A Man-If-Est Notes from our bar meeting

You have to exist, to exist.

Inaction is action, as much as action is action.

Things just exist. I.e. Homeostasis.

Amplitude + Frequency to infinity -> we can only understand they exist, because they must.


My own thoughts:

Philip Glass often embodies this feelings in his work.

Sigur ros: emotion is music.

Is. Est. Etre.

We are not life using technology, we are the technology, playing with life/ourselves cyclically.

Energy creates matter, recreates energy.

Ad Infinatum, et Magnus.

People are balls of fury and motion.


To me the most important aspect of the synthesis movement is that inaction is still an action. Responsibility for your own opinions and thoughts and continued existence is equally crucial to understanding the vast invisible world around us that science can illuminate. Things just are. And we have to except them as just being, taking ownership of the decision and going further. With understanding how complex the world is through science, we are able to see how one thing is no longer just one thing, but truly a multiplicity represented by any one of many facades. There is still much more to be discovered, but that will always be the case regardless of man's knowledge. When someone asks why I exist, I reply that I simply do. The reason is irrelevant, the fact that I am here is pertinent, and the reasons are always many and ambiguous. Also crucial is how synthesis is different from postmodernism, because in some lights I feel the two heavily overlapping when really postmodernism is saying that this thing can only be comprehended by a foreign comparison to another very different thing; while with synthesis we are saying that this thing simply exists. It is in the here and now constantly, and what else matters, for everything exists and that is enough to keep the world running day after day on its own reasons. I also feel its important to mention how we talked about previous literature periods acting in cycles, where one becomes more technical and formal, and then the next becomes more loose and creative and interpretive. Over and over again this repeats with different names and hues, but in reality its clear that the romantic movement was just like the beat movement, and the Victorian style is almost as formal as some modernist writings, though its interesting to note how modernism prose is very concise and powerful, and modernist poetry in my opinion is much more interpretive and practically creative with its meanings. Its like a two for one deal in modernism.

Anyways, I'll write more about synthesis as the thoughts come to mind.