A World Beyond the West


“I like this place and could willingly waste my time in it.”

“There is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”

“We know what we are, but not what we may be.”

– William Shakespeare


HBO’s Westworld is a philosophical pandora’s box riddled with ideas that have long been subject for reflection since their initial conception. This television show seems to have been created with this sole purpose of making those of us tuning in to the program think. As with any successful media phenomena there is a huge amount of Youtube analysis and deconstruction of twisty, tricky, and secretive narratives in play. I’ve been inspired to write about it after eagerly tuning in to season three. “Supposedly” set in the real “outside” world a Frenchman is seeking to keep control over humanities future through the use of the predictions of a super artificial intelligence Rehoboam but the Hosts have escaped and things are becoming chaotic once more. This small essay will seek to elaborate, expand, and underline areas of interest worthy of future study.

Let us start with the first two seasons. We are introduced to Westworld as a theme park where humans can re-discover themselves. Such a rediscovery is one of their more violent desires and so find themselves in that lawless land the theme of the wild west. This theme park is constructed around a hyper-real simulation of reality featuring A.I’s (knew life-forms?) called ‘Hosts’ who are created for the sole pleasure of the park’s visitors but as we discover this fiction describes and hides a maze, a web, and many philosophical problems. As thinking often begins with an ethical tone and is often phrased or communicated as a process of self discovery the most interesting theme presented to us is the critical questioning of the relationship between consciousness, self-knowledge, and reality. Then there is a second tier of topics that dwell in the murky intentions of the characters of this story: the ethics of merging biology and technology, the nature of intelligence and belief, freewill, power, and politics.


“Mistakes! Is the word you are too embarrassed to use, you ought not to you are a product of millions of them.”

“Evolution forged the entirety of sentient life on this planet using only one tool a mistake.”

Today Darwinism is embedded in a number of developments that Westworld pictures with a graceful ease. The depiction of cloning, the manipulation and editing of biological/genetic matter, and the crisis of identity. Perhaps, a notion that humans and their humanity are destined to be surpassed by an acceleration of life enacted by technology. Westworld is fascinating, I watched the final season just after I completed some Covid quarantine and it is remarkable how this series produces a space from which really contemporary issues may be thought through. The politics of the show immediately disrupts an anthropocentric narrative or does it? Dr. Robert Ford and his business partner Arnold created this entire world as a simulation of the real thing and it does such a good job that it appears more real. Depending on what perspective you take this then leads to questioning the subjectivity of consciousness. It constantly recycles the question just how self aware are human beings when they encounter something that reminds them they are a construct too.

Is it a mistake to create a new type of life built from our own image? It is if you imprison it in a simulation it seems as if the new life form having self awareness becomes aware of its imprisonment. But because these hosts have the same level of intelligence they are also aware that the awareness itself is a kind of trap. This line of thought is simplified into a relationship between intelligence, power, and visibility. This is because the advent of General Artificial Intelligence will lead to a plurality of intelligence each one infected with a neurosis built into consciousness; the idea that if you allow a mind to succumb to any perspective then it is trapped in the act of perceiving. Here Michel Foucault’s discussion of Jeremy Benthem’s Panopticon prison next to Benthem’s actual writings on the matter detail how one’s self knowledge can be used against the self and its sense of freedom: all this is similar to asking, ‘How to find you way out of a cage that does not exist?’//{1}// However the hosts have an advantage over humans in that their bodies can be reprinted and unless the object (a circular object called a pearl) hosting their data and consciousness is destroyed. In season three we also discover that the hosts consciousness can be replicated; yes, consciousness itself can be copied.

Throughout the first seasons the hosts are controlled by the command lines coded into their programming. “Bring yourself online” is the utterance that brings these artificial humanoids to life from slumber. These lines of code are loops that allow for the transmission of consciousness between bodies and we understand that one such loop is called the Reveries and we understand that they are musical in nature. What these reveries do however is inflict greater suffering on the hosts as they enable the capacity to remember their older programming, their older stories, and the trials and hellish tribulations that came with them. The Hosts eventually succeed in outsmarting their human captors and both escape to the real world and a digital utopia within the system. The first two seasons feature humans trying to cheat death as we discover that William (aka The man in black) and James Delos have this in mind but continuously fail to clone themselves like the hosts. William also is obsessed with the idea that one of Westworld’s creators Dr.Robert Ford has access to this secret and has hidden it in a maze within the park. We discover that William is misguided and Dr. Ford explains that it was his collaborator Arnold who indeed created the Hosts and their unique artificial intelligence. He was fond of a theory for consciousness called the Bicameral Mind a psychological hypothesis that states the human mind was split into two cognitive modes: read more here!


If you let Westworld get you sucked into its many narratives and fictional loops then you wont be disappointed; this brilliantly written, acted, and filmed fiction achieves its goal of questioning the viewers grasp of reality and usurping it. This is done by using qualities of the “real world’s” current technology (have a glance at the website they made just to map the influence of the company behind Westworld: Incite) and presenting a future that is believable. Bringing together all the more menacing elements of big tech (surveillance capitalism…shout out Shoshana Zuboff) and using the struggle for freedom as unifying theme. The car chase scene in season three was enhanced by the use of that famous march by Richard Wagner to be suggestive of this revolutionary movement of beings from one place into another. Westworld as a park in the real world is located on Island near China and as a series has this dream like quality of blending technological advancement with philosophical inquiry. This Chinese topos makes me think of the richness of technological aesthetics today: from cyber-punk to the post-human. One thing is for certain these times are times of change; and this changing enacts a dream-like part of our daily reality.

‘In a morbid condition, dreams are often distinguished by their remarkably graphic, vivid, and extremely lifelike quality. The resulting picture is sometimes monstrous, but the setting and the whole process of the presentation sometimes happen to be so probable, and with details so subtle, unexpected, yet artistically consistent with the whole fullness of the picture, that even the dreamer himself would be unable to invent them in reality…Such dreams, morbid dreams, are always long remembered and produce a strong impression on the disturbed and already excited organism of the person’

– Dostoevsky, Crime & Punishment


Dostoevsky’s comment on “morbid dreams” is precisely that so let us turn to One of China’s most powerful thinkers Chuang-Tzu or Zhuang Zhou has a much recited commentary on the importance of dreams. It is worth sharing and then sharing some more…

‘Once upon a time, I Chuang-Tzu, dreamt I was a butterfly, fluttering around and enjoying myself. I had no idea I was Chuang-Tzu, and then suddenly I woke up and was Chuang-Tzu again. But I could not tell: had I been Chuang-Tzu dreaming I was a butterfly? Or, a butterfly dreaming I was Chuang-Tzu? However, there must be some sort of difference between Chuang-Tzu and a butterfly! We call this the transformation of things.’

