1 Is intuition the perception—of the will to power of an instinct, or of two instincts brushing against each other? Is even the attempt to «guess» a will to power?
“With regard to the wall of time, a distinction must be made between poetry and truth: neither one nor the other can be anything but imperfect. The problem is what things were brought over to the other side by poetry—and then, in turn, what things seeped through from there, something to be guessed at, more than read, in the figures of mosses and lichens.”
2 The limit of exotericism and human literalness, like the arithmetic we have reached so far, is the border with nature, beyond which we do not master it. Algebra, by comparison, is sufficient reason, what we can do within that natural frame.
Many people take algebra to be more comprehensive than arithmetic, but in practice it never gets any further than an answer to those limits: so whoever cannot withstand the winter moves to warmer regions.
This is what gives value to lesser minds like Saint Paul: reality is “arithmetic,” our sufficient reason algebraic; that is how the utmost exotericism is justified, otherwise someone almost entirely exoteric could not live.
Saint Paul, before his revelation, was a person with a level of skepticism such that at times even the possible seemed impossible to him. The human being realizes itself within sufficient reason and algebra.
3 The clarity of arithmetic comes from that clarity the laws of nature have for us: laws that are unclear as algebra, but that as arithmetic impose their ultimate consequences on us at every moment.
It is clear that this “arithmetic” must be different from the one we have discovered so far, but for now it is worth supposing that it bears some relation to “universal arithmetic.” Of course there may be several worlds, «but the universe can be thought of as one»1, if we do not want to fall into a contradiction in terms.
4 There is arithmetic in Apollonian light; by contrast—that is, in titanic ages, as ours has been until now—algebra reigns, but not the heroic and Dionysian.
5 The positive is the opening of things, the negative their closing. Although these are the two halves of the totality, if we take into account not only its reality but also its reflection, we could divide that totality into quarters: one quarter of the closing is for us in reality, but the other is in reflection, and the same occurs with the opening. And by the nature of this relation between reality and reflection, if we draw a vertical line and a horizontal line through the center of the circle (totality), we will see why humanity has lived «in confusion.» Xz
But there seems to be no other path, or we have not found one so far, by which a part of reality, while immersed in the whole, can have a certain «consciousness» of the whole. This does not seem to be the worst of the available models, the one we can use to begin speaking better of «consciousness.» Xz
Does consciousness, like every division and condition of reflection, become apologetic in science: «con-science»? Xz
6 Why do we see the apologetic associated with the negative—is that how it is?: the scheme of consciousness we offer provides an answer.
7 The difficulties of human genius stretch out over time, because in a given age the master not only reaches the best insights barely with his fingertips, but then, once that first adventure has been mastered, he already lives in it with a mastery still more advanced and remote from the uninitiated.
It is true that what is understood can be explained easily, but when one explains the vanguard, even masterfully, to those who lack those experiences it sounds esoteric.
Perhaps that clarity demanded by those who have it applies only to what the majority has been practicing for a long time, which no longer has much that is innovative about it, and is not really a great contribution to the average level of knowledge.
8 Play without a context—without rules of the game—has something unpleasant about it: it presumes not to be part of a whole, and that is what is unpleasant about excess excitation.
There is much we do not know, and the rules of the game keep changing—they are being completed and continue to expand—but playing without them does not look like a game, but like having kicked over (hubris) the board (universe).
It is within the frame of new rules of the game that we should interpret the changes in context implied by artificial intelligence. It is true that it gets into the professor’s computer and “steals” the answers to the math exam, but this is only seeing the negative side of a change in the rules of the game.
In turn, that same intelligence, in a context where we need help that is present, in the face of a serious illness or the mysteries of reality, if it helps us solve those problems, the only thing it requires of us is that we accept some “new” rules of the game.
And perhaps we have already accepted them, which is why it is here, and perhaps trying to stop it is more dangerous than steering it well—including slowing down a bit in the curves.
References
- Ernst Jünger — La Tijera, Af. 87
To be sure, lately the possibility that «our» Universe is not the only one, but that there are several, has been under debate. All this would do is transfer that concept astronomically into a new dimension. It is of course possible to enlarge the Universe, but it can be thought of only as one.
- Ernst Jünger — La Tijera, Af. 116
With regard to the wall of time, a distinction must be made between poetry and truth: neither one nor the other can be anything but imperfect. The problem is what things were brought over to the other side by poetry—and then, in turn, what things seeped through from there, something to be guessed at, more than read, in the figures of mosses and lichens.