Between-world of the unequivocal Epigram | Sweden

“The language we speak has to be two-sided, or ambiguous to fit psychic nature of its twin aspects. Knowingly and intentionally we strive to the ambiguous statement because it is superior to unambiguity and appropriate to the nature of existence, “Briefe II 1946-1955, Aniela Jaffe, Gerhard Adler (Olten, Walter Verlag, 1972, page 283-284).
Carl Gustav Jung in 1952.

Between-world* of the unequivocal Epigram

1.0 Why choose this specific topic?

The location, where the future facility is predicted, should serve the purpose of a social generator ie. a place where people gather. Place where people will feel free to share ideas, thoughts, and experiences, but also the place where these experiences, ideas, and thoughts will be examined, where they will determine their conceptions, anticipate their future and criticize their authenticity and originality. To better illustrate and meet this primary function, the complex is designed in the manner of an elaborate symbol. This ambiguous symbol is actually based on the metamorphosis of several archetypal images that together make a coherent ideogram of the universal idea of individuation*.

1.1 Between-world of Replicated Ideas or Amplification of the Dots

** “Between-world is the world of simplest things. This is not the world of intentions and compulsion, but maybe-world, a world of vague possibilities. In It all upcoming roads are small, there are no broad imperial roads, above it, there is no heaven, and no hell below it “*- C. G. Jung – Liber Primus

It is not a coincidence that we have elaborated our theme in an imagined world like this one. In this world, things can be simplified and more clearly perceived. On this phantasmagoric map, it is easier to elaborate, adapt, and semi-modify the clearly defined semantic matrix of the real world that has lost its meaning in its strict definitions. Given that the language in the between-world is a relative category, on this occasion we will use the vocabulary of simple geometric forms.

If we take the triangle (the strongest and the first geometrical structure) and assume that it is a representation of some image-idea, in order to make it more understandable, we will decompose it into its basic elements. Three lines and three imaginary dots connect these lines.

To expand the context of our triangle, with a little imagination and redefinition, we will translate it into the real world as much as possible. If we metaphorically put things in such a way that the Lines are ideas (concepts, thoughts, sentences …), in a nonlinear fashion as opposed to ordinary language, imaginary Dots represent moments in time where these “ideas” terminate, change direction and transform into something else, and yet same by form, we will come to the conclusion that in fact, the Dots are the ones that design this complicated entities. Although technically by their anatomy dots do not contain anything, their function changes the content of events that preceded them and dictates the content that follows.

After such a simple logical deduction, we have to ask ourselves just one question … Why does everyone pay attention to the broadcast of the content, but hardly anyone pays any attention to a moment and influences under which the content of one ends and another begins?

1.2 Theory of the Dots

First Dot – Leibniz’s Monad

The beginning of the first line (idea), or more accurately, what precedes the beginning is the Will. The will is not subject to banal linguistic reductions and simplifications. It is in its own complexity ultimately simple. It is a mistaken belief that the will can be divided and that is made up of elements that can be decomposed for better understanding. Although structuralistic in its manifestation, our Monad is a fake, but in its explicit form, it announces a higher truth … Will is not a construction, Will is the symbol.

Second Dot – Circle on four Corners

The circle on four corners has double ornamentation and is the representation of the world as it is. The square (4 corners of the world), and a circle connect them and makes them a whole. Here are all the social conventions, norms, and principles of collective consciousness. After the will is manifested and converted into its first form (first line), the first instance that it meets is the circle on four corners … The second dot of our ideogram.

Third Dot – The Choice

At the point of time in which Will (which was translated into the idea) meets the World (which is translated in its idea), we come to the Choice and its archetypal representation. From banal and everyday choices to the large shaping choice that gives us a sense of meaning.
The circle on two corners represents geminate nature and possibility. The duality and ambiguity. It is a paradoxical symbol. It is also a symbol of freedom, but also the inevitable condition of life. “A man is convicted on its own freedom,” Jean-Paul Sartre.

1.3 Copy and the Original

New Original is the Copy of the previous Original routed through the filter of the spirit of our time in terms of philosophical-thematic and stylistic principles. Or even better, New Original is constituted on the basis of the previous original (the authority), and it builds up its own system, which stands in strong relation with the previous (old) system.

Although at first, this recipe sounds insufficient and poor, we will see what actually impoverishes its a priori assumed wealth. The problem of thus posed normative model is actually in the moment when the “new original” is supposed to understand, developed, accepted and eventually overcome the “old original” with a new point of view. Instead of overcoming it, after understanding it, the new original begins to imitate the old one. In the miming of the formal elements of the previous original, it’s authoritative (philosophical) nature is dismissed as being irrelevant, and absent. In a simplified (mainly stylistic), imitating we become creators of manufacturing plants of stylistic trash and aesthetic kitsch. Despite the notorious fact that in order to create any meaningful work we must understand prior authority to its finest morpheme, a multitude of meaningless aesthetic shells is fabricated on a daily basis. The vast majority of today’s “originals” are the most trivial variations of stylistic elements that not only do not convey “higher truth”, but there are contradictions in their own philosophical and stylistic discourse. The reason for these problems is a misunderstanding of DOTS(principles) and the transformation of one LINE (idea) into the other. Lack of understanding of the system by which these lines are built and how dots are directed.