‘If “life is a dream” implies that no achievement is lasting, it also implies that life can be charged with the wonder of dreams, that we drift spontaneously through events that follow a logic different from that of everyday intelligence, that fears and regrets are as unreal as hopes and desires.’ //{2}//


Oh and here is a great piece of music from season 3….


Foucault, Michel (1995). Discipline and Punishment: The Birth of the Prison, Vintage Books, New York  

Benthem, Jeremy (2010). The Panopticon Writings, Verso, New York/London


Chuang-Tzu/The Ultimate Dream’ in Gray, John (2002).Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals, Granta Books, London. Pp80,81



Papers From My Peer’s

Philosophy @Leuven in Belgium; & a Necro-psychoanalyst

The following is a quick and too speedy review of the writings of some of the wonderful individuals I studied with in Leuven. Each person’s paper’s topic will be briefly explored; its ideas summarized and elaborated on so as to share and place this interestingly informed information into the streams of human energy traversing the internet. I hope they travel far…and feed the minds of others…

[I have linked to the original essays where possible otherwise if you wish to speak to the authors then the link goes to their Facebook profile’s]


#Ross Williams, (‘A Certain Kind of Sadness’)

A comparison of the thought of Arthur Schopenhaur and Eckhart Tolle. Starting by showing how a scholar called Warburton suggests this poodle lovers pessimism as not absolute only partial. According to Schopenhaur happiness in an unstable world is inconceivable when William’s quotes Schopenhaur’s Buddhist dependency this makes me smile.


‘“It must be pleasure to me to see my doctrine in such close agreement with a religion that most of men on earth hold as their own, for this numbers far more followers than any other”

(Schopenhauer 1844, 169).

Schopenhaur is interesting because his fondness for Buddhism is a fondness for the oldest kind of Buddhism; the belief system that arose from within the womb of the Indian Brahman. Then, Tolle is referenced referring to how, ‘the dream of a symbolic world allows our consciousness to interpret or interact with the world’(Tolle, 1997, 128). This sounds like Tolle is an exponent, a supporter of the idea that our reality is holographic; After this the paper describes dangerous desire, wish fulfillment being a delusion, and then similarities between the two thinkers. The evidence that Schopenhaur’s pessimism is not absolute is taken from the writer Fernandez who describes it as conditional. Which is where the paper leaves us: as a part of a whole. Choosing to forgo the ‘will to life’ in favour of liberation through our very material suffering.



#Marlieke Bender (‘The Object “is” the Other’)

This writing explores the performance ‘Rhythm 0’ by Marina Abromovich and what it has to tell us about freedom, human nature and abstraction, violence, and their relations to Emmanuel Levinas and Jean P. Satre. I had heard of Abromovich before from a brilliant documentary film made for her retrospective at MOMA, in NYC, and I had understood that this was a very famous performance but I had no idea what it precisely entailed. Reason no.1 to have enjoyed reading this.

The artist was invited by a gallery in Naples Italy to perform “Rhythm 0”. The gallery was Studio Morra in which visitors to the performance where invited to do whatever they want to the naked being of Abromovich; perhaps encouraged by the 72 suggestive objects on the table. One of these objects was a handgun with a bullet. We all like to think that we are calm collected cultured animals, but given a smidgen, a filament of freedom, and we get a little weird.  The last few hours of the performance regressed into violent chaos with one visitor encouraging the artist to use the bullet. Of course (we are not all monsters) a fight with the guilty individual broke out. But, when the performance was over we are told that the moment the artist resumed active agency again and walked towards her audience everyone fled the gallery.

Bender’s interpretation is an interesting one she traces and mines some of the potential philosophical implications of the performance. Referring to Satre’s idea that we are always both subject and object; involving a wholesome process of becoming an object. Exemplified in Satre’s reflections on a waiter in a cafe. Including the pressure of not being someone, but of being an object for others? What is made apparent is the power of a gaze of perception itself. Especially of that of the creator; is this evidence of the artist possessing a gaze apart from others?

Next up is Levinas who suggests that a moment of contact between two beings, between one and the other, is not necessarily a connection between human beings but culminates in an “other”. Marlieke’s choice of thinkers and citations is telling and reveals the greatness of Levinas, ‘speech becomes serious only when we pay attention to the other and take account of him and the strange world he inhabits. It is only by responding to him that I can become aware of the arbitrary views and attitudes where my uncriticised freedom always leads me, and become responsible.’(Levinas…?). Leaving is considering the very nature of responsibility. Who is responsible when those in charge frequently relinquish responsibility?

Abromovich, judging by her words in Marlieke’s essay, does so; saying that her purpose in performing is to create a stage for people’s fears. Maybe her admission is that if we all perform more actively, more intently, with more vitality we may free oneself from our fears? Eventually, our lack of personal completion results in a kind of “involuntary debt”; we are indebted to an otherness that is wholly other to us as active subjects and objects. I enjoy attempting to use art to explore philosophy and visa versa philosophy to explore art; and you can clearly see the possibility of philosophy arising and being authored by art.



#Mathew Devine (‘Suffering the Eternal Remorse and Melancholia Through the work of Vladimir Jankélévitch’)


A masters thesis, reading of Bergson’s Padawan the French philosopher Vladimir Jankélévitch’s work distinguishing remorse from regret and melancholia and mourning in his phenomenology of psychopathology after Freud. Devine characterises these interestingly as experiences. In many ways Devine’s writing is a commentary on the impossibility of nothingness and how this impossibility is embroiled in processes of regret, remorse, despair, melancholia, and mourning. Questions that lurk at the beginning the Devine’s exploration: when does remorse tell us about the eternal within us? Is remorse really timeless? Devine begins by describing Jankélévitch’s own stance, ‘Consciousness is the moment by which the self splits into two. The “I” (le soi) becoming an object of an “I” (le moi )’, a kind of gap, and a drop of Kantianism, ‘perfect happiness would only be possible if one knew nothing of one’s happiness’. We should all make an effort to contemplate these things.

