The word sh*t is related to the word schizophrenia, since the scheiss or skit portion means to cut off, as in clipping off a thing or dividing it with the muscles of the sphincter.
It could also mean sh*thead or sh*tmind.
Look for the many relevant lyrics in here:
Now, sh*t is associated with many things, it is generally dull and like dirt or mud, brown, visually boring, mundane, necessary, waste, but also polluting, smelly in an unpleasant way, and poisonous as well as dangerous to touch or ingest due to bacteria and risk of infection. If you let it in you are likely to have a bad response, same as if you keep it in.
We feel apart from sh*t, viewing it as the daily and essential Other most of all, what we are averse to which is formed and produced by us yet we happily divide from it and flush it far away and out of sight.
This world is itself Scheissen made of Scheissen. Not only do we feel apart from it as we walk attached to it, but we do everything we can to divide ourselves from it, the nature, the weather, the ground with shoes, the air with clothes. We view ourselves divided, yet would we choose anything else?
Oblivion, complete disability, or this sh*t. We choose Scheissen, the Schizophrenic mind of Apartness rather than Oblivion which is to ne One with the Other, Undivided, an impossibility to experience, thus leaving us with no option other than to accept Scheissen and Eat Sh*t and Die.
Some people kill themselves, because they think they can escape Scheissen and illogically hope that Oblivion can be experienced or something better or at least not as bad might await them. Now that is true hope and blind faith and utter stupidity. There is a chance they are right!
The people in hell, the big gaping excrement valley or toilet, even historically, besides metaphorically, which is us, would wish for escape, yet the only way is down and down is deeper. They also call hell "apartness from God" just like Scheissen means apartness or division or cutting off.
I can not eat excrement, eating excrement will cause death, like the fruit of the tree of knowing. Its funny humans seek to eat from it again, because there is nothing to know but Shit Is, and what is not shit, is responsible for what is.
The act of creation was generating Otherness or Apartness.
I have demonstrated for you using a scatological term that people are shy about and take for granted to explore all sorts of interesting and thought provoking aspects, and that is using shit in the best way possible, which is a multilayered statement as is this whole post!
Re: Choosing Scheissen over Oblivion
Posted: Fri May 12, 2017 6:49 am
by atreestump
Abjection, we are defined through negation (what we are not) and bodily excretions are the same as the way we individuate. A whole necessarily expressing separateness.
Re: Choosing Scheissen over Oblivion
Posted: Fri May 12, 2017 7:22 am
by kFoyauextlH
Can you tell me more about all that or write about it, with a particular focus on the necessary or necessarily part which is of the most interest to me! If possible, whenever you have the time.
Re: Choosing Scheissen over Oblivion
Posted: Fri May 12, 2017 7:24 am
by atreestump
Abject as a protection
It’s biological expression is one of nausea and disgust, anxiety and spasms. It protects us from what we loathe. We spit ourselves out. Food loathing is perhaps the best example of the abject. Jellied eels are a common delicacy in some London pubs, just watching others scoff and swallow those slimy, gross eels with a pint of lager makes me wretch and purge. When I can’t hide my repulsion from others, they seek to proffer the loathed food and I refuse. ‘I’ do not want to listen.’I’ refuse to assimilate it. ‘I’ expell it.
To each ego it’s object, to each superego, it’s abject.
A corpse is another way of understanding abjection, a corpse shows you the boundary of life itself, what we push aside in order to live.
This is negation as necessity.
Re: Choosing Scheissen over Oblivion
Posted: Fri May 12, 2017 9:03 am
by kFoyauextlH
That made me SO happy. That is exactly the sort of stuff and writing I would love to see more of regularly all over the website, really wonderful, thank you so much, it is the sort of thing that hit the right spot after so long. [hr] So it received my first like, because I really liked it!
Re: Choosing Scheissen over Oblivion
Posted: Fri May 12, 2017 2:03 pm
by atreestump
The powers of horror is well worth a read by Julia Kristeva
Re: Choosing Scheissen over Oblivion
Posted: Fri May 12, 2017 6:34 pm
by kFoyauextlH
Sounds like my kind of book and statement!
