Plato And Aristotle (1)

Every man is born an Aristotelian, or a Platonist. I do not think it possible that any one born an Aristotelian can become a Platonist; and I am sure no born Platonist can ever change into an Aristotelian. They are the two classes of men, beside which it is next to impossible to conceive a third. The one considers reason a quality, or attribute; the other considers it a power. I believe that Aristotle never could get to understand what Plato meant by an idea. There is a passage, indeed, in the Eudemian Ethics which looks like an exception; but I doubt not of its being spurious, as that whole work is supposed by some to be. With Plato ideas are constitutive in themselves.

But Coleridge might be midst Plato and Aristotle antinomically as Kant considered midst metaphysics and empiricism by Karatani Kōjin — Coleridge was inspired strongly by Kant — . (kimarx)

Can the conflict between Plato and Aristotle be associated with the division between intelligence and power Foucault found in the Greek ancients? (kimarx)

Plato and Aristotle (2)

Aristotle was, and still is, the sovereign lord of the understanding; the faculty judging by the senses. He was a conceptualist, and never could raise himself into that higher state, which was natural to Plato, and has been so to others, in which the understanding is distinctly contemplated, and, as it were, looked down upon from the throne of actual ideas, or living, inborn, essential truths.

It is certain Coleridge should, in considering Plato and Aristotle, refer to Kant’s theory. (kimarx)

Plato And Aristotle (3)

Yet what a mind was Aristotle’s — only not the greatest that ever animated the human form! — the parent of science, properly so called, the master of criticism, and the founder or editor of logic! But he confounded science with philosophy, which is an error. Philosophy is the middle state between science, or knowledge, and sophia, or wisdom.

A good philosopher puts himself midst science, abstracting, and rhetoric. (kimarx)

Plato and Xenophon

Plato’s works are logical exercises for the mind. Little that is positive is advanced in them. Socrates may be fairly represented by Plato in the more moral parts; but in all the metaphysical disquisitions it is Pythagoras. Xenophon’s representation of his master is quite different.

Socrates would call what logics cannot rule ‘daemon’ that is beyond reason. And he was followed by Wittgenstein. (kimarx)

RELIGIONS OF THE GREEKS

Observe the remarkable contrast between the religion of the tragic and other poets of Greece. The former are always opposed in heart to the popular divinities. In fact, there are the popular, the sacerdotal, and the mysterious religions of Greece, represented roughly by Homer, Pindar, and Æschylus. The ancients had no notion of a fall of man, though they had of his gradual degeneracy. Prometheus, in the old mythus, and for the most part in Æschylus, is the Redeemer and the Devil jumbled together.

Those religions of Greece remained in the 20st century. Le Corbusier writes about it somewhere. The ancient life with a kind of Greek religion Karl Löwith found in the early Shōwa period Japan. Though all Japanese history would lack tragedy at most times. (kimarx)

EGYPTIAN ANTIQUITIES

I cannot say I expect much from mere Egyptian antiquities. Almost every thing really, that is, intellectually, great in that country seems to me of Grecian origin.

Coleridge might predict Pasolini’s film works, such as “Oedipus Rex.” Coleridge was taken as a poetery master by Poe taken as a poetry master by Mallarmé taken as a poetry master by Pasolini. (kimarx)

Milton

I think nothing can be added to Milton’s definition or rule of poetry, — that it ought to be simple, sensuous, and impassioned; that is to say, single in conception, abounding in sensible images, and informing them all with the spirit of the mind.

I can, imitating Nishida Kitarō who is considered representative of the modern philosophy of Japan, say that one conception ought to be with various images and various images ought to be with one conception. (kimarx)

Milton’s Latin style is, I think, better and easier than his English. His style, in prose, is quite as characteristic of him as a philosophic republican, as Cowley’s is of him as a first-rate gentleman.

Alain says Mallarmé and his disciple, Valéry, had, with thinking in English, written in French. Milton might have, with thinking in Latin, written in English. (kimarx)

Virgil

If you take from Virgil his diction and metre, what do you leave him?