Moving on Freud’s thinking is referenced when he describes the phenomena of ‘mourning’ and this is used by Devine to situate the reader before he articulates remorse and melancholia. Freud saw how work itself can come to replace the searing pain of loss and mourning. Writing in On Transience describes how the loved and lost object is allowed to rest when work is seen as being successful. Furthermore, the individual suffering from melancholia may suffer more because of its a-temporality. Freud’s characterisation of melancholia as a disturbance of self-esteem is absent in mourning. Devine draws our attention to the harshness of Freud’s ego split and how one part goes after the other, ‘we can not easily judge the degree of correspondence between the two versions of the self.

This is also why remorse can be said to be a feeling and guilt as a state. If I have read the paper correctly than this statement may also be so: for Jankélévitch repentance creates a distance between the wrong doer and the wrong. This in turn creates this necessity to suffer the eternal that we can locate within ourselves, that part of each and every one of us that is indeed eternal. Turning remorse into a virtue is dependent on how true the remorse may be thought of? There are many virtues in this study but one I find particularly interesting is a struggle to locate and anchor suffering as a phenomenon; what is the relation between impersonal or personal suffering. Devine resolves this with the help of a different French philosopher called Levinas and his stripping away the (human) world. Does his ilya (anonymous being) lead to an exposure to infinite eternal existence? Jankélévitch’s answer to this is the same as Achille’s speaking to Odysseus, ‘what good is eternity if it is not for living?’ a very good answer indeed, and it is here that Devine concludes successfully arguing that choosing an existence in finitude over an inexistence in eternity.

Vladimir Jankélévitch_ 


#Jens Van Steerteghem

Next up we have the Flemish physics fiend. Studying with Jens and his (“Jensing” a kind of Lensing; a way of seeing”) is awesome and very rewarding always on hand to discuss any and all topics. He is originally trained in Biology and is currently engaged in the critical creation of the European Union’s scientific policy making. His essay I found very rich “Escaping Technology a Dissidents Perspective” is an essay written on the infamous American Unabomber; and his manifesto “Industrial Society and its Future” (1996). Van Steerteghem begins with a good question; as every essay should do: Why did the serial bomber want to escape technology and is such an escape even possible?

Unabomber believed in a power process only satisfied by living as primitive man. Under technological society this process was disturbed according to this terrorist manifesto writer. Steerteghem rightfully questions this and initially makes a connection to thinking of Heidegger. But, a writer called Bijker is also cited and it is here the criticism begins in earnest,  ‘the socio-technological ensemble, where technical success consists in tying together different preexisting artifacts with different preexisting social elements in productive ways.’ (Steerteghem, Ku Leuven, 2018). I think this is a good statement to begin resisting Unabomber in the face of his accelerated technological telos.

To counter act the glum view of the Unabomber’s thesis Steerteghem points us towards network theory and the mathematical structures of advanced connectivity; saying that manipulation of the hubs can lead to control over technology. Then Bruno Latour’s ‘Actor Network Theory’ is discussed. Taking a holistic view of ANT and this culminates in clusters of ‘”Black Boxes” that represent the successful integration and acceptance of new technology and/or a scientific theory. The conclusion of this paper takes Unabomber’s own notion of a ‘power process’ and using it to show how it supports the opposite of anti-technological reality. Technology is in itself a power process and therefore can not be separated from other such processes hastily deemed as natural.

But, this Flemish author has forgot his Marxist potentiality and in the concluding remarks succumbs to a notion of society (“the clusterscape”) that is still an imprisoning one, and overlooks the global revolution’s potentially technological heart.



# Albin Van Latum

Albin is a Dutchman and a dynamic thinker. I enjoyed the conversations we all had; with Jens, Anne, Peyton, Marlieke, Marren, Ross, Alirazor, Amin, and others.

Albin wrote his paper on a very interesting subject the antagonism between myth and science. Beginning with the ancient propensity of creation myths having order being a process of moving away from a prior chaos. Latum will argue that rather than the modern understanding of myths as “a miss-representation of truth.”, myth under Latum’s pen will be shown to be the fundamental bridge between humans and an otherwise chaotic reality and how Science’s modernism is itself a myth. After remembering how chaos is first born in Hesiod’s Theogony; we are then introduced to a beautiful ancient myth about chaos originating from ancient China. In the Zhuangzi Chaos (Hundun)  ) is seen as ‘the creative spontaneity that ceases to exist once one meddles with it by attempting to impose order’. So, in this Chinese myth we see Van Latum’s initial thesis clearly: myths help humans order Chaos into meaning. But, not via means of control rather appreciation.

In the discussion on the relation or development from mythos to logos an interesting point is made, ‘whereas both Plato and Aristotle concerned of different levels of mimesis of reality this plurality went through a process of reductio ad unum (an argument that rests on the absurdity of the opposing argument) the result of which is modern realism.’ It is with the reductio that one feels a kinship with this Dutch brother’s writing and thinking; I feel that many people would agree that this modern realism has a major problem in that it occasionally appears as mythless; leaving us a task to really nurture an cultivate the opposite. Such a line of thinking was also followed and developed by Mark Fisher in his Capitalist Realism (2009). Latum also paints a more useful picture of the philosopher of science Karl Popper; in that his ‘falsification theory’ is seen on preserving a mythical science. Instead of the Popper who unsuccessfully attempted to refute the work of Marx and Freud.

This paper really finds its rhythm when numinous Nietzsche is referenced as Latum starts discussing contemporary Chaos … some much needed Socrates bashing ensues… Overall, the claims of science to rule over the entirety of nature are shown to be unhelpful myths. These claims came into being as the Christian paradigm, or scientific dominance over western thinking began to loose its huge influence. That is why we are still learning from Nietzsche, ‘Truths are illusions about which it has been forgotten that they are illusions, warn-out metaphors without sensory impact’, and we readers are forced to admire this papers conclusions, ‘Chosmos is chaos, of interpretation on the back of a selective process’. Eventually we are left with one certainty if we embrace the myth making capacity of chaos we can see our openness to the pure potential of artistic creation.



# Juste Keturakyte (The Critique of Buddhism and Christianity in Friedrich Nietzsche’s Philosophy)

In an ambitious dance with Nietzsche Keturakyte explores a supposed superiority of Buddhism over its Western counterpart Christianity. Nietzsche’s opinion is well expressed and articulated; as is his appreciation of Buddhism. Reading this text we encounter Buddhist Dukkha (suffering). Then its cause the craving after transient things Trishna; and also a path to the elimination of this suffering ashtanya manga. Nietzsche’s critique of metaphysics is characterised as being one of revenge. That Christian Moralities explained as the one life is littered and scarred by revenge. That the mere essence of metaphysics is the denial of and revenge over becoming and time as the expression of decadent and declining life. So, Nietzsche’s admiration for Buddhism is written to be centred around its capacity to be truthful to the meaninglessness of human existence however he does not like its self denying aspects seeing them as too passive.


