All right, I don’t know how long I have right now, got some plumbing to do once my ride picks me up, so will continue.
Okay, talked about Bayesian definitions, eluded (but did not yet explain in depth why it disagrees with political theories of structuralism, which parallel the root system Will To Power is built upon (makes it a rather easy to break system of logic ), haven’t touched Boolean processes…
Let’s just jump into the nasty midst of it. Existentialism isn’t real. It’s a purely bullshit philosophy, so echo of logical mistakes Chryssipus made in antiquity, that Sarte took a hold of in a drive to destroy metaphysical entities. I told you my type doesn’t naturally think in the same mathematical terms as the rest of society, we naturally gravitate towards another system.
This anticipates yet also confounds many aspects of Existentialist Philosophy, but the real crux of the matter lays here:
You’ll find philosophers prior to Chryssipius up to Wittgenstein acknowledging aspects of this, that something is pretty fucking squirrelly about Uno.
It’s a transcendental impossibility, a calculation- a assumption, embedded in the very beginnings of our capacity to measure and differentiate. It can be symmetrical and asymmetrically balanced, and offers satiation when another absurdity, zero, isn’t up to the task. We have formulas built into and hidden into the very measures we use to calculate, differentiate, and arrive at sums. So much of mathematics is a balancing act, assertions and contradictions in logic seeking values, it’s never occurred to most of us we might of fucked ourselves before even starting our approach through a inherited system.
Why does this matter?
Sartre tried to structure consciousness on a 1/0 formula. This is a absurdity, as everything else becomes a reduction prone phenomena in which everything becomes a concept before itself. In such a mindset, everything becomes a nail to be hammered before the alter of the self.
I can’t reduce things past their relativistic status. A thing is just a thing, you get a whole bunch of things together, you don’t have a ecosystem, you don’t have a machine, you have a storehouse. You don’t achieve the Pandiesm of Chryssipus, or the Egoist Atheism of Sartre. You get the potential for planning, a means to statistics, to observe variety. Existentialism ironically misses the sense of self in this regard, it is a illusion in labyrinth of self affirming illusions, a chimeric obfuscation of pointing to otherness as selfness. (So no, there is no Dasein either, muchless authenticity and sincerity. I’m gonna have to start introducing some classical Korean concepts on this forum soon to derail the growing trend of Existentialism, they were much better at handling the peculiarities inherent in this area).
If I recall, you wanted to know how political systems are able to present themselves as stable and beneficiary to the people? This all relates, as well as Chryssipus… he was a theorist in this area as well, wrote his own Republic (Like Plato, Diogenes, and Zeno did before him). I’ll get to that soon, but have to finish describing this thought process, how it relates to two different kinds of mental mapping in both hemispheres, how axiomatic principles relate. Eidetic Reduction isn’t the tool one uses to isolate the phenomena. Chryssipus introduced the cognitive tool, and it takes place more in the right hemisphere than the left, which we have mostly been focusing on.
The Stoics heavily built upon Aristotle’s concepts of Category, and Plato’s Physics (Timeaus and Laws in case you want to know). Existentialist conveniently drop this area for the most part, but your question asks after it (as far as I can tell).
The basic principles for structuring society in his era were Stoic concepts built up from Aristotelian and Cynic Concepts of cities growing organically from the physical world, patterning itself against the higher forms of the cosmos that only worthy, enlightened sages could comprehend, and ignorant fools could not.
Their principles for this stratification operated on a three dimensional, visual tier, where qualities were enumerated and stratified in a hierarchy of vices and virtues, at every stage of so society… Good, Evil, Indifferent.
It was the same with their physics, you can’t really justifiably separate the two:
Take for example, our periodic table:
It is neither good or bad, it’s definitely categorically sorted, but it’s a fucking mess. It lacks harmony, has it at times, but it falls apart all over the place. We can’t view (as non-chemists) any one of those elements as good or evil, as it tells us nothing. I wouldn’t mind having a Utiliarian oriented storehouse filled with 500 tons of each element for logistical needs to any plans we can cook up. Wanna go to Mars? Sure, we must have everything we need in that warehouse, just get a engineer in there to do some sciency stuff with our collection of atomic substances, we can do anything Madam Curie can think of with such a warehouse.