Re: Choosing Scheissen over Oblivion
Posted: Sat May 13, 2017 6:09 pm
by atreestump
There's an interesting part in the book where she talks about how Indian people shit on the beach and bury it in order to demonstrate how the abject is the unspoken and yet, we are aware of it being there.
Re: Choosing Scheissen over Oblivion
Posted: Sat May 13, 2017 7:07 pm
by kFoyauextlH
Wow! It would be especially funny if they didn't realize the whole beach was sh*t and covered sh*t with sh*t, just sh*t they make a distinction regarding:
Thus Distinction Acts as Purifying Substances, and all purification is wholly symbolic like justice.
Re: Dwarves, Goblinoids, and other "s(h)orts": Choosing Scheissen over Oblivion
Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2025 8:00 am
by kFoyauextlH
"
@andregomes1590
3 years ago
So you take the book… and then we fit a flow signal. It mirrors traffic.
"
"
@JacobEhm
3 years ago
I don’t know about you guys but that short blue man was really funny. He must be like super cool irl, I hope to be him one day
"
"
The Schrat is cross-categorized as a wood sprite and a house sprite, and some regional examples correspond to kobold, e.g., Upper Franconia in northern Bavaria.[8][10] The kobold is sometimes conflated with the mine demon kobel or Bergmännlein/Bergmännchen, which Paracelsus equated with the earth elemental gnome. It is generally noted that there can be made no clear demarcation between a kobold and nature spirits.[11]
"
"
The word Schrat originates in the same word root as Old Norse skrati, skratti (sorcerer, giant), Icelandic skratti (devil) and vatnskratti (water sprite), Swedish skratte (fool, sorcerer, devil), and English scrat (devil).[5]
The German term entered Slavic languages and (via North Germanic languages) Finno-Ugric ones as well.[6] Examples are Polish skrzat, skrzot (domestic sprite, dwarf),[7][6][a] Czech škrat, škrátek, škrítek [cs] (domestic sprite, gold bringing devil/mining sprite[7][6][11]),[12] Slovene škrat, škratek, škratelj (domestic sprite, mining sprite), and škratec (corn or gold-bringing being,[13] whirlwind, Polish plait) as well as Estonian kratt, krätt, rett, krat, krätt (domestic sprite, "treasure/wealth-bringer", comparable to Schratt).[7][6][14]
"
Added in 39 minutes 51 seconds:
I recently mentioned Dwarves and Goblins in the "Sauron" thread, but using them to refer to another version of them, though that version will come up here too, the strange joke is that I worship in a number of ways these as references to what I'm always talking about:
"
In Norse cosmology, Niðavellir (anglic. as Nidavellir; probable compound of O.N. Nið – "new moon", "the wane of the moon" (perhaps related to niðr – "down") + Vellir (pl. of völlr) – "fields": Dark Fields, Downward Fields), also called Myrkheimr (Myrkheimr, O.N. compd. of myrkr – "darkness" + heimr – "home": the world of darkness, Dark Abode),[1][2] is the home of the Dwarves.[3]
"
So, I dislike a lot of the ways in which people have been making these things in recent history and fir a while even, but the way I think of them and use them myself is different, but can also include those aspects and meanings that are modern too, and much more than might gave been included by each, such as references to soldiers, bands of people, fighters, brigands, peasants, those dead, the dead in general, and certain aspects, powers, attitudes, actions, items, and knowledge.
"
The name "Fáfnir" has been translated from Old Norse as "the embracer",[2] lit. 'the fathomer' (archaised: "fathomner"), stemming from the verb faðma ("fathom, embrace") with the inchoative verb-suffix -na and agent noun-suffix -ir.
