I disagree. I’m just looking for the meaning of “value”.
To me, this has no motivating power whatsoever. When you said “The absolute value of” it was still promising, but what follows is just empty to me. Socratic, as I told Void. “Concept-nets”, as Nietzsche said with regard to the Socratics.
I can only agree with this if the quotation marks are meant to distinguish Platonism, Plato’s exoteric doctrine, from Plato himself. “Plato” may be an absolute fag, but Plato is not; rather to the contrary. I don’t think this is what you meant, though.
But the others are part of your cosmic Self. Anyway, the picture I posted was of course of Krishna, not of Narcissus. Krishna did not stay and pine away there. At some point he got up again and did all kinds of other stuff.
I’m reminded of when proto-Lyssa referred to the White Adonis and the Black Adonis. I associate these, as she may have back then, with Mitra and Varuna, Tyr and Odhinn, respectively. This is the only thing I can retrieve about that right now:
I still don’t see how the attainment of a value can be discerned except in pleasure.
The value of pleasure is self-evident to the one who experiences the pleasure.
I disagree. I think he is a higher hedonist, where there are higher and lower hedonists: spiritual and sensual ones, respectively. The exoteric order is:
spiritual hedonists (not presented as such!)
moral men
sensual hedonists
The esoteric order is:
spiritual hedonists
sensual hedonists
moral men
Moral men are essentially hedonists who deny their own hedonism, like Void.
It’s both. It’s a compliment in that it attributes to us the capacity to project greatness where there is none. It’s an insult in that you interpret our scholarly/scientific powers and efforts as mere projection, self-delusion. How much of Lampert’s How Philosophy Became Socratic did you read when you’d borrowed it from me? I read it in its entirety, glossing over nothing, each part after reading the (parts of the) dialogues by Plato Lampert exegetises there.
You mean, it’s valuable as the ground of pleasure? But then it’s still only valuable inasmuch as it leads to pleasure; it’s pleasure that gives it its value, not the other way round; it’s valuable as a means to pleasure, whereas pleasure is valuable in itself. Unless you mean it in the Heraclitean sense, that pleasure would not be valuable (pleasurable!) if it weren’t for the contrast with pain. But even then pain is only valuable for providing the contrast; it’s not that the pain is suddenly pleasurable–empirically, as opposed to conceptually–owing to the contrast with pleasure. Pain would not be painful if it wasn’t for that contrast though, that much is true. Pain can be pleasurable as a feeling “something”, something intense, as opposed to feeling “nothing”. I’m reminded of something I still wanted to say anyway, that Nietzsche (sometimes) conceives pleasure as rhythmic pain, as in the maxim “By virtue of music, the passions enjoy themselves.” (BGE, chapter 4.) Even the passion of the Christ becomes pleasurable if he dance-squirms on the cross:
Though I think you really have to be cruel to enjoy atonal music, like this.
I disagree. This presumes some kind of objective value. For a heavily suffering old man, if it’s pleasurable to die, it’s valuable to die–to him. If he dies in joy, pure radiance, his dying is something great. And yes, I contend that’s objectively true!
Oh no, Nietzsche never meant to suggest that! But science, rightly understood on the basis of poiesis, can be transcended, can transcend itself. Blake’s maxim, “Art is the Tree of Life. Science is the Tree of Death” was true at the time, in that the art, the poiesis in science was unconscious–except in philosophers, like Bacon and Descartes. And it still seems to be true for apparent zombies like Dan Dennett. People who think(?) everything is mathematics. At most it’s mathematics in that it’s the practice of mathematics, mathematising–or at most mathematical theory in that it’s theorising, poeticising… But this means everything is qualia, not quanta; quantising, quantifying, in a mind. Conscious, feeling pleasure and pain. Alive.
Yes, but pleasure is still good. If the slave enjoys what is bad for him, then his enjoyment is good for us, too! I didn’t say I don’t think it matters who is slave and who is not. For us, the pleasure of the slave would be despicable and, indeed, bad, displeasurable, if it were our pleasure, if we were to experience it.
If by “weed out” you mean “thin out”, I can agree–and especially about the slavish tendencies. The problem is not that they exist, but that they’re “on top”, that they infect or at least hinder–… But then again, that means they constitute a great resistance. I don’t think it’s a case of first getting rid of the negative and then getting onto the positive. Contemporary slavedom is a challenge. We must affirm it absolutely.
Were getting somewhere, our perspectives touch at a great height.
What we agree on, it seems, is that only that which is entirely good is objectively so.
Objective existence means goodness.
Whatever is bad, is only relatively bad, and with that, only relative, period.
In so far as it is indisputably existent, it must be good.
This is of course perfectly in line with my OP’s claim that the Good is existence-proper.
For example, a proper steak is necessarily a good steak. If its a bad steak, its not really a steak.
“Waiter, you call this a steak?”
No, I did only read the first chapter.
I can only concede though that it appears that Lampert has valued Socrates in terms of a very great selfvaluing. I must still see if I can agree that this is truly Socrates - as you know I am not big on trusting secondary literature to pertain to the original genius of the primary.
This does not mean I dont value that literature. Im compelled to see it as an original form of thought in so far as it is valuable.
If by any means you feel compelled to share some more of your studies in that particular book here, feel very welcome.
Where you see emptiness in my words I see only life, and fullness.
Like where I see emptiness in Socrates, you see fullness.
Good and bad are both objective. One cannot be objective (or subjective) without the other