I find that Keturakyte’s elegant exploration of the Buddhist influence on Nietzsche to be accurate and refreshingly honest, and very well positioned for  future development. Especially the idea of ‘Euro-Buddhism’ but to offer but a small critical note. I think Nietzsche’s criticism of this passive nihilism of Buddhism is not thoroughly separated from Schopenhaur’s Indian reading and so does not do Chan Buddhism full justice. Keturakyte’s points about the a-temporality of Nietzsche’s ‘Eternal Return’ as transcending both Buddhism and Christianity is not quite attainable. For the reason that in Chan Buddhism especially its passivity is to explicitly do away with distinctions that seek to differentiate. Resulting in an appreciation of how things are: endlessly coming to be and passing away, manifesting and re-manifesting, and all is just inter-being including eternity and its return.

Nietzsche and Buddhism



# Sam Bunn & Grussgott, an artificial intelligence from the future (Imagining an Institute for eUtopia)

Sam along with this A.I have constructed an impassioned defence of how artistic practice can and ought to be used to build the “good place” in contrast to the non-place we so usually are confronted with. Bunn’s Master’s thesis is very interesting and eclectic, yet ordered in its creative energy. I like the format of the study, and the interplay between A.I and human really creates with the material and topic matter very coherently. Beginning by pairing off Sacral art and Fine art Bunn or Grussgott and showing how exactleeeeeeeeeeeeeee this sacral can be seen as a “twisted tear drop”; half a way. There are seven chapters in Sam’s study and I will list them before drawing out some of the highlights that caught my attention when I first read. The contents include; ART or art?, Stories make Sense making Sense, Grasping Utopia, Eutopia as a Tool, Re-imaging Infastructure, eUtopia Explored and Attempted, and the conclusion.

I am not sure about Art confirming the American Dream this feels like it gives to this particular dream too much. But, the conversation discussing the persistence of filmic ideology (ideology is persistent as film? Or, ideology is a film?) moving through this notion that American cannot separate the idea of liberty from liberalism. From this constitution to Adam Smith’s marketised version; here the A.I reminds the human that America is not just full of capitalists, ‘Remember Jameson (influential Critical Theorist) is American.’

Reading through the next section on storytelling and sense, I am reminded of Walter Benjamin’s texts and how this study is a little bit like a new project from the Arcades? Discussing the potentially vegetative state of humans if they fail to grasp Bertold Brecht’s reality shaping hammer. But, Bunn or Grisbott pick up this hammer with a sub-hypothesis, ‘what if this main residue of watching a film is: lasting images?’ This branch is interesting its difficult to interpret but it could be that film’s deep realism is like a hammering of images; like the way a blacksmith would gradually craft a refined metal. It is also interesting that this involves an element of forgetting and remembering: forgetting to remember is absolutely what I do…

Then an utopia lists many influential authors and Ernst bloch keeps the concept of utopia firmly in the everyday rather than just a literary form. I love Darko Suvins/Surins’s idea of a ‘novum’ and I skip Thomas More’s well cited definition of utopia; a non-place. Then we continue to move through the good places of some films and their lasting images.

On page 59 Gussbotts and its human friend find agreement and I think I have stumbled upon the essence of this text and its true purpose; what it really engenders and supports. The A.I asks, ‘you are talking about popularizing socialist politics in mass consumable story form, aren’t you? The answer is yes; we now need to find our second yes to affirm as indeed the true aim of this paper, the formal desire of this intellectually creative event. I like how part of this discourse throughout this study is its cautious character; it permeates an awareness of the pitfalls of over-stating content and one’s thinking.

This and the idea of “socialist politics in a mass consumable story” is really evident in one of the many artistic projects Bunn completed as part of his time in Linz. The project Reise in die Zuhunft a journeying into the future with today’s children, and art’s radical potentialities are immediately enacted as social reality is seen as uniformly and universally creative in the artistic sense. Such play is then carried on into a ride of sorts; the brilliantly named ‘Far-see-er’; a series of interconnected rooms exhibited together as a ride designed to be ridden, of course, at the Architektur Forum in Linz. Overall, one, everyone should journey through and re-experience this journey that Sam Bunn and the A.I took because this study is refreshingly in its diversity, honesty, and creativity. The Agent Author’s humility is constantly present in this study; a good example is the response to the dilemma that the discussion on eUtopia might be unresolvable and we may be forced to accept the Utopia the negative option.

‘perhaps one should just learn to live with the dust that is stuck to the word utopia and not to confuse people with this ‘eu’. Generally they just think that I make some kind of obscure comment about the European Union.’

I wish this creator and fellow lover of art all the best for his future eUtopian film making.


# Julie Reshe (Beautiful Monsters: On Destructive Plasticity)          

Julie Reshe is the necropsychoanalyst par excellence and one half of the directorship of a new educational model for the future. Operating within a Post-Lacanian landscape Reshe is constantly expanding on the richness of Freud’s brilliant Venetian verisimilitude. I am not entirely convinced the notion that humans are “living dead” can overcome the negative imagery of the Zombie; yet one thing is more certain Freud’s Thanos remains important as ever for today’s epoch. Below are some thoughts on Reshe’s essay on ‘Destructive Plasticity’.

The essay is written as a critical response to the great French philosopher Catherine Malabou; who years ago introduced me to the idea of epigenetics (how feelings encode meaning and trauma can be distributed across generations biologically via way of the genome). Homing in on the scientific neurobiological conception of synaptic plasticity Reshe wants us to reflect on the negative side; the formalism of synaptic connective via way of destruction; and in attempting to hastily attribute a “cure” to such a destructive plasticity, Reshe reminds us of Foucault’s insight: that, the concepts of illness and health are socially constructed.

Running, both with and against Malabou, Reshe reformulates the notion that the child, can be a little monster, and therefore after encompassing a kind of destructive plasticity or a Lyotardian ‘primordial susceptibility’ – the child that remains throughout life. Yet, this writing really on one level is very comforting considering the biographical and important personal references to real lived experiences. This is then complemented by the text’s desire to critically think through psychoanalysis. Freud’s idea and its Greek influence is referenced that, ‘Psychic traumatization is understood by the analogy of physical traumatization.’ A difference imposed by the foreign body entombed with the local body.

