Existence has to be divided. Without other, no matter what type of being you are, there can be no ability to discern anything (what’s inside of you is outside of you, and there’s no outside of you, thus no you to distinguish anything in any way).
This unity idea is not true.
Personally, I agree with all you are saying,
My whole philosophy is based on the question what is otherness - what is it to relate to what one is not.
I call this valuing.
Valuing is a nice indicator of existence because it implies, thus logically contains that what it values i.e. an other, otherness.
I wanted to clarify what may have seemed confused.
A blood cell is inside of me, but the moment I name it, it’s outside of me.
So what is the “me”, the observer?
If the observer were universal (without division), there’d be nothing to observe.
This is why I always tell people that existence is fractured.
Ive long ago come to that quite liberating conclusion.
Existence must be discontinuous for there to be resistance, and there has to be resistance for there to be experience
People are looking for some sort of Omni being…
What they don’t understand is that if this were to occur, existence can’t exist.
But they are dead set (pun intended) on there being an omnibeing …
The ONLY Omni whatever that I know is non contradiction. That’s my higher power. Do I fall short? Hell yes I do!!
Do we all? Hell yes!!
I’ve got a pretty good gig here being someone who’s less contradictory now, but I can tell you, it’s not all rainbows and shit either. Much better than before though. Being at the forefront of non contradiction is scary and it affords luxury.
The thing is to never forget where you came from, and to keep eyes on the prize, non zero sum realities, non consent violating realities. To unzero sum this.
To take that forward - can you synthesize the concepts of non zero sum and resistance?
re: experience:
Whatever is in this experience behaves according to the valuator logic, which of itself accounts for experience.
Thus I know that whatever experience is, it is always of this principle.
What I do not know is that this principle, being experience, applies only to experience.
Does it have to be fractured for not to be a unity?
Are we now not succuming to a superstition of mathematics?
In my opinion, neither fractured nor not fractured. There is no one “it” the fracturdness or completeness of which can be pondered.
There is Zeus.
Rainbows and shit.
This is a good man.
[quote=“Pedro I Rengel”]
Does it have to be fractured for not to be a unity?
Are we now not succuming to a superstition of mathematics?
In my opinion, neither fractured nor not fractured. There is no one “it” the fracturdness or completeness of which can be pondered.
There is Zeus.[/quote
It probably depends
For those who have to guess, I suppose.
Yes. I like to use my cigarette analogy here.
You can’t smoke if cigarettes don’t exist.
The pushback from reality? You can’t smoke if you don’t have lungs.
That’s the tension of conditions.
They’re ever present, but, they don’t need to violate consent.
What I like about Ec is that, starting from consent, that is deeply Nietzschean (no offence meant if you don’t like him) and philosophical. As it is obvious that he never assumed a starting point, had to arrive at one, and very evidently the question he asked to get to it is philosophy itself: what matters?
Only what matters exists.
ONLY.
What matters exists.
I think maybabyhaps where FC and me split is where we place the burden of existence. He on what things that matter matter to, so using the grammatically simpler and better way to say that, what values. Me, on what is valued, simplified: what matters.
Where is the ACTION.
I believe what matters alows less mistake, as at no point does it even contain the question of existence. Not at anywhere does “existence” require justification, such as “because it does not not exist.” Existence doesn’t answer to you. You answer to it. Is my view.
However it cant mater if there is nothing to matter to.
Im not saying the focus of life shouldnt be on what matters. Im saying that ultimately, the mattering and the valuing are the same. Something must matter to itself (it must uphold itself as a standard) for anything else to be able to matter to it, just like there must be something that matters to it for it to matter to itself.
Indeed the latter is the more Nietzschean thought, the true perspectivism, pure presence. Except in a case like Alexander, where things were made to matter so they could be conquered. But that is a very rare exception, the case of Greece’s vengeance on Socrates.
Absent such a case it is hard to see where humanity ever produced a fully fledged monad. Maybe in the Yellow Emperor.
Khan doesn’t qualify because he only had the vanquishing aspect and not the cultivating one - except if you take that very literally and just reckon with how many women he impregnated. Offspring of his army is said to be a significant percentage of Central Asian population. His invasion kind of bottlenecked at the Bosporus, so perhaps most of his army ended up settling there and making sure whatever nation would arise would be in their spirt. It is perhaps the most difficult piece of land in the world to maintain, between the Christians, the Russians and the Arabs. My experience with Turks has usually been good, there is much Greek in them. But Greeks are clearly less hungry, more Apollonian. Still, if culture rises from passion, it would be pleasant to be able to hope for something like a Ionian Spring someday.
Experience naturally is the driving force of all we are discussing here.
Experience as a force is interesting.
Experience is an engine, valuing is a wheel.
valuing is first, the wheel alone is more complete than the engine alone. It runs downhill, down the hill of time.
Experience is how the wheel is able to go up the hill. Against time, reflecting on itself, having memory, building backwards in time through science, conjuring the past and from that, manipulating the present and controlling the future. Science interrupts time, goes back at causes and behind them and generates them artificially, it operates inside of time rather than only as a process of time.
“Im not saying the focus of life shouldnt be on what matters”
The focus of philosophy, says I. The focus of life is already on what matters.
Right. But then there is no way back and no small way about it either. It can’t be gradual, it has to be a proposition worthy of the destiny of mankind across the millennia.
Essentially it has to invert Plate’s commandment, which was:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtxbIkfDDO4[/youtube]
What if unity is only ever illusion?
And also, multiplicity is a multiplicity of unities.
Is counting really the task of philosophy? Naming maybe. Continuous experience, there’s a name. But when the counting starts, an agenda is suspected.