In the poetry of Virgil, both diction and metre precede anything as in Hugo’s poetry criticized by Alain. Alain took Hugo as a representation of speech language cultures. And Hugo is a national poet as Virgil. I consider Virgil as a representation both of Roman expansionism and of a backlash beside itself — Globalization is always with nationalism — . (kimarx)

It seems to me Larry Wall doesn’t like French language.(*1) Mr. Wall is cynical about French, because he’s a French symbolism poet. It is certain that the Mr. Wall’s best friend is Stéphane Mallarmé. Most of Perl hackers don’t know it. Perl is odd. Mallarmé’s poems are odd. Mr. Wall is as critical of French as Mallarmé. Alain indicated that Mallarmé had written in French with himself thinking in English. Lispers have often written as Mallarmé, they have sometimes tried to write in other programming languages with keeping the style of Lisp. But Mallarmé is greater than Lisper. Only in programming, a Lisper knows himself to base his thinking style on programming language. Mallarmé always doubted The Obviousness of First-Mother Language. Lisp makes Lispers. French makes the French. Japanese makes the Japanese. Namely, national language makes the nationals. Mr. Wall would know it.

Japanese have experienced fruitless conflicts between the humanities course and the science course. The humanities students sometimes ridicule the science students, ‘Content(signifié) follows Form(signifiant). Do you know Saussure?’ Most of Perl hackers don’t know Ferdinand de Saussure. But the laughing humanities students don’t know Larry Wall or that his intelligence is as brilliant as both Saussure and Mallarmé. They may know Paul de Man or Jacques Derrida — It’s true that most of Perl hackers doesn’t know both of them — , but they have never deconstructed the language truly. Mr. Wall has let Perl hackers be unconscious deconstructionists. So, Perl is a postmodern programming language!

It’s high time for Perl-lovers to understand an important Perl conception. It’s true that Perl is an useful tool. But Ruby and Python, too. Perl is a Deconstruction itself. Mallarmé’s poems, too. Deconstruction is not a word game. It’s thinking-writing based on the conflict among languages (and nations). Perl has imported various programming languages into itself. Ruby and Python, too. But, only in Perl world, conflicts among imported languages have never stopped. So Perl is always unregulated. Ruby and Python, both of them have tried to unite the conflicts to keep themselves simple. Perl has never wanted any regulation — It seems both Ruby and Python want to be national language, unconsciously or consciously. In Japan, Ruby may come to be headed for the national programming language(*2) — . The conflict among imported languages cannot unite Form with Content. All national languages, solving the conflict, have made a effort to unite Form with Content. Nation regulated its national language to make the people whom it controls share the common sense of its language. The Roman ancients imported Greek to create their language. Japanese language originates mainly in imported Chinese. But the nation often makes the nationals forget the imported foreign language latent in their language. The nation has always sung, ‘One Nation Under A National Language.’ One nation, one language, one culture, and one order. And Perl hackers don’t like one order. It’s important that Perl hackers write in Perl with themselves thinking in imported various programming languages — Perl lets Perl hackers be Mallarmé or deconstructionist — . Perl doesn’t have any order of itself — Or I can say that Perl has so many orders. Therefore Perl hackers can choose what he likes and wants to follow, but they will reflect upon this choice — . Perl always shines radically what both nation and its one order have concealed, the imported things.

The theme of Perl is not ‘Two follows One’ rather than ‘One follows Two’. Claude Lévi-Strauss says a family provides man and another family provides woman before a new family is going to be constructed. One Family follows Two Families. One family needs a relation between among two families to construct itself. It’s important for Perl hackers to base themselves upon the relation among cultures, thoughts, and languages. Deconstructionist, too. It is necessary to remember Theodor Adorno. The dialectic of Perl never knows any unity.

So, Perl hackers, It’s erroneous to insist that Perl has useful and strong CPAN which is representative of Perl community, to champion the superiority of Perl against Rubiest and Pythonista. It is necessary to import the good Ruby way and the good Python way, and show that conflicts among imported programming languages are re-creating Perl — If Both Rubiest and Pythonista cannot understand it, they will be trapped in old-fashioned conservatism — . Perl can imitate both Ruby and Python to give both of them a good example of programming language. And, it’s just the strength of Perl.