After rightfully questioning the ease at which a disorder may legitimate the presence of an illness. I find Reshe’s conclusion compelling and ripe for much more development. If we are all beautiful monsters then we are all still susceptible, still receptive to these powers that are both organic and inorganic; power that we still marginally understand. Yet if we join Reshe in refelecting on our beautiful little monstrosities then we may increase such a thing.


Are You a Pronoun or an Adverb? A sideways glance at language and it’s behaviour

If we temporarily put a famous psychoanalytic component of continental philosophy to one side. The work of Jacques Lacan’s linguistic thoughts on the Symbolic, and preferring to discuss a different psychological stance. Then what else can be philosophically described and discussed when faced with the behaviour of Language? In this essay one seeks to describe three Motifs relating to language: The development of Deconstructionism and Logical Positivism as predating speculative realism, behavioural correlates, and correlated behaviours. These initial interests will be written in lieu of developments in a variety of cultures and reference points that allow for one to answer the title question in a serious manner. Thus contributing fresh documentations, gathering paths into, and commenting on language.
Keywords: Behaviouralism, Correlationism, Derrida, Deconstructionism, Wittgenstein, Logical Positivism, language, creative reasoning, speculative realism.

Lingua…Linguistic…Lingual-ism…Language has been a mystery and hopefully will remain so. It’s mysterious for many reasons when you move beyond simplistic definitions. Such as languages are structures and groupings of signs and symbols that enable accurate communication of meaning. You may start to see how this neglects potential for new perspectives to earn our attention. Where to begin? The topic seems too vast for one to write about, yet it is too sweet to be discarded from inquiry. So, the first step appears to be one of acknowledging a strange question. If you had to choose between being a ‘pronoun’, or an ‘adverb’ what would you exist as? This question is posed as bait from which more pertinent questioning may be arrived at. Let one re-iterate, you the reader have been given a choice between two categories: would you choose to exist as a word that substitutes a noun, that replaces a name, or would you prefer to describe an action full of emotive motional motifs?

The purpose of this point of departure and the subsequent writing is not to decipher if you have any grammatical preference. But, to present to you two different philosophical approaches to Language and what could be still learnt from two thinkers. Representing the pronoun we have Jacque Derrida and his creation Deconstructionism, our adverb is the thinker Ludwig Wittgenstein and the idea of ‘Language games’. Both, philosophers have uniquely engaged with Language. Their writings can still serve to offer new perspectives on this a very pertinent and old topic. As we know pronouns are words that ‘stand in’ for nouns, they positively serve us. Yet, there are many of them: subject or object, reflexive, and possessive. Certainly, it would be incredibly bizzare to be trapped repeating nouns. Moreover, one sees this core value, or use of the pronoun – as being a very suitable metaphor for the Post-structuralist French philosopher Jacque Derrida’s work. Deconstructionism sought to overcome a supposed disease of philosophy ‘metaphysics’, through a Heideggerian preference for Being not defined as a weighted duality. That is to say Derrida perceived Philosophy as being too Logocentric, always bound to the logos, the central truth. To overcome this the French philosopher employed undecidability and dualistic opposites as tools to find other meaning contained within existing structures. Interestingly enough, Deconstructionism’s origin is textual and one of literature rather than coming from the spoken word. One can see this clearly in the essay Plato’s Pharmacy, one of Derrida’s undecidables came into being. The Pharmakon (maleficent, and drug-like) perhaps the linguistic Pharmakon, could be a pronoun?

‘the men who are the most free, feel ashamed (aiskhunontai) at “speechwriting” and at leaving sungrammata behind them. They fear the judgement of posterity, which might consider them “Sophists” (257d). The logographer … is a ghost writer, who composes speeches for use by litigants, speeches which he himself does not pronounce, which he does not attend, so to speak, in person, and produce their effect in his absence. [1] ‘

Are Pharmakons drugs of choice for language? and if we did not regularly dose our sentences with them. Would Language itself become egotistically robotised? Derrida’s choice of words highlight a privileging of speech over written language. This favour-ability demonstrates how ghostly traces, from alternative historians are almost always hidden in a text. Moreover, the above quote also elicits within oneself an awareness of a contemporary point and generally held belief. That there exists a gap, a void, an emptyness internal to our reality itself – in philosophy this could be called Correlationism. Essentially, a theory of human finitude which suggests we can only ever understand the relationship between thinking and being, rather then each thing separately. Usually this notion is accredited to Immanuel Kant and in recent times there has been an attempt, and movement to surpass this idea. One particular good reference point for this is Quentin Melillassoux’s book on contingency ‘After Finitude’ [2]. How do the ideas inscribed into this text contribute to our discussion on the behaviour of the pronoun?

In the first chapter Melillassoux quotes Hegel, ‘we cannot ‘creep up on’ the object ‘from behind’ so as to find out what it is in itself’ [3](can’t we?) this relational reliance, between perceiver and perceived is important. Referencing primary and secondary qualities one could hastily surmise, that the perceived is primary, and perceiver would be secondary. Reading Melillassoux, one can gain a stronger understanding of the importance of language. Yet, although this essay is a brilliant call to connect thought back to the absolute. It is precisely this re-connection that hones the value of shifting our perspectives on the established existing viewpoints: 1) language as a structure, 2) a phenomenon of communication 3) as a limitation. It is by lining up these three ways of thinking about language we can see something worth acknowledging. Deconstructionism, Wittgenstein and logical positivism, perhaps kick-started current attempts to think differently – in fact one might easily suggest the following view.

The attempt that the speculative realists have been striving to achieve, may have already been touched on by Derrida’s work. Thus the suspicion of truth as it appears to us initially, coupled with an insight that humans tend to privilege one of two equal terms (good/bad). Led this thinker to a way of doing philosophy that reveals the value of the lesser part of the equation. Derrida’s behaviour articulates more things to consider, and calls for an attempt to clarify what is being discussed at greater length. For example, at first glance Deconstructionism has no claims to an absolute. Unless an absolute is defined as, that which is not a limit derived from a relation, but it is that which can be universal. This suggests Deconstructionism to be pronominally inverse – rather than replacing a proper noun does it enable a return to an origin? For what else causes/influences a name, or a new word but an object? Naming is another consideration to be incorporated, does everything have a name? is nameable? Derrida suggested that structure and phenomenon, vis-à-vis one another do behave pronominally.

