With hegemony came a decision, for which humanity had been made unready by Plato and Aristotle: how then to make of those had hegemony over?
"Thats how I get em,
how I get to men
rile em up without precedent to anger them …
etc "
Exactly.
Only now, after Hegemony is gone, did the world produce the Anti-Aristotle, the antidote to Aristotle, the valuator logic.
Perhaps then … Hegemony is not truly dead?
Where but at the heart of a Hegemony could such a logic arise?
Phathometer in the red.
No. Maybe hegemony is just stretching its legs.
A way of thinking:
if it is only power that sets goals, and if true self-valuing (meaning fully self-conscious (and to allow that, happy )will to power) means the actual intent and plan to control the entire universe, it could be argued that one must feel a “hegemons innocence” for such a notion to occur.
Political, financial and moral hegemony is tenuous at best, but the hegemony of US art is a done deal.
Was this not actually the goal?
Because it is an artists hand which must shape the Earth from hereon out.
Right.
Bending the knees, reaching as low as he can.
We here are the anti-Plato:
The rebirth of philosophy, the only step N couldn’t make and for which he awaited and instructed his friends of a hundred years after him, was to recreate the Greek forum and to restore the living Presocratic dialogue.
Out with the dialogue of the upper hand, right and wrong, zero sum; in with the Ill be damned you’re right now lets see what I can build on top of that engine made out of philosophy;
Socrates reduced, Plato consolidated the reduced world. With the archaeological tool of the internet we philosophers unpack the ancient world - but the key to unlock the mechanism of Platonization is, even as it fits the lock, not easy to turn.
it requires not just human, but also astronomical forces.
There is a moment when the world says click.
Several moments, click clack clock. A complicated lock.
Cause you’ll be damned assured the old Plate himself used the ancient mechanisms to establish his hegemony.
baddabing, baddabang
And in this he was the greatest.
He was the greatest wizard.
So at the crucial moment where the knowledge needed to propagate itself as Truth, the time before and into the conquest Alexander, it must have been the Pythagorean aspect that had the upper hand. Of all philosophers before Socrates, Pythagoras was the only one that held any claims to truth as an institution. His was the true nature of the “Academy”, namely, a lodge.
There’s a definition of truth in the brush; truth is knowledge that has acquired self-valuing.
So in case of human knowledge a self valuing would consist of humans and often the involvement of written language.
And a general way in which the truth is conveyed, a statement.
I wonder then if a type of statement can pertain to “truth”;
is there such a thing as an untruthful type of statement?
Yes, presumably.
A lie can be said to be a type of statement.
but that is a type of untruthful statements.
A lie as a member of a type is truthful if it is told deliberately.
What is an untruthful type? It cant exist.
A type is a truth. A type is always truth.
Archetype is a ground-truth.
If its effective it is a grounding truth.
Arching type.
Just trying this Platonic damn key…
We need weird yet transparent magic tricks to convince the people that the truth is human.
We need camels and sheep, camels like lions among the sheep.
But is truth always a type?
“A truth told so as to be understood will always be believed”,
But even if it isn’t understood, truth must be a type to be believed.
I do not mean “a type of truth”. Shit this Platonic shit is so ancient and wack. Theres just no rubrics cube click clack to it, its purely pegs and holes and a whole bunch of pegs for which there is no hole and mostly vice versa. Thats Platoniism. It creates holes for which there are no pegs and is itself a peg for which there is no hole, except itself, which is us.
But the wackness of it is due to its having outrun its purpose. Which ironically was to preserve what came before it.
If it hadn’t been for Aristotle and his incredible wish to categorize we would have a shred of what we have now in knowledges of almost everyone who came before him, and almost nothing of the Presocratics. If Socrates hadnt made such a upheaval, all of it might have been forgotten, buried with Athenian political hegemony.
As long as an ethos explicitly elaborates the things it renounces, it preserves those things for posterity to weigh their preference at a moments desire.
I exaggerated the scope of the Academy’s role in preserving knowledge referring to the rest of sources as a shred, but still, perhaps if it hadn’t been for those fanatics of the supremacy of truth, none of the whole preceding enterprise would have acquired such prominence in any culture whatsoever, Neither Arabic nor European. Universal monotheism would still be an alien notion. Like literally something only aliens hold.
Which brings me to any next point. I read something recently about the appearance of Socrates that brought immediately to mind Edgar, from Men in Black, after he had become a suit.
Apparently this is now a type.
A truthful type?
See there ya go into Plato.
Eggarsuitness. No Dasein allowed, only a giant mall of sometimes-items.
Anyway. As long as an ethos explicitly elaborates the things it renounces, it preserves those things for posterity to weigh their preference at any moments desire. If it wasn’t for the gravity which holds the whole enterprise together at a level of being able to understand money, which is where I have to defer to Parodites, before reducing it immediately to “abstract valuing”. Here is one thing where only something as voluminous as his work could ever even pretend to do justice.
Freuds work needed to be quadratized.
Its time to make a careful note of what VO does not address.
Basically everything that isn’t ontology.
Everything that has general yet non-universal content.
Ontology only has universal content.
It is a monadic knowledge system.
Archetypical knowledge systems are psychology, religion, philosophy as a whole.
Mathematics is I would say a dyadic knowledge system, having always two meanings; the one thing and thing it is equal to by mathematical terms. It is never equal to it in directly apparent terms. The system is designed to show dyadic relationships underneath myriad differences.
Arguably it is only because mathematics had been invented as a a formal system that people were able to think in true over false rather than just right over wrong.
Without math its kind of hard to prove that there is such a thing as objective right. Its hard to establish objective teleology if you don’t begin with given outcomes.
No, because primes, Pi, etc.
But these are exactly perhaps rather extra-mathematical, chaoses which have designated roles in the structural order of equations. Primes an outer limit, Pi an inner contradiction, the golden ratio is an equation which tends to occur in nature.
The golden ratio applies to physics, pi to the physics and the mind, and primes to real metaphysics.
Which is a science which has not yet been discovered.
Though Capable has done some work there which he then destroyed, though left enough for me to see the danger, an experience which makes me think of Tesla.
Truth that leads back to itself satisfies the will to power. Socrates doesn’t lead back to himself. That is where he did the deed, like Jules in Los Angeles.
Philosophy and Truth were separate matters, and this was what drove philosophy. Truth was known only as God, leading eventually back to men if they tried and wished hard enough after hey had done something truthful as a reward. Even the feeling of being truthful was the reward for getting some equation right. Truth as a statement rather than as an observation.
This distinguishes Pythagoras, who “religiously observed truth” which was not much more than this religious observing itself, from Aristotle, who categorizes truth so he could stop observing it, force others to observe it. Where Pythagoras had sought to exclude, Aristotle sought to include.
All until Nietzsche sought to include.
“Supposing that Truth is a woman–what then? Is there not ground for suspecting that all philosophers, in so far as they have been dogmatists, have failed to understand women–that the terrible seriousness and clumsy importunity with which they have usually paid their addresses to Truth, have been unskilled and unseemly methods for winning a woman? Certainly she has never allowed herself to be won; and at present every kind of dogma stands with sad and discouraged men – if, indeed, it stands at all!”
Catch ye my drift?