By Philip J. Walsh

Introduction

In order to begin this discussion of our values and the words we use to define them, we must first take some considerations. Firstly, this text is not a fully developed metaphysics. It is a condensed version with the explicit intention to provide the ground and the intended final result for a future exegesis of our entire relationship as "buddies." Secondly, this prolegomena focuses on the core antithetical relationship of the terms "sweet" and "beat," which have come to define our existential character. Thirdly, everything contained within this text is true because it is grounded in concreticity. The existence of this text is not bounded by time in the sense of past, present, and future. Rather, this text has existed atemporally in the concrete facts of our everyday existence, our "natural attitude," our "dharmas." Thus, what you are physically reading is the first authentic manifestation of this text in the realm of theoria, whereas until this point it has remained within praxia.

The Nature of the Sweet and the Beat

The sweet and the beat are a matter of individual taste. However, this is not to suggest autonomy among individuals. We operate with the basic presupposition that one's taste is formed by his subjective perception of both his formative and informed processes upon and by the world. For sweetness and beatness are simultaneously formed and informed by one another. Sweetness and beatness exist necessarily as both a duality and a unity. For if there is A there is always not A, if one then always two. The essence of their mutual unity and duality is relationality. The nature of relationality and its role in the fundamental will, of course, be fully explored in future discourse. And while it is my tendency to further elaborate on the subtle complexities of the sweet and the beat, it is best to delve into concreticity, by giving a brief but telling description of its role in our everyday existence.

A Brief but Telling Description of the Roles of the Sweet and the Beat in our Everyday Existence

Sweetness and beatness are unique in that one has an immanent perception of one's own sweetness or beatness, while simultaneously having a transcendent perception of the relative sweetness or beatness of the Other. For example, rocking out has an inherent sweetness to it. In the confines of one's own immanence, rocking out is un-informed by the world, and remains within the purity of immediate enjoyment; it is truly sweet. However, were one to rock out too hard, enjoying the immanent bliss of said rocking out, yet inconsiderate of one's affect upon the Other, this sweetness may become sickening to the Other, and thus beat. Thus, the matter of taste is the essential character of sweetness and beatness.

Another caliber example of the concreticity of the sweet and the beat is that of embarrassing one's self in general. Were one to do something deemed horribly embarrassing by general society he is likely to wallow in the beatness of his deed. However, if this same individual were to carry himself in such a way, describe his deed in such a manner, or deal with his deed in any way in general so that it appears sweet, via being laudatory or perhaps so unique and extraordinary that one cannot help but acknowledge its sweetness, then this individual has truly become an artist with the sweet as his aesthetic.

Yet another categorical manifestation of the sweet and the beat occurs in the process of doing things while being fucked up. Of course, being fucked up to the point of general distaste amidst a social setting is generally deemed to be beat. However, one may recover his sweetness in a manner similar to the aforementioned terms of an embarrassing situation. Furthermore, if one is able to smoothly operate while fucked up, only revealing one's current state of intoxication when subtle and appropriate, this is certainly sweet. And yet, the level this sweetness may attain once again is cyclical, and not exponential in that one may begin to reveal one's level of intoxication to the point of overemphasis, destroying the confident subtleness of the sweet, entering the cocky realm of the beat. And even furthermore, one may be so intoxicated in a public setting that his level of sweetness apparent to his immanent perception of himself may "spill over" into the general consensus, causing his transcendentally apparent beatness to cross back over into the sweet. This discussion regarding the level of one's awareness and its affect on the sweetness and/or beatness of one's behavior and disposition leads us to another important distinction within the sweet and the beat.

To introduce this next distinction we must first consider the matter of effort. Effort is something inherently sweet in and of itself. It enables us to achieve a telos, or rather, create our own. However, when considering taste and the nature of the sweet, a teleological perspective is inadequate. Such a perspective is based on reason, whereas the aesthetic nature of the sweet, having both particular and universal qualities, does not dwell within reason. Similar to enlightenment, satori, pure being etc., upon participating in the sweet, one's ethical disposition does not aspire to sweetness, it simply achieves it instantaneously (yet constantly). Thus, attempting to produce (rather, re-produce) sweet behavior based upon past experiences of the sweet is inherently futile as this would be an essentially teleological task and thus be informed by reason; clearly not the true intuitive sweet. Employing effort, conversely, is entirely beat.

From here, we can examine the disposition of those individuals whom we deem beat and/or sweet based upon our judgment of their entire personality. That is, there are some individuals who we call sweet rather than deeming a particular action as sweet. Conversely, the same holds true for those we deem generally beat rather than particularly. The reason for these distinctions resides in aforementioned matter of effort. As was previously noted, the sweet exists outside of effort and its rational boundaries. Thus, the individuals who we deem sweet in the non-particular sense are those who seem to carry themselves effortlessly. Their demeanor is sweet, and thus they act sweetly. On the other hand, those attempting to be sweet on a particular basis are inherently beat, as they attempt to capture a demeanor in individual instances. Simply put, don't try too hard. Once again, the sweet is not a telos, it is a disposition that one achieves both in their immanent, everyday activity, as well as in their transcendental subjectivity. This leads us to our next point.

The Transcendental Subjectivity and Inter-subjectivity of the Sweet

It is difficult to assign definitive characteristics and draw distinct boundaries to outline a definition of the sweet and the beat. This is due to the fact that sweetness is intangible, existing as a matter of taste, outside of rational discourse. We only know the sweet when we are affected by it. We understand it as it occurs in being and time, not as a term to be defined (praxia over theoria). Nonetheless, we shall attempt to describe what makes the sweet and the beat as such.

As was previously mentioned in the section The Nature of the Sweet and the Beat, we are operating under the presupposition that one's taste is both formative upon and informed by the world. Now, we will carry this idea a step further and treat the sweet as transcendental subjectivity. Notice I do not speak of a "transcendental subject," but rather "subjectivity." We cannot posit a transcendental subject when dealing with the sweet, for there is only an immanent subject, or agent, in whom sweetness is manifest in concrete particularities. Sweetness as a transcendental notion, however, does not reside in concrete particularities, but in the collective subjectivity of the world. Our notion of the sweet and the beat is certainly formed by those immanent concrete particularities, however a peculiar thing happens upon our perception of them. These particularities, these real events, are just as much a part of consciousness as they are of the objective world. Their existence within consciousness gives them a transcendental setting, as the consciousness of an individual is not fully autonomous. Thus, the sweet and the beat occur in the world and in consciousness, constantly forming their own identities within immanence and transcendence.

Concluding Remarks

Obviously, the sweet and the beat play a critical, yet particular part nonetheless in a larger metaphysical scheme. Hence the nature of this discourse as a mere prolegomena. The sweet and the beat are antithetical as well as necessitative of one another. Their role as the prominent values of our entire relationship as buddies is linguistically determined. This considers their linguistic function as ethical and not accidental. Whether or not the sweet and the beat define our metaphysics or if our metaphysics define the sweet and the beat is an inherently futile determination. Rather, the most intelligent and artistic treatment of the sweet and the beat is based upon a discourse without a genesis. As was previously mentioned, the past, present, and future are meaningless when considering the sweet and the beat. Their atemporal nature places our perspective simultaneously within immanence and transcendence. The moment of the sweet lasts an eternity, and for an eternity we shall consider its affect.