"
Calling what I consider God a "dwarf", a "goblin", a "giant", a "dragon", an elf, and a fairy, then making those out to be increasingly pathetic or terrible, is symbolic literalism going way further than I can feel pleased with really, and despite any ancient people possibly never understanding any of this the way I do or applying it to what I do, I see it as a human tendency abd trend towards reducing and minimizing things, perhaps as an apotropaic response to the exact anomalous chaos I consider "intelligent":
"
hoj201
•
6y ago
•
Edited 6y ago
Thanks OP! I thought you formulated the question really well. It wasn't until I was studying the opposite of chaos that I really understood how to make the term precise. I wont be able to answer the question in full here, but a system exhibits chaotic behavior if it's not "integrable". see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrable_system
Roughly speaking, a n-dimensional system (with n > 2) is integrable if you can (locally) find n-2 conserved quantities, so that if you use those conserved quantities as the coordinates of a chart, the dynamics take the form of a one-dimensional ODE, which you can integrate. Each conservation pins down the dynamics of your system by a dimension, so at the end of the day you get a foliation of in R^n of 2-dimensional systems (on each of the level-sets of the conserved quantities). The Poincare-Bendixson theorem guarantees that the dynamics are not chaotic on each leaf of the foliation. So that's integrable systems in a nutshell (with some details swept under the rug).
In the case of chaos, the non-existence of n-2 conserved quantities implies that your dynamics fundamentally fill a space of more than 2 dimensions (perhaps a fractal dimension like 2.5 or something). That's your definition. A dynamical system is chaotic if and only if it is not integrable. Perhaps, it's not a practical definition, because there is no easy way to know that conserved quantities do not exist (is your system chaotic, or have you just not looked hard enough). However, the use of Lyapunov functions and perhaps the spectrum of the Frobenius Perron operator are practical heuristics for diagnosing chaos in applications.
Upvote
10
Downvote
u/blu2781828 avatar
blu2781828
•
6y ago
One thing that's been bothering me this time is... is there a way to precisely define chaos?
There are lots of definitions of "chaotic behavior". They go by various names, like Li-Yorke chaos, Devaney chaos, but I won't go into specifics here. Instead, I'll list some broad categories of "hallmarks" often associated with chaotic behavior:
the existence and abundance of periodic orbits, especially those of high period, in phase space;
Sensitivity with respect to initial conditions; this is related to positivity of Lyapunov exponents (LE) of smooth mappings / flows (e.g., ODE's), which are the time-asymptotic exponential growth rates of tangent directions (if LE are positive, nearby initial conditions separate exponentially fast in time);
Positive (topological or metric) entropy, indicative of exponentially growing complexity of dynamics in phase space as time increases (this is associated with the presence of Smale horseshoes, which possess an abundance of periodic points of high period);
Convoluted fractal-type geometry of attractors/repellers
Statistical properties: decay of correlations, central limit theorem, etc.
This is just a sample, and not meant to be exhaustive. Suffice it to say that there are multiple lenses through which one can study, classify and understand chaos. "Chaotic" is a casual term, and anyone serious would be sure to carefully identify the properties they're interested in.
The thing I see most often as a definition of chaos is that small changes to initial conditions result in diverging resulting conditions. But the system dx/dt = kx is highly sensitive to initial conditions, and yet I doubt anyone would call it chaotic, even if we wrapped the output in a modulo operator or something.
Nobody would call that chaotic: there's only one equilibrium at x = 0, with no other periodic orbits, while topological entropy is zero, and the repeller x = 0 is a single point with no complicated structure. For simple examples of a chaotic dynamical systems, check out the Baker's map or CAT map.
And if so, is it possible to predict if a given map or differential equation will have chaotic behavior just by looking at it?
Highly nontrivial fact: "checking" that a given model is chaotic is usually really hard! To give you an idea: it is an open problem to prove that the Chirikov standard map has positive metric entropy for Liouville measure (equivalently, positive Lyapunov exponents for a Lebesgue-positive measure set).[1] In general, estimating Lyapunov exponents from below is a notoriously hard and delicate cancellation problem. [3]
The logistic map family already hints at some of the challenges. It's hard to state in detail, but suffice it to say that "chaotic" (aka stochastic) and "stable" (aka regular) parameters are co-mingled in a hopelessly convoluted way; see, e.g., [2]. Indeed, membership in the set of stochastic parameters is not effectively computable (I forget where I read this or what the actual statement is, but look up Christian Wolf at CUNY).
TLDR: it's damn hard to tell whether a _given_ dynamical system is chaotic, even if it appears so in simulations.
