Consider the four areas which seemed to indicate God’s ‘abdication’ or lie: (1) knowing Latin, (2) knowing the poets, (3) not being late, (4) accepting one’s punishment; Also, in the more specific context of death, the excuses could be re-written as: (1) History was not being futuristic, (2) Death is an errand with a beautiful wife; I will try to take these points lightly, even though they are somewhat heavy-handed; For at first there is even an argument that their logic could be further compounded; I will argue that in the context of life’s compartments that type of compounding may be irrelevant; We can survive like ants within the logic of language;
The logic of compartments is also a potential logic of temporality;  We rely on matter, we rely on walls, for information and reflection; as such it is a perverse anthropology, but this is suited to the context of human life  Whether the matter is mundane or extraordinary, the quality of the information is an equation between mind and environment  The equation between mind and environment is the energy which must furnish applications for the pursuit of immortal life;  Compartments, whether they are physical or abstract, have a potential to mislead knowledge, and as such they are also an implication of the structure of information;  Even if compartments are a figment of the passing era of Cubism, the nomenclature or psychology of that era has a potential to create fossils of information within the stream of life; That is, if such fossils of information were created during that era;
Now consider the abverse of the previous statements in reverse order: (1) Hyper-Cubism interprets fossils which are not yet real, much in the way Cubism interpreted a style (not a form) that was not yet actual; (2) If there is an answer to compartments, it is a coherent knowledge that is not compartmentalized; The exception is form; (3) Whatever is immortal is already an object or brand of immortality; This is true no matter how authentic it is, no matter who created it, and independent of knowledge; (4) Truths independent of the mind and body may be immortal without giving knowledge of how to attain immortality; Knowledge may or may not be supervenient; (5)True immortal knowledge, if not separate must be related; If the relation of knowledge implies a contradiction, then paths to immortality are erased; One might suspect a historical struggle, instead of secret information or meaningful adaptation;
Parsing this chunk of information—perhaps this is the information we need!—-there is a vast sense of correspondence; Looking at the categories again by interpreting them in reverse, what we can interpret is that immortal knowledge requires the following:  Relationships,  Guiding object(s) which mean(s) something in the world,  A way to reduce differences to meaninglessness, in other words, a form of material semantics or physical philology,  A way to represent or codify something of equal value to immortality,  A way to materialize advanced concepts of time, which by a stipulation of relativity may include rather banal things such as works of art;
Is this a crass view? To some extent a crass view is what I promised in this edition;
What does the preceding list mean for wisdom of temporality, for knowledge of time?
 Relationships: Time involves some level of correspondence; when it is a theory it is a real theory, and when there is knowledge there is also commitment;  Guiding Objects: The meaning of objects must be authentic to the meaning of time, thus the individual is required to do a “total makeover” of their perspectives on daily objects such as bricks and works of art;  Meaninglessness: Although it is tricky to attain immortality, it does INVOLVE trickery; that is a kind of exception;  Codifications: To some extent immortality is concerned with values; if the values are unfair, it can also be argued that they are rare; If they are universal, it can also be argued that they are personal;  Advanced Concepts of Time: There is a significance to whether someone accesses advanced knowledge, that is not purely deterministic; this is another exception;
Here is a re-hash of key points thus far:
(1) The basics: immortality is a brand, a value, that is attained by trickery—what I call material semantics— and access—that is, official ingredients
(2) Access is not always determined by determinism; commitment is required, such as interactions and works; This is true no matter if one lives to 2 or 102, or 599;
(3) It is the nominal level which gives access to trickery, however we know that the nominal can be exceptional, for example, fiction and works of art; We should not be dissuaded by the fishy psychological character of appearances, even though these appearances determine the value of material semantics;
(4) Returning to the earliest point, life’s compartments are a kind of economics; Thus, longevity may depend on multiple exceptions which are not easy to attain;
Let me describe four hypothetical scenarios; In what way are we immortal when we are a goldfish, a decorative vase, a cheap puzzle, and a child at the seashore?