It’s when you start stratifying objects in terms of phenomenal effects that the system switches from 2-D to 3-D:
The one above is disturbingly similar actually, even though its bullshit)
Ethics in the Stoic system of government tended, due to Zeno’s hatred of a certain Cynic with ADHD he wanted to seriously distance himself from (hence why he started the Stoic school instead of continuing on as a Cynic) rejected certain extreme behaviors, and structured his political hierarchy stemming from the individual/household to the various levels of the Polis. The Polis was likewise aspect of the universe, likewise structured. Intuitively, we can say the city therefore, was a reflection of the mind.
Stoicism stratified principles of mind via proportionality to the parts, mixed quantities of Good and Bad (and indifferent) substances. You cannot achieve such a proportional yet consistent categorical system on a singular, two dimensional graph. It has to be 3-D to express consistently it’s axiomatic principles, if you don’t, in order to express it a quality under discussion, you gotta do stuff like this:
Modern mathematics looks sorta like this… side effect of how we developed algebra in the west unfortunately.
In a proportional 3-D system, you can more easily express Ontological categories with abstract systems, than in a 2-D matrix trying to accommodate rules. It’s a nasty mess.
Politics, such as the Imperial Politics of Augustus (via Arius Didymus, who codified Stoic Ethics up to his point) that influenced Roman, Fuedal, and Christian systems of administration and governance, appears aware of this, and mapped his system out visually (the surviving text suggests the reader was taking the system from graphs, I’ve been working to restructure his political thinking, hence interest in periodic tables in 3-D.)
In Stoicism, Christianity, and Fuedalism, the rules for systems start from the Individual, builds itself up through hierarchical institutions, until you reach the level of chief executive (emperor, king, Optimates/Senate).
All our rules are via proportions of quality and capacity to act, and our vice and virtues are in response to it… not as static rules determined by logic (yes, Chrysippus was the best logician ever, but his rules of logic aren’t very good at determining his own political presumptions, he inherited the Stoic system and didn’t much change it’s household prescriptions).
Why does this matter?
Such a proportional status doesn’t necessarily produce a caste system (heck, caste systems don’t even produce caste systems, everyone seems obsessed in living in the grey when in a caste system, being rather naughty in diversifying what they do) as it’s empirically modified.
The idea began with the Cynics, knocking door to door, asking about how people lived, trying to work out consistent norms of living, eludicating the cream of this knowledge taken A Posteri as what the good life is, or rejecting the bad when it was encountered. They didn’t have much use for logic, rejected abstractions.
Take for example “A Good General”. What would Diogenes say in reaction to a general elected by the Athenians be if he approached Diogenes and asked him what such a person was? I’d love to see Diogenes’ meltdown and confusion. He was more worried about the lowest, most reducible category, and was a material reductionist (he would approve of your Eidetic Reductionalism).
Would Diogenes, a pacifist, say it’s a contradiction? Perhaps, but it’s also a contradiction of his own philosophy of inquiry. He generally avoided the rich and “powerful”, such as Satyraps and Macedonian Emperors. He was only interested in one rung of society, and what survives of his Republic (a refutation of Plato’s Republic) suggests this.
He wanted a society of Hobos, living without a civic core, one that wouldn’t have need to elect generals with a mandate. Yet, this hypothetical General stands before Diogenes, beckoning Diogenes for a opinion.
A General can reply to Diogenes’ rejection of Generalship any saying “I am aware you do not approve of a General as he is exceptionally bad, contrary to the greater good, but some generals historically have been far worst than others. As they can be far worst, it goes to reason some can be better than some in effecting the greater good, if not a good in and of themselves. What are the qualities, behaviors, and rules a man who accepts being a general should pursue in order to be a good general?”