Finally, what's the deal with the relationship between the symbolic treatment of a system and the numeric treatment? I intuitively understand why the three body problem is hard to solve numerically -- everything is all knotted up and dependent on everything else, so any small errors will accumulate and you'll end up with a planet being flung off to infinity. But why does that also make it difficult to solve analytically? Is the solution space just too big to accommodate a general solution in terms of ordinary functions?
This is a confusing point. You might be referring to the fact that the unrestricted three body problem has no known general closed-form solution in terms of elementary functions (hopefully this is correctly phrased, I don't know the state of the art here). Crucially, this has nothing to do with chaos, which has more to do with qualitative features of the dynamics.
And finally, why do unstable, chaotic systems tend to also be difficult or impossible to solve analytically as well as numerically?
As above, the existence of simple, "analytic" closed-form solutions has nothing to do with chaos. On the other hand, stability and computational cost of numerical methods are deeply affected by sensitivity w.r.t. initial conditions: long-time trajectories of chaotic systems are extremely costly to determine accurately. This is the same reason for the explosion of uncertainty in hurricane movement predictions as time increases.
These are a lot of questions all at once, but I'm so fascinated by chaos and dynamics, and I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around what makes a chaotic system chaotic.
Join the club! Chaos is fascinating, and deeply connected with many interesting physical systems and interesting problems having to do with the arrow of time. Maybe that's why I study it for a living!
freemath
•
6y ago
•
Edited 6y ago
Interesting answer, this made me really curious to get to know more haha.
I'd content that existence of analytic solutions and chaos are completely independent though. As u/hoj201 mentioned, the 'typical' (at least by physicists) way in which nonlinear ODE's ( or even PDE's and Stochastic PDE's, see inverse scattering transform) are solved analytically is by finding enough conserved quantities to make the resulting dynamics 'trivial'. The existence of that many conserved quantities excludes the possibility of chaos. In fact in some communities 'chaos' and 'non-integrability' are used practically interchangable.
"
"
Communication is commonly defined as the transmission of information. Its precise definition is disputed and there are disagreements about whether unintentional or failed transmissions are included and whether communication not only transmits meaning but also creates it.
"
I am not exactly in the same position of other theists, because many of them are thinking of or suggesting or imagining that there is something like them, even if said to be abstract or invisible or without physical dimensions or limits, a body with parameters in some sense still, but what I am always saying is that whatever is here and has ever been here, whatever such that is relying upon to be here and processed in any way by ys or anything, relies on some certain things to ever have been or to ever have been perceived, and it can not be infirmation itself which brings about its destruction and replacement, but what remains and was capable of generating information and responsible for destroying it and bringing about another set or frame of information that differs from another.
Added in 9 minutes 6 seconds: Re: Yeenoghu: Dwarves, Goblinoids, and other "S(h)orts" & "W(y)lds": Choosing Scheissen over Oblivion https://www.etymonline.com/word/wild
"
Of persons, "self-willed, lacking restraint," late Old English; also of a region, "unpeopled, without civilization." Of wind, weather, c. 1200. The specific meaning "sexually dissolute, loose" is attested from mid-13c. The meaning "distracted with excitement or emotion, crazy" is from 1590s.
"
"
The noun is attested from late 15c. as "state of unrestrained freedom."
"
"
The "Wylde" spelling is an alternative form of the word and surname "wild," which comes from the Old English word wilde, meaning "untamed" or "free-spirited". The spelling "Wylde" was often a result of scribal variations in historical records, such as when people were unable to write and the local curate would record the name as they heard it spoken. Other common variations include Wild, Wilde, and Wyld.
"
"
Oriares
Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 404
#2
03-03-2015, 09:27 PM
It's the "edgy" way to spell wild, as far as I know.
JayTee
JayTee
Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1805
#3
03-03-2015, 09:30 PM
It's the wild, as in the untamed, strange lands beyond your home village/state/country, but with a Y in it to show that things are goddamned weird there as well.
"
"
Wyrd is a concept in Anglo-Saxon culture roughly corresponding to fate or personal destiny. The word is ancestral to Modern English weird, whose meaning has drifted towards an adjectival use with a more general sense of "supernatural" or "uncanny", or simply "unexpected".
"