(*1) Natural languages typically don’t have any shame in borrowing things from other languages, unless of course you’re French.
Programming Perl — An interview with Larry Wall by Lorrie Faith Cranor

(*2) Kogai, Dan, a famous Perl hacker, said, Ruby Certificate Exam may mean the end of Ruby. Perl has never been degraded enough to need any public authority.
小飼弾——35歳からのプログラミングこそ無上の至悦 translated by me, Kim, Yi-chul

I was inspired by your post. I wrote that money fetishism theory confused cause and effect. Money fetishism theory is in the game ruled by money. Let us look at the matter a little closer.

First of all, it is necessary to see that commercial intercourse comes up or we don’t need any means of exchange — In the Heian period Japan, a man wanted to have intercourse with a woman or he did not need waka — . It is necessary for economics to emphasize money and take away the religious veil of money. Shinichirō Tomonaga said that physics has tried to find out the true face of goddess who ruled nature through her veil — Martin Heidegger was sure that the goddess physics had seen was fake, but — . Money doesn’t conceal goddess — profound laws of physics — . But it’s true that goddess is beside money.

Karl Marx wrote as follows:

Money is a crystal formed of necessity in the course of the exchanges, whereby different products of labour are practically equated to one another and thus by practice converted into commodities. The historical progress and extension of exchanges develops the contrast, latent in commodities, between use-value and value. The necessity for giving an external expression to this contrast for the purposes of commercial intercourse, urges on the establishment of an independent form of value, and finds no rest until it is once for all satisfied by the differentiation of commodities into commodities and money. At the same rate, then, as the conversion of products into commodities is being accomplished, so also is the conversion of one special commodity into money. (*1)

Commercial intercourse needs money, and without money it has never gone through. We might just as well try to retain Catholicism without the Pope.(*2) There is no minimizing money. It must be noted that money is representation of a religion rules this capitalized world. And it is necessary to take note that money represents the value of commodities to construct variety — It is in market — . Money puts price tags on all creation. Money has relativized all things on the earth. Variety originates in market. Wealth originates in sea. Human beings have made sea the place for trades. When Friedrich Hölderlin reflected on his life by the sea, he was fascinated with the wealth of sea — But the wealth of sea donates the remains to the poets. Was bleibet aber, stiften die Dichter. (*3) It is necessary to take note that the poets long for variety and keep themselves a long away from there — . Sociality needs market. Market spiritualizes money. Commodities are relativized by money. It is, however, just this ultimate money form of the world of commodities that actually conceals, instead of disclosing, the social character of private labour, and the social relations between the individual producers (*4) — And Hölderlin described seafaring as individual. Sie, / Wie Maler, bringen zusammen / Das Schöne der Erd und verschmähn / Den geflügelten Krieg nicht, und / Zu wohnen einsam, jahrlang, unter / Dem entlaubten Mast, wo nicht die Nacht / durchglãnzen / Die Feiertage der Stadt, / Und Saitenspiel und eingeborener Tanz nicht. (*5) It is necessary to leave prosperous markets by the sea, or we cannot find out individual producers — .

Money fetishism theory said that commodities were ensured equality under money. It will be right unless I disaffirm the representation system where only money is common language. Karl Marx found out crisis, it is latent in the money representation system. It is necessary to leave beach, or we cannot reflect on sea — like Hölderlin — . It is necessary to be away from variety money has developed, with the angel of history Walter Benjamin wrote. I told you, ‘It is necessary to see the relation between buying and selling.’ It is easy to understand that communication — There is nothing to divorce communication from sociality — depends a great deal on language. And it is impossible to consider buying and selling without consideration of money. Marx wrote as follows:

The exchange of commodities is therefore accompanied by the following changes in their form.

Commodity — Money — Commodity.
C—————— M ——————C.

