In Response to Geoffrey on his Mind Bastard in regards to the School of Night

First off let me say that I enjoyed your blog immensely. That it showed deep thought into the present ideas.

Now whether or not any of your comments are relevant....I'm going to have to disagree. While I have no problems whatsoever bashing criticism, reviewers, and smut novelists, I do believe you are taking to Fredrick Turner's "School of Night" incorrectly. It is not a research paper. It is written completely in prose often times making allusions to the very thing he wishes to point out, yet he never points it out. Why?

This, I do believe, is what Turner's "School of Night"  wants as an effect; not a correction of his work, or an argument of the philosophies we now hold as "truths" as proofs against his own discoveries, but instead he meaningfully paves with his prose a treasure map. The knowledge he wishes to share with you, for you to learn yourself, is a place where "cool reason" cannot go. And even if these things he wishes to share with us are merely scams, "irrational" and "unreasonable", isn't it odd that a group of genius's gathered together with these thoughts around the most well-known writer ever?

I would try and persuade you, Geoff, that instead of discrediting Turner for being "vague" (as you put it) on "nothingness", to instead delve into the wisdom throughout Christian, Oriental, and Greek Philosophy that deals with this idea of nothingness. If, and I may be somewhat mislead by your own inability to discern the phrase (don't we all?), Wisdom is the cornerstone of creation, these ancient writings may give you an idea of how important the idea of "nothingness" is to human knowledge. And yes it doesn't make sense, but in order for something to make sense you have to go by a way of non sense first, in a sense.

As for the idea of a broad study how do you know that it is not a broad study?

I do agree that the microcosm can not only reflect, but control its own macrocosm yet how is this any different than what Turner has said? But I do understand what you are saying, and it's based upon philosophies founded after the time of  "School of Night" and one of these philosophies, the one which deems the I as separate and alone from everything else, just happens to be based on a meditation using "nothingness."

And you are right, Geoff, fitting the entire world into your mind is purely irrelevant......so what are they really saying? In fact this doesn't disagree at all with your conception that my microcosm reflects the macrocosm.  The philosophy is not flawed, it is your understanding of how to take in the wisdom that is (and I mean no disrespect). I would recommend looking at Heraclitus' Fragments as evidence of a similarly "ambiguous" philosophy. The beauty of his Fragmentes is that they do not die with time (knowledge of the age) and that when even one of his sentences is understood in its complexities an entire new world becomes apparent....if only because it's flipped upside-down. You may even find the Fragmentes complimentary to Turner's "School of Night" in elucidation.

Best of luck on your research and discoveries,

Sincerely,

James Kushman