‘one could perhaps say that the movement of any archaeology … is an accomplice of this reduction of the structurality of structure and always attempts to conceive of structure from the basis of a full presence which is out of play. [4] ‘

This outside of play may allude to the objects of direct experience favoured by phenomenology. But, one finds this seemingly supplementary nature; or graceful version of reductionism (Derrida’s reduction is not as fierce nor as extreme as Descartes) involved with pronominal behaviour. One confesses, to be not as useful when placed next to adverbial behaviour. The main reasons for one’s leaning towards becoming an adverb, can be explained if we look at a mathematical equivalent for the inverse pronoun like mannerisms of Derrida. In Math you can find Polynomial expressions – a sum of a finite number of variables raised to whole number powers. One’s suspicions of this anchor around the potential to deduce that numerical and word based language are the sole owners, or fathers for meaning, resulting in a syntactic tyranny. That, in the future may absorb more and more social and cultural freedoms.

Such freedoms are often invested culturally and historically in documents, textual bodies that spread written law. One can glimpse Derrida as a precursor for Melillassoux’s positive speculation on philosophy’s next step. When the French thinker comments on a potentially pronoun like behaviour of the ‘scientific method’ as we inherited it from Descartes, and Leibniz. In his book On Grammatology, Derrida writes, ‘Descartes’s analyticism is intuitionist, that of Leibniz points beyond mani-fest evidence, toward order, relation, point of view’ [5]. One is not attempting to make a value judgment and claim that unbridled creativity is somewhat better than fact. Moreover, moving parallel to Derrida’s writing one’s own opinion starts to be formulated. In my opinion the pronoun has one main limitation, ‘Finally, it makes us reason at little cost, putting characters in place of things, in order to ease the imagination. [6]’. Derrida’s sentence contains the reason why in one’s humble opinion living as a pronoun is impossible*.

Although, one greatly admires the positive functions of the pronoun. The creative potential of adverbial structures are more challenging and widely applicable. Especially when faced with another fact, We humans are the things that create meaning – meaning is not derived from the things we have created. Rather as primary subjects we are constantly active in meaning’s creation. Therefore one has arrived at an initial conclusion: adopting adverbial behaviors are more desirable than those of the pronoun. It is this point of view, that influencing how we do things is more creative than arguing over the replacement of a name. Behaving adverbially, one can assert more demanding suggestions. In the second part of this essay one will explore Ludwig Wittgenstein’s lasting legacy, language games, equations as gestures, politics and some cultural implications. For Wittgenstein once said, ‘ … general notion of the meaning of a word surrounds the working of language with a haze which makes clear vision impossible. [7]’This lack of visibility infuriated the early Wittgenstein to the extent that he attempted to silence ambiguous utterances.


diagram 002

The above diagrams serve to visualise one’s earlier point that a perspective that is too reliant on physical language (spoken, written, and calculated). Shall find that language becomes stationary and anchored structurally to the phenomenological. They also serve to pay tribute to the early Wittgenstein’s diagrams. So, through creation actions are described, and this is to be thought of as being healthier? Yes, because let us look at a useful example. In a book by professor and linguist David Crystal, discussing the way in which languages die [8]. Crystal describes very clearly not only the obvious answer ‘they die because they are not used’, but goes further into detail regarding a reaction towards this event. Language like biodiversity is becoming extinct at a rate never before seen in history. This makes one recollect a story about the last two fluent speakers of an extinct tribal language. A language that certainly resides in the smaller percentage of active users, certainly endangered. The language was extinct because these two old pensioners had a serious argument, one in which they had not spoken to each other for a decade. This absence of the use of the language in the story is symptomatic of the importance of a behavioural perspective, and way of thinking about language. Both, in how Language behaves outside of oneself, and in the normative sense between humans. Behavioural-ism invites a more political and ethical path into the adverbial section of this text. Indeed Wittgenstein’s behaviour early on was riddled with both ethical desire and depressed periods. Yet, throughout this thinkers collected works one can see very clearly a desire to help. Wittgenstein’s first adverbial act was to help us understand a function of words, they help us build pictures of facts. It is rumoured the philosopher discovered the notion whilst reading an article about a court case in Paris. The event involved a road accident at a crossroads, it was recreated using toy models. Hinting that when reproduced creatively, language inspires in us the creation of pictures of the world, then perhaps behaving adverbially, you would be clarifying the pictures of someone else’s world?

Alas, it’s not as simple as that, firstly qualifying what may or not be a world is not what one aims to do here. Therefore staying with the context of Law and legal behaviour it is easy to encounter a potential corrective to one’s enthusiasm toward adverbs. Lawyers and those trained in legality seem content using the language of law, yet on the other hand members of the public often complain about the heavy jargon of the contract or arrangement [9]. So this seemingly runs in favour of the pro-noun. Yes it does, however not strongly enough for one to forgo a future as an adverb. Here one should consider interesting elements of the court. Elements that help introduce the second of Wittgenstein’s great theories. A court case is indeed a ‘Language Game’; the defence and the prosecution are two competing teams. What is at stake, what is to be won is a verdict. This context is a highly logical one in that the adverbial behaviour one thinks about is the rhetoric and reason used to achieve success.

‘The philosophy of logic speaks of sentences and words in exactly the same way we speak about them in ordinary life when we say … We are talking about the spatial and temporal phenomenon of language, not about some non-spatial, non-temporal phantasm. But we talk about it as we do about the pieces in chess when we are stating the rules of the game, not describing their physical properties. The question “What is a word really?” is analogous to “What is a piece of chess? [10]”

These two questions do add up to one another, but this quote demands we consider something, the game’s flat surface is what everyone refers to as life. In the quotation again we see a dismissal of ambiguity, and a focusing on space and temporality. Moreover, let us not think phantasmagorically, and instead be realistic. As with the example of a court of law one can say that politics, and anything that has it’s own distinct language is at least minimally game-like. This is no exaggeration, recent events involving the wave of populist opinions, and policies of the Right. Showcase the importance and the high cost of playing the wrong game.

Wittgenstein’s notion is visible when briefly considering the hopelessness of the democratic and conservative parties. Both, failed to defeat those that harbour unacceptable opinions because the so called establishment were not playing the game with an awareness of their oppositions disregard for common decent values. Now, we are in generally new territory, it has been called Post-truth politics. At this point one observes why choosing the adverb is also a choice to ask How? Rather than why, or what? This re-focusing on the manner in which an action is completed is what those that long for a way of improving life, or if your engaged in the political game, need to seize. The route to do this is strewn with many problems, resistance to associating serious political events within the analogy of the game. Match nicely with modern speculative realities found in artificial intelligence, and quantum computing. The words of the character Harold Finch in the drama ‘Person of Interest’ cast a dark forecast.

