Is sanctimoniousness and hypocrisy the necessary fundament or ingredient of a society (in distinction to a group-based community)?

In a Pattern-interpretation-construction one could say: Yes.
But patterns are secondary, timeless(ly) nonbasic.

One cannot say that something will be (and therefore is meta-constellatively) necessary.

1) One cannot interpret objectively whether something is necessary within a single constellation for something. There is no causality within a single constellation and causality from one constellation to another is secondary — meaning: interpreted, partial, nonobjective, nonwhole, a reductive and either particularist or subjective structuration. Longer causal constructions (with cause following cause etc.) are contingent stories that resound to more or less beings and are constructed more or less flexible to account for ’new phenomena‘ (myths are one of those causal stories).

2) One cannot extrapolate/determine etc. an interpreted necessity of one constellation towards another constellation.

Desire, Representation, Fixation, etc.

d-d-s-a-p

If, theoretically, one explained everything within/of a constellation. Then one still cannot predict the other constellation, because causality in the pre-dicitve way/use is a pattern interpretation not a deterministic wholeness.

David Hume resounding: One constellation cannot predict the „next“/an other constellation. One can make patterns. They shape our expectations and these expectations resound with our interpretations. A „self“-stabilising but noncomplete and still basically singular pre-diction (foretelling and interpreting along those lines).

There are patterns. And there is always something more/else.

Last week, I got some questions about space/energy, among them:

– How did space(time) become (or: why is it) uneven/twisted? Did its form or „worldline“ go from ordered or linear to more disordered or nonlinear?
– Did energy become locally trapped/structured/wrapped up in/as Black Holes (and other possible phenomena) and if so how?
– Is there a scientifically described pattern of relations between spacetime and energy? For example: Is space a form of energy within a hyperspace?

Nihilism, suffering by representation, not representation-directed desire

In fact, without mentioning his name, Deleuze and Guattari launch A Thousand
Plateaus by separating their approach decisively from Derrida’s. They
separate their book which they describe as rhizomatic – modeled on crabgrasses
and irises where every root can become a stem and every stem a root – from
two different rooted figures of the book. First, from the root-book with one
root that divides into two and then four, branching into a tree (ATP 5). This is
a fine figure for a system in which there is a central signified and a limited
amount of play about and around this one fixed root. Like the game of
tetherball. But it is the second, also rejected, figure of the root-book which
recalls Derrida.

„This time, the principal root has aborted, or its tip has been destroyed; an
immediate, indefinite multiplicity of roots grafts onto it and undergoes a
flourishing development. . . . The world has lost its pivot; the subject can
no longer even dichotomize, but accedes to a higher unity of ambivalence
or overdetermination, in an always supplementary dimension to that of its
object (ATP 5–6).“

Quote from:
GORDON C.F. BEARN – Differentiating Derrida and Deleuze
Continental Philosophy Review 33: 441–465, 2000.
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Quote in Quote (second parapgraph with „[…]“) from:
Deleuze, Gilles and Félix Guattari – A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia,
trans. B. Massumi.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1987.

Dark Energy may expand be’cause‘ it has no centre, no gravitational point to refer to, no point where time stands still. Or this point is outer space?

Could the Cosmological Redshift be not ‚representing‘ a growing space in the universe if the speed of light would be not constant/always the same (would be interpreted, reference-framed, and applied in measuring and structuring the cosmos as not constant) ?