What can you always approach but never attain?

[charlie]

This is a question that’s been plaguing me for a while.

Some things that come to mind:
- the future (e.g. it’s always the present)
- perfection
- a mathematical limit (e.g. you can always find a number closer to a transcendental number i.e. sqrt(2))

Or, put another way, what is unattainable?
- the past
- perfection
- the exact value of sqrt(2), last digit of pi…. the end of infinity


A topic for discussion nonetheless

 

[porcy]

ive been thinking - democracy, rule of people, if id have to answer your question - i got stuck in loop:

‎pondelok ‎1. ‎decembra ‎2025
LOOK AT THE NEW NARRATIVE

With look at future where rights are just TOS and people just oranges to be squeezed, what should, if there is any, next generation do, to stop itself from repeating these same mistakes over and over again? "History rhymes", and "Good men... Weak men bring bad times (which brought up, next again, good men)..."

>'Maybe these civs ciseling things onto stone...' I keep hearing my thoughts regarding this painful topic - 'There might have been a point to that...' · What would You (Dear Reader) want to leave out as 'Permanent time-less capsule' for the next generations? (We seen how Weird it got, with Georgia Guildstones...)


One have to be said - kings knew where the limits to their reign were. We could state, yet, with varying accuracy - people haven't been so 'domestificated', 'coddled' yet. They "gat dat dawg in dem!", to say. · But how can we claim that, when in fact, it brought us up to this point? · Some may then, state on how it was then, "just
a russe" and this all we see is just consequences, "kings and rulers-hegemony have never left us" (our lives) - and this all might've been The point, plan - another War...

Epistemilogical war - not fight for freedom (yet, again; here we are*...), but for reason - fight is rendered meaningless. This point was brought up by me in the very first stanza - in short, to cite / quote, "History rhymes · Weak men..." - regarding, 'there is no reason to "fight what is coming", because "you will not appreciate it until it is gone / on its brink." - and you are our cheap babe, we got you where we want', I hear these agitprop touters say - and what is worse - in my own head...

> This is just "Another win for rulling party" - but of it, when we ourselves deal it to us! - What could that be, making Man whimper like chihuahua in storm, but being still so, aggresive when it is 'nothingburger'? Using ones' fear of authority, to deal the punch "(Stick) To the man", rendering 'em to tremble before its/theirs' own ideas?! · 'Mea culpa' hear 'self say... - We are the ones we hate! This spook of Meaninglessness - and self-taught lies/deceptions, "Obey (neolib.) capitalism,
%%%-ism and no one get hurt." - but really? Is it because fear, or bc. of agitprop that it is 'only way', 'we should fear The Other' - classic "Divide and conquer"?

But That, at least, would make sense. So what is it, - our nature? How Fisher said, "We can't imagine any other future", because everything other led to another-same hierarchy of tyrrants???...

 

[porcy]

to explain further:

<post-"soc. contract"/shared society, reality --- echo-chambers, but on drugs... --- basically plot of Matrix movie* (just without slopping down into "J00s did it" Crit. theory 4chan KYM graph) /* tl;dr "We live in The Society"...>

ontological, epistemical war - basically what mark fisher said... war on meaning, on terms - thoughts itself (overton window but worse), "only allowed opinions allowed" - it is what got us in the way world is today, or perhaps been as of always - speaking of this mind-map model, "speaking to power" - unspeakable opinions. i call people who "gatekeep" those, "bitheads" - it looks like push-polling, example can be "you are against ChatControl/GoingDark? = you love p_dos!" - false equivalence/dilemma (and mentioned before, as one of many examples (to hold status quo), push-polling)...

[examples: who helds "rights" for "current-reality" - which are "legitimate" problems - what is "normal" and "how" it is "defined" - "taboo", but going around the terms of "unknown unknowns"... --- what "truth" is - what "is desinfo" - and "consensus", of it all? ...

/

e.g.: when people are called schi(zo), r, i...-word(s) because people refuse to accept their POV (that is, outside of "batshit crazy" ideas that are out from window upon what we call first principles - what we know is true or what is more probable to be true, than opposite... ---

--- to not get tangled-in, dismiss "labels-war" in place. what i say then is, "when everything is psyop", nothing is - and we cant move nowhere. problem of terms-politics - arguing over "what is 'woman / socialist / liberal / ...' ?", (which) is exact problem of post-OWS politics and one from "crazier side" would, could assume, guess, intrigue if that is "CIA psyop", itself]

/
/
/

was ~current~ "world-system" (as-is), "discovered"-first* (try/fail), or (delib.) invented (i.e. "made-up", i.e. "just-fictions" - coming from power - than "itself" (/*), on-go (from "want" than "need")?

edit: web Marxists «» call it egregore