As a Goldfish: We must consider as a goldfish, what is immortal about a goldfish? We can strive to have reflections which are subjectively immortal; At a different time, these reflections will seem much more significant; When it is determined that we achieved anything at all; We can remember that the vanity was cheap to us, it was a sign of mere survival, of exaggerated significance; Our private reality was all that we remember of that existence;
As a decorative vase: This may feel like a step backward, but many people notice vases and think they are more significant than goldfish; Thus they are something to contend with; What does it mean to be a decorative vase? Well, it exists as information; It has no subjective point of view; Its existence is a defense of value; All of its priority can be put into defending a finite significance;
As a cheap puzzle: Unlike a vase, a cheap puzzle is not trying to hire a lawyer; Here there is a subjective point of view, the awareness that people are obsessing over triviality can even become incorporated in a sense of the meaningfulness of this trivial nature; The ‘narieties’ or thoughts of these people have become entangled in a single compartment, which is provided by one sole agent, the cheap puzzle; Here there is a valid economics of commitment; The puzzle, by achieving its own ends materially, is the exclusive agent of complex and realizable web of relationships; Metaphorically, the cheap puzzle is one of the best paradigms for immortality to be found in an object: Not only are the aims achievable, but people’s thoughts on the subject reflect honest commitment; This is analogous to the influences of the gods; It could even be construed that way if there is one God, and everyone is a cheap puzzle; If simplicity is a problem for gods, then a cheap puzzle also reflects a certain paradoxical character which could almost have a soul;
As a child on the seashore: Very little is as apparently vulnerable and as subtly powerful as a child on the beach; He is exposed to Apollo; He shapes time and ostensibly fate; He is on the boundary between the absolute and the relative, or between life and death; He is a form of endurance, crafting a web of potential like a trap-door spider; His life is his own victim; What can be said about the child’s role in immortality? Obviously, he has some potential and some weakness; But we should not slough it off and assume that he is sheerly vulnerable; Let’s say he is playing on the beach; He may or may not know how to swim; But let us say he doesn’t have to swim; He is building a sand castle; The sand castle embodies his hopes and dreams for the future; But it is a very casual medium; Yet it is made out of sand, the substance of time; He has total control; He applies water, the substance of relativity, drizzling the sand into little pointy towers; The towers look evil, but he is good; We feel sorry for him, yet he is the master of life; Here is an image of someone who is busy drawing a map, and constructing a life; He cannot always be on the beach, but he is granted an opportunity; He uses it with the full strength of his volition; And the result is miraculous; Honest, subtle expressions of imagination, and footsteps, like he landed on the moon; But he is not mad; He is having an affair with time, and he really makes marks in the sand; Like the compartments mentioned earlier, these grains may be correspondent truths which assemble some shape of experience within the man’s life; The shoveling and drizzling is not futile, it is simply an honest expression of a finite condition; If there is an error in the child on the beach, it is a failure of intelligence, an assumption about the limitations of his control of fate, or a way in which the beach is itself the wrong material; Referencing the first category of the approach to immortal objects, the child is successful, for he is approaching the first condition with aplomb; He has potential to reform the substance of substance, which underlies the conditions for success and failure;
So if there is a failure in this final picture, it has to do with the walls and access of life; This re-iterates my earlier theme, that what is required is a kind of trickery;
If trickery and access are not required, then we are once again confronted with the Excuses of God: (1) History was not being futuristic, (2) Death is an errand with a beautiful wife
So, ultimately trickery is trickery according to those themes;
We can choose to do the following: (1) Over-interpret, or (2) Over-act, or (3) Under-interpret, or (4) Under-act;
All that is available is a middle path, yet according to the earlier assessment of Buddhism, the middle path is the road of synthetics;
What can be done? We can say, in the first place, that there is something wrong with the child on the beach; He is not afterall, moving history with his shovel, or interpreting the future with his drizzling of sand; Perhaps he should be a prophet; But then what does he become? An endless prophet? Or a historian? There must be some secret which leads out of the maze; He must become a cheap puzzle who doesn’t get burnt by the sun;
What about death’s errand with a beautiful wife? I find that that perspective is a little ersatz; It seems to depend on the psychology of people who have wives, which has just been adopted as a supposition; It is another instance of excessive conventional thinking; Surely one could be conventional if one accepted a particular fate; But rejecting a particular fate may rely on rejecting a particular set of assumptions;
Perhaps death has a wife; Perhaps it is too much to assume relevance; Perhaps we are always playing on a beach; Perhaps we are not yet dead; Perhaps death was seeking life; Perhaps eternity is not yet a cheap puzzle;
By and large I see a route to reductivism; We need a material correspondence in the compartments we encounter before us; But death does not provide this materialism; Serendipity is more real, is more like being on the beach; Being touched by the sun is incidental, it’s a reference to bigger compartments that we don’t directly deal with; On the average day, we’re looking for a secret; When proof is dead, we don’t need proof; Proof is the adequacy of the secret which we have not yet found; If the secret were death, we would not be alive;
Life depends on NOT proving death; That is fundamental; If we are not rhetorical, we are like the child on the beach, dawdling with subtle truths which others might not believe; But once again, this is not about fishy psychological explanations; So much depends on small things, that we cannot eclipse; So much is waiting on our lips; We must do things like declaring that we are not a liar; We must be judged on the coincidence of our own alacrity;
Decide for yourself: Am I a child on the beach? Am I a vase? Am I a goldfish? Or am I a cheap puzzle?
If you are a cheap puzzle, maybe it gets easier to play with the sand; What more could a mortal expect in the quest for long life? Once again, we return to the lessons of the medieval schoolmaster, and they don’t seem as grim:
(1) Knowing Latin may be having a motto, (2) Knowing the poets could be simple navigation, (3) Not being late could be not dying, (4) Accepting one’s punishment could be enjoying the weather
Although these perspectives may be quotidian and unsatisfying, they provide a prosaic view of the meaning of immortal life, from a simple vantage point;
That concludes this edition of the Secret Principles of Immortality (Eight).