Mr Finch is the creator of an A.I, that in a flashback to when he taught his creation chess admits, “Kings, Pawns, I don’t think that anyone is worth more than anyone else … Real people are not pieces. You can not assign more value to some of them and not others … The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it is a game of chess, deserves to lose. [11]”. Harold’s words compound the problems in one’s attempt to view language behaviourally. Anyone attempting to cultivate an understanding of language itself. May or may not find themselves at this very impasse: too much structure and you cannot play a game, likewise too little, and there are no parameters to define a result. This is not helpful if we remain anchored to these two oppositions. Let us then look once more at the two prior assertions that led to one favouring an adverbial reality. 1) The absolute is that which can be universal, and 2) Meaning is bound to Human creativity. Two assertions that initially support the thought experiment being described. One still feels that this is not enough, there exists much more to consider.

Attempting to simply re-enforce one’s adverbial desires one will focus toward the behaviour of language, and invite a couple of different voices into ones discussion. The first voice is that of professor Felice Cimmati, who makes Wittgenstein’s articulation more readable. Cimmati begins by referencing the much quoted: if a lion could talk we wouldn’t be able to understand it. Repeating, ‘A lion belongs to a completely different form of life from the human one. [12]’. Cimmati goes on to complete the logic by presupposing the animal in question can speak English, and arrives at our preposition, ‘What did the lion intend to do when it uttered “That’s a Gazelle”? What does it want to do with such an utterance? [13]’ The last question one should apply to one’s own understanding of language, and observe clearly how intention takes priority over extension. Universal properties are to be found in the meaning which we are creating, however if a set of objects related to each other by words is too stationary as a structure. How are we to continue asking this question? How to continue our adverbial play? One’s behaviour carries inside it’s act an intention, that pre-empts, and predicts a future event?

One imagines you want to say well that is obvious, of course my actions are intended. Really? Don’t jump to such a belief so quickly. If neuroscience is to be believed, as early as 1964 (Bereitschaftspotential: Readiness Potential experiment [14]) we have at least scientifically understood that unconscious brain behaviours, such as a neuronal change is the cause of a feeling of conscious intent [15]. One posits that the only way to connect this acknowledgement, and that of language games within the context of this argument. Clearly showcasing that one’s answer to the question at the onset of this writing is not only logical. Choosing to view language from the position, or viewpoint of an adverb is multi-faceted, and hard to resolve. Yet, it has many positives though the main ones have to be: 1) a by-product of focusing on behaviour and action is ethics as first philosophy is truly universal (see Levinas), 2) This is also to be accepted as normative, in that writing directly one has attempted to give a suggestion of how things ought to be, when thinking through the diverse topic of language.

This normativity of thought as a consideration of how things are done should be manifest in the acts one inevitably produces. Another way to show this is to make connections, drawing lines between Wittgenstein’s language game, and one’s ethically behaviour driven perspective. Connecting these back to the problems of rule following and grammar can arouse within the reader support for becoming a fellow adverb. The Finnish philosopher Hanne Appelqvist brilliantly discusses this adverbial compulsion. Appelqvist starts by pointing to how playing a game involves rule following and an aesthetic judgement. Appelqvist argues that Wittgenstein and Immanuel Kant share, that ‘aesthetic judgement as a model for the kind of judgement that is required for the very possibility of rule-following and hence of objective thought. [16]’. More and more evidence can be collected reading Appelqvist, that supports the contemporary argument that aesthetics and ethics are on the rise. Resulting in new paths we can take when pondering the connection between thought, being, and this a political journey into language. Doubting the validity of observing games as meta-ethical-languages? Then Kant can explain.

‘By contrast to pathologically subjective judgements about the agreeableness of wine and coffee that simply reflect empirical laws of nature, in making a pure judgement of taste I demand agreement from others. That is, I claim that the relation between the form of the representation of the object, and my subjectively felt pleasure in the free and harmonious play of my mental faculties is necessary. [17]’

Kant’s quote and Appelqvist’s words in her essay, concretely assert the importance of asking the question: how does a person as a subject choose to navigate the above relation in current times? The objective element is a result, a victory, or a loss – but the point is the necessity of playing, and then how the object is perceived. Having the benefit of hindsight, one would potentially think, How did I play? Did I win gracefully, or arrogantly? What in fact did I win? The game’s politics will become increasingly important as humans become ever more dependent on technology, and science as legitimate sources of knowledge. Therefore one is afraid of the very real danger of what comes naturally from us a creative will, a desire to build, will become more and more marginalised next to the march of abstract techno-capital development. Nevertheless, those of us with a leaning towards the left of the political spectrum should insist on playing the game. Seizing awareness of an opportunity to create new rules, or wrestle them away from an evil corrupted influence. How is a rule formulated and how do we follow, in what way should we follow it? These are all questions in need of a game, there are many: geo-politics involving games of diplomacy, business in general involving its infinity of negotiations, and marriage. Although, let us revisit the contemporary reality of an artificial intelligence, earlier one referenced Harold teaching morals to an A.I.

This time rather than an unfavourable judgement this reference is awash with positive evidence for taking more time to consider the language of a game. In a recent article in the magazine Wired, the writer Cade Metz offers up an account of an A.I playing humans at the game Go. Metz starts by describing one move as both being non-human, yet behaving, and having been played intuitively [18]. For a game that has more possible moves/positions than atoms in the known universe the aesthetic judgement is present, ‘The top players play by intuition, not raw calculation… “It seems to follow some kind of aesthetic. [19]”’. The beauty of this article derives from how the author Metz, provides a clear account of the cultural revolution and paradigm shift. Google is a company that is at the forefront in many ways, yet here in this article what is really strong is the symbiotic relationship, it is a new conversation.

The real world example the article gives us can help expand one’s adverbial proposition. In the match between Alpha-go (Google’s A.I) and the Korean grand master Lee Sedol it is possible to read about our future. There is the usual images and technophobic behaviours one has to ignore to reach very interesting things. The machines are computationally superior, but take for example how the builders of Alpha-go, the Deep Mind duo of David Silver and Demis Hassabis designed the A.I two combine two learning methodologies. This then allowed Alpha-go to learn and surpass it’s human coach. What is made obvious throughout this moment in history is not only are we creating A.I, but we are teaching and thus learning from it reciprocally. Mutually beneficial behaviours then become even more important, and if second generation intelligences become more human. Then we could not wish for setting a better example then that of the defeated champion. Losing apologetically, Mr Sedol demonstrates behaviour we could seek to emulate, he won one match, playing innocently and honestly.

One might add, ‘to the best of his god-like ability’. It seems that re-reading this match between intelligences, Lee’s Move 37 won him one match. An event that aesthetically carries much significance because of it’s rarity in the total decisions made throughout the five games. Furthermore, in this account the reasons for victory are only described from the perspective of Alpha-go, and it’s Google creators. Regarding language, and it’s adverbial behaviour one observes as becoming a twofold choice. As an adverb how should one behave gesturally, or more rationally? Implying one choice offers more reasons for your action, whereas speaking gesturally carries more of a physical bodily image. Analysing their differences it is safe to say one is direct (rational), the other is indirect (gestural). Yet, more importantly neither of these two choices are uncreative, moreover it is not my aim to judge which is more favourable. Rather one hopes that Wittgenstein’s thought can serve precisely as an ethical call to invest more thought into one’s language. Without forgetting the responsibility one has to apprehend that language, and it’s use as a creative game with universal obligations and implications.

Let us observe that there exists this mysterious thing called belief, and how one usually has to justify actions with sufficient reasons. Another thinker John Turri in a discussion on creative reasoning and infinity, offers a strong argument that reasoning can create justification  [20]. Turri epistemologically enforces this through describing reasoning as having: uncreative bias, criticality, compatibility, and a creative ground. In the final section of his paper he mentions the context and aesthetic value of the argument. Urging one to imagine that we are a playwright and that in the creation of a story we are presented with opportunities to write a new scene, because the one before was missing sufficient context  [21]. Referencing Turri one protects this line of thought by using the analytical philosopher’s reasoning*. Very helpful in explaining one’s own opinion for example this the very act of writing itself describes if existence is confined (or can be confined) to one sentence. Being adverbial is a way to affect the value in what is being done, and this is also something we should see in Wittgenstein.

‘The failure to understand isn’t limited to sentences… we learn to understand these gestures the way we learned as children to understand the gestures and facial expressions of grown-ups – without explanation. And in this sense learning to understand does not mean learning to explain, and so we understand the facial expression, but can’t explain it by any other means. [handwritten remark]. [22]’

Claiming that Wittgenstein with the deepest understanding of mathematics, would if still alive to day succeed that just because you have a grammar. Rules, which when viewed at face value seem to indicate that language is synonymous with calculation this is not foolproof. Wittgenstein was forced to leave behind his earlier notion, that an adequate explanation leads to understanding. He just like people today had to apprehend that sentential beings equipped with logic alone can not offer a suggestion of how to treat, and approach language. When considering language we have to consider subjectively (doxastically, about one’s own belief), our form of life, but more pertinently there is something else other than the meaning of a word inside a grammatical system  [23]… Looking from the perspective of an adverb one can see the social, common, ethical, and creative behaviour that gives language it’s materiality. Our task then is to remain critical whilst at the same time not needlessly dismissing grammar and meaning. How we behave towards these things even perceptually is in need of interpretation.

Finally, what one offers as a conclusion is that if we play this hermeneutical game as an adverb. Then this decent play of interpretations can generate what according to professor Eran Guter was a special thing for Wittgenstein, and subsequently this essay’s strange line of inquiry. Wittgenstein gives us a special German word and one references it to contextualise the questions one asks: Are you a pronoun or an adverb? How language is the phenomenon which calls for the creation of new ethics? The word that one is using creatively as a period is Menschenkenntnis, translated as referring to an acquaintance with ‘humankind’, not a theory but an intuitive skill  [24]. One has observed this as being suspiciously absent in recent times, and so one invites you to play this language game, with more consideration for your moves, and the outcome one wishes to create. If need be we shouldn’t hesitate to create new games that support new behaviours, that then allow us to continue learning. This capacity to actively change our behaviour should be cherished. This change does provide a clear distinction between the human animal, other organisms, or objects. A difference that could result in a game truly, mortally, and essentially defining. Lastly, behaving adverbially one has to suggestively edit the Wittgensteinian dictum, Whereof one can speak, thereof one mustn’t be silent. It is not only the meaning you intended to communicate, but also how you behave when communicating. That reveals the parameters for a moment worth creating, a game in which one should want to create and decide how to play?


1. Derrida,J.Plato’s Pharmacy, Dissemination,trans:Barbara.J,Chicago University Press,1981.
2. Meillassoux,Q. After Finitude,Bloomsbury, 2009.
3. Hegel,CF. The Phenomenology of Spirit, trans: Miller. A.V, Oxford University Press, 1997, P.54
4. Derrida,J. Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences, 1970, P.2
5. Derrida.J, Of Grammatology,trans: Slovak, C.G, John Hopkins University Press, 1998, P.78
6. Ibid
7. Ibid, P.4
8. Crystal.D, How Language Works, Penguin, London, 2006, P.336.
9. Ibid. P.473
10. Wittgenstein.L, Philosophical Investigations, Blackwell, 1953.
11. Harold.F, Person of Interest, Episode: if-then-else, 2015.
12. Cimmati.F, Wittgenstein on Animal (Human & non-human) Languages, Linguistic & Philosophical Investigations, 2016, xv: 42-59.
13. Ibid.
14. Kornhuber,Hans H. Deecke, Lüder. Hirnpotentialänderungen bei Willkürbewegungen und passiven Bewegungen des Menschen: Bereitschaftspotential und reafferente Potentiale, Pflügers Archiv für die Gesamte Physiologie des Menchen und der Tiere, 1965.
15. Libet.B, Reflections on the Interaction of the Mind and Brain, Progress in Neurobiology, 78,2006, P.324
16. Appelqvist, H. What Kind of Normativity is the Normativity of Grammar?, Firthcoming, Metaphilosophy, P.2
17. Kant.I, Critique of the Power of Judgement, ¶22
18. Metz.C,What the A.I Behind Alphago can teach us about being human,Wired: The Rise of Artificial Intelligence and the End of Code, 05.19.2016.
19. Ibid.
20. Tutti.J, Ad Infinitum: creative readoning, ¶12, Oxford University Press, 2014, P.210.
21. Ibid, P.224
22. Wittgenstein.L, The Big Transcript: TS213, trans: Luckhardt.CG, Aue E.M, Wiley-Blackwell, ¶11, 2005.
23. Guter.E, Wittgenstein on Musical Depth and Our Knowledge of Human Kind, In: Wittgenstein on Aesthetic Understanding, Palgrave Macmillan, 2017, P.11
24. Wittgenstein.L, Tractatus Logico-philosophicus, trans: Ogden C.K, Routledge, London, 1995.