The result of the whole process is, so far as concerns the objects themselves, C — C, the exchange of one commodity for another, the circulation of materialised social labour. When this result is attained, the process is at an end. (*5)

It was necessary for Karl Marx to expose the money representation system and be critical of the economists confused use-value and value, the money fetishism theory was useful for him then. When he was critical of the money representation system, Marx was a long away from the money fetishism theory. He exposed what make money transcend — our sociality — . Don’t treat the writings and theories of Marx as individually-resolved. It is necessary to gaze at the processing on the writing of Marx. A glance at above tells that selling is described as the form, < C - M >, and buying is < M - C >. In other words, selling is < Meaning - Token > and buying is < Token - Meaning >. Being faced with tokens — words, images, and sounds — , we have some senses. End users actualize use-value which is latent in commodity. And it is hard for authors to control his readers — It must be noted that writer sometimes makes himself his reader, but —. It is necessary for authors and producers to experience more hardship than end users. Value is not use-value, token is not meaning, but we let money metamorphose into commodity easily. For money transcends communities, nationalities, and politics, whenever we conform to the money representation system. Use-value is not value, meaning is not token, and we sometimes fail to let commodity metamorphose into money. For commodities are not transcendental. But commodities must be transcendental, or they cannot be sold. The leap taken by value from the body of the commodity, into the body of the gold, is, as I have elsewhere called it, the salto mortale of the commodity. If it falls short, then, although the commodity itself is not harmed, its owner decidedly is. (*7) Seafaring is commonly associated with hardship. It is necessary to see the conflict between use-value and value — meaning and token, electorate and elect — that is latent in commodity (When Marx was critical of indirect democracy, a representation system, he pointed out the conflict between electorate and elect, and said it caused the despotic leader such as Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte). This conflict causes crisis — economic depression — . Marx wrote as follows:

Circulation bursts through all restrictions as to time, place, and individuals, imposed by direct barter, and this it effects by splitting up, into the antithesis of a sale and a purchase, the direct identity that in barter does exist between the alienation of one’s own and the acquisition of some other man’s product. To say that these two independent and antithetical acts have an intrinsic unity, are essentially one, is the same as to say that this intrinsic oneness expresses itself in an external antithesis. If the interval in time between the two complementary phases of the complete metamorphosis of a commodity become too great, if the split between the sale and the purchase become too pronounced, the intimate connexion between them, their oneness, asserts itself by producing — a crisis. The antithesis, use-value and value; the contradictions that private labour is bound to manifest itself as direct social labour, that a particularised concrete kind of labour has to pass for abstract human labour; the contradiction between the personification of objects and the representation of persons by things; all these antitheses and contradictions, which are immanent in commodities, assert themselves, and develop their modes of motion, in the antithetical phases of the metamorphosis of a commodity. These modes therefore imply the possibility, and no more than the possibility, of crises. (*8)

Sociality let us go to market for exchange, but the conflict is latent in sociality harms exchange. And Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari wrote that, it was not attrition rather than failure that social machines limited themselves to, these machines did not function unless they had gone wrong and burst. (*9) Capitalism contains critical bugs, but, without these bugs, capitalism does not function.

It is high time to question where goddess is? She is a commodity — So she tries to be transcendental — , and is double as a individual producer. She has intercourse with someone — It is commercial and sexual — . Prostitute is modern goddess. She is a demigod. An Feiertagen gehn / Die braunen Frauen daselbst / Auf seidnen Boden. (*10) Someone said that Die braunen Frauen, the brown women, were prostitutes. Friedrich Hölderlin anticipated Charles Baudelaire.

(*1) Karl Marx ‘Chapter Two: Excahnge’, “Capital Volume One”
(*2) same as above.
(*3) Friedrich Hölderlin ‘Andenken’, “Gedichte” Reclam p.104
(*4) Karl Marx ‘Chapter One: Commodities’, “Capital Volume One”
(*5) ‘Andenken’, “Gedichte” p.104
(*6) Karl Marx ‘Chapter Three: Money, Or the Circulation of Commodities’, “Capital Volume One”
(*7) same as above.
(*8) same as above.
(*9) Gilles Deleuze, Félix Guattari, translated by Kōsuke IchiKura [ja] ‘Chapter Three: Savages, Barbarians, Civilized Men’, “Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia” Kawade-Shobō-Shinsya, p.185
(*10) ‘Andenken’, “Gedichte” p.103