Old Writings on Phenomenology
An object is a type of positing which is assessed to be present or absent in relation to particular non-posited phenomena.
The is-object is that which is in phenomena by being that which is partitioned from some other phenomena while at the same time being united with phenomena other than said aforementioned sum concurrently in experiential space and time. The is-object is unique in that we register it as absent once the concurrence of its unity is disrupted in any way.
In contrast the open-object is like the is-object partitioned away from other phenomena while subsuming others but it does not register as absent when any part of what it unifies dissolves and can in fact come to unify more phenomena over time without changing to be absent.
Finally the articulate-object is like the previously aforementioned objects partitioned from the rest of phenomena while uniting other phenomena yet whose presence or absence in relation to the phenomena it unifies is somewhere between the is-object and the open-object; where in the is-object if any phenomena was to dissolve out of the process of unification the object would become absent, this is only the case for certain phenomena in the articulate-object’s periphery of unification and not others (which phenomena these are depends on the articulate-object in question). Yet also like the open-object the articulate object can come to subsume or replace phenomena in its periphery with phenomena outside it however it cannot do so indefinitely (the limitation on said aforementioned replacements or subsumptions again depends on the particularities of the articulate-object).
Objects when subsuming other phenomena usually also subsume said phenomena into other sub-objects which can be either open-objects and/or is-objects though not in the same sense as usually open-object will be more of an object’s context whereas is-objects would compose the articulate object’s constitution. And of course articulate-objects can also be sub-objects to an object’s constitution.
Dialectical-posits are posits that would cease to be constituted without the presence of another posit that reciprocally would cease to be constituted if the other posit is not posited.
Encounters are phenomena that have not been fit into our field of objects in any of the three categories nor have been posited in any way. They are phenomena that break our field of interpretation and must be experimentally posited on top of by various objects to be made intelligible.
Some objects when they become absent produce new objects, this will be called a procession. All processions have a unique type of process that governs how such a procession occurs and/or indicates which type of object an object of a certain other type becomes if it engages in procession.
Looking into the eyes of the world we find ourselves at home in the interrupting highlight within them of the significant. We find the significant in the rustling of the equilibrium of our lives which were at one point the extensity of pure power, a panorama of insignificance. To be affected by the significant is to be put in a state of passivity that aches us out of the indifference of phenomena. In our passivity to the significant we must react to it in order relieve our sense of weakness against its interruption, in that way we become the effect of the significant as a cause. In fact one might even argue the most primordial experience of causality is our own experience as effect, rather than the external observation of the phenomena in objects. As this experience of ourselves as an effect we come to partition the panorama of life in twain between the effective core of our ownership and causative externality of the significant.
The significant establishes a space of play between the cause of the significant and the effect of the reacting subject in those phenomena which are neither cause nor effect. The cause and effect form two poles of characterization within the space of play in which either the cause or effect take handle over them as tools of domination. The tools of domination on the pole of the cause or interpreted as a disclosure or revelation of the cause's power or nature, whereas phenomena taken as tools of domination of the effect become a field of possibility and potential utilized by the subject as extensive subordinates to the effect's power.
As an effect we carry over the significant with us as part of our active capacity either as mental or physical potentiality depending on the significant which interrupted our homeostasis of power.
There is a cyclical power in which the effect we become is the cause of a reintroduction to the significant into the phenomenal field, however this reintroduction was caused by the same significant as the primordial cause meaning it was actually the significant itself that caused its own reintroduction in its gravitation. This cycle of gravitation will either constantly reinstate the significant into the phenomenal field until it is interrupted by a greater significant that in turn will foster its own cycle of reproduction or what I will call henceforth the act of vengeance.
Vengeance is the fundamental act of changing the intensity of a significant irreversibly to the point it either fades back into the phenomenal field or stands as a new passive significant as the deed. The deed is that which eradicates a significant’s continuity with itself as a consistent intensity by the power of the affected subject which now stands as the doer of the deed irreversibly.
The deed is a synthesis between the field of cause and effect as an effect of the effect caused by the cause, that as synthesis eradicates the phenomenal binary between cause and effect in which the cause becomes constitutive over our freedom yet also transcendent of it in its disappearance of intensity within the deed.