gravity when things fall, understanding of a person or of a group when we need to address them, the intuition of flavours when cooking, the immense je-ne-sais-quoi that should govern our lives as full of heroism)
First, linkage to tangibility, sensations. Mathematicians talk about a beautiful (glass) castle, poets evoke many sensations, music is full of breathing and violence. Metaphors make up the human language of superstructures. Memories and/or logic are their food.
A note on word-structures: most likely the most fruitful. Self-generating and surprisingly power-inducing. A sweet constant mind revolution. Choose wisely thy path, then speed up.
Optionally, how fully can one imagine (realist), recover (idealist)? Mankind limitations? A being so absorbed to forget about Stuff, towards mental alienation. Actors are never as fascinating as when they do not seem totally inside their role.
Finally, structures that don't feel like such: the invisible aspects, a poetic structure, subconscious power. That's where the true power of self-generating word-superstructures come to play, words evoking more than we always think they do. Once they've been liberated from the constraint of being used like tools, words quickly behave like slaves: a bit less manageable, requiring more care, slightly resistant, requiring education and control. A this point slaves need to be emancipated and we need to abandon sovereignty. Then words become coworkers, friends, then stories can get written.