Such a system the Cynics only touched on via the periphery, via their cultural criticisms of culture and the laws (such as absurd trial outcomes). The Stoics however went above the Cynics individualistic tendencies and examined such questions. They became statesmen, and tutors to kings. They developed consistent studies of psychological biographies of great leaders (Arrian’s work on Alexander the Great the best from Antiquity), and developed the political instruction genre “The Princes Mirror” where the heirs of political dynasties are taught about leadership and conduct from a early age.
A city is a reflection of the human mind. There isn’t a single aspect of it that is not embedded somewhere in our collective consciousness. The rules for running households built up and expanded to the level of the polity, a city. It was a scientific build of principles, stretching across countless generations. What worked tended to rise to the top.
Individuals born to a society tend to identify with said society, even when their experiences are harmful. Ask Joker if he is a American, he will likely say yes without flinching, but will also go on a Anarchist Nihilist rant identifying paradoxes he doesn’t identify with.
I am a American too, but differentiate on a different basis. Different knowledge, different personality type. We are both individuals, so rules for individuals would hold for us similarly, even if we reject them on different basis, as we hold to different levels of society differently, with different rules.
We share a lot of experiences in common, but not conclusions. We share the same idea, say… that elements exist, but prioritize its arrangement categorically differently.
The individuals are different. Yes, the underlining neurology for all humans are similar.
We’ve had since Gobekli Tepe, the first permanent civilization 12,000 years ago, to organize this stuff.
A tyranny is unjust. But a tyranny is also a advanced form of government- the Greek Tyranies formed first in the void created with the collapse of Minoan and Hittite Civilization. It already had international trade and exploration, currency, pottery, etc. Rudimentary settlements, but also advanced religious concepts and concepts of warfare. At times, even writing. Psychological insight in its myths and histories.
These dark ages were not as dark as we would like to imagine. Terribly brutal, genocidal even, but fairly advance… 9000 years more advance over the far more diminutive Neolithic era.
We’ve always had a deep core of cultural data therefore to build on, just our record keeping sucked ass. It took modern historical investigations of history by guys like Herodotus and Ctesias to start organizing it all.
End result is… a study of history is the study of sociology and of history, and one derives advanced psychological concepts from it. We learn what works, and what doesn’t work in large part from this. It’s why armies tend to be highly conservative in retaining archaic formulas… a good army is a army that survives, and you don’t fix what isn’t broken. Men associate Elan and Esprite death Corps with this.
Well I think it’s all sub-standard and derisive. Of course the zetetikoi were edetic so theoretical allusions to practical objects in a formal causal framework was a charactetistic that significantly changed property dualists, especially after Cantor’s diagonalization argument. I mean who are we kidding. Frege hadn’t thought anything of the eclectic undertones of post-socratic dissention or the dialectic, so why should we assume Ponty was evasive while Derrida’s differance was not? Consider the following:
So obviously Anslem was wrong and Foucault’s sociology was surely expressive of the modernist era; how else would the efficient cause ever be efficient in the first place. It would be indistinguishable from the formal cause. Think about it. You say Ptolemy’s conservativism was just something of a whim, that’s why you don’t think to look at Sioux culture for clues to hydrogen combustion and transference. They had already discovered this long before Heidegger asked the question “what is is”, and many astronomer’s don’t consider Popper’s falsifiability legitimate for that very reason. It’s a paradigm issue.
Now, you’re wondering why phrenology only maps partial aspects of monadic centers of power. This is a good question but a little misleading. Noematically, apodeictic structures are always operating with manifold platonic numbers, or at least they appear that way, so any corporatism will inherently contain the genesis of psychologism, albeit less orthodox than Protagoras or the oriental schools. Simon knew this, which is why he didn’t read Camus. Well that and Camus didn’t exist yet.
So as you see, the metabasis of ideal entities was already thoroughly explained by Scheler, so the young Hegelians were a little late. All is flux. You should already know this… which is why I don’t see what the problem in this thread is. This is why the topology of Davidson triangulation is paramount to any grammatology and sexism in a post-industrial society. The four fold root of sufficient reason deals only with the noumenal integration of cellular activity, although you can extract a system of interpretation from it, provided you keep in mind Descartes’ second meditations.
Now you’re asking if Carnap was a closet homosexual. It doesn’t matter. Intuitionistic ontology is predicated on the fact that weather patterns are fractal. I devised a set theory to explain just how empiricism and Confucious are elemental in cognitive systems analysis. Have you read Stirner? You should, because it’s very important to understand how connotation and sensibility conflict with categorical imperatives, especially after the stratification of constitutional morphologies and the political upheavals that resulted from the taxonomy of differential equations in the sixteenth century.
Always remember that non-euclidean axioms are only partially retributive of extension and modals. This is where you are going astray in your understanding of existentialism.
What? You might have guessed it: That avoid by all means requisite analysis into hyothetical a priori judgements. (Although, any philosopher worth his mettle is excused as such, for them, structure does not necessarily mean a differential analysis based on historically derived formulae; for it is impossible.) Reduction to total similarity ad identity is not;of such
structure, it is based on a suspension of familial qualitative sub-propositions.
Existentialism is not nonsense, it is beyond and above comprehension, other then gestures, and suppositions. Existential analysis is the key, to find
the meaning, (logos) of what these borders may entail.
It seeks to pry under the facade of meaning, and leads to the sign theory of interpreting the same
within context. It works backwards, to unmask the reduction implicit in the above mentioned algebra.
That it is a facade, it is of no doubt, cause it cannot tear apart the fabric(structure) of an established order of things. Causality does not work in reverse.
I think this may in part answer Turd’s implications as i understand him.
or so little out-side, (out-sight),((out of sight they used to say)), for to have effect on in-sight. Simply a cold shoulder type dismissal.
Any one can do that, even me.
There is no effort to dis-assemble meaning, because,
of a certain predeliction with fear of what is to be found there, and even the modernist had harbored
this fear early on, in all it’s varied forms including, surrealism,
dadaism, free-flow, cut up method, cubism.
Backard glance: most comfort in the reflectively
blinding super -realism of the vagrant, and the flagellant.
Ooooh, it Smarts, says the masochist, do it harder
next time.
Wait, you thought that last post of mine was serious, Orbie? My goodness, you’re in worse shape than I thought. That post was Fergian parody. I can’t believe you didn’t know that. We’ve got to get you to a doctor.
Of course i knew it was…But guessing? That is one particular sign of a dead give-away. Parody, yes, but borderlne, since parody has grain of truth.
Thomas Hardy uses the technique in Jude the Obscure, Samuel Becket in the more modern sense, of parading by-passed conditions in modern settings, so it's nothing new. The time passed factor, does not make irrelevant the essence of the ideas displayed, even in changing conditions, conditionality is the sticker; if such and such, then such as such-creates spectrum of loose, looser associations, which point to elongated borders, of the conditions within specific existences.
I may have picked it up or not, os not the point, the point being loosed within the process. Either way, it worked, it can work , but in a spatial-temporal line or reasoning.
Nice! The beauty of it though is that somewhere, somebody would actually believe any of that made sense and that they understood it. Speaking of that, years ago I used to write posts full of obvious bullshit to see if anyone noticed and called it out. Not one person… and, in fact, the only stuff they did argue against was the stuff in the post that was right!
Nice, yes, but truthful not. Litrally, redundancy is a great antidote to the seeming simplicity of entropy, and, as such modern expression is good because it elicits various fragmented responses, plus there always remains the undelying possibility, that there is a substratum, where thei’r marginality has a unified goal and, a hidden construction. It’s like gleaning to get a better picture, some of the rays of light will in fact touch the optic nerve.
), haven’t touched Boolean processes…
![http://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook/35_pt/GyroscopicPT2.png[img]](http://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook/35_pt/GyroscopicPT2.png%5Bimg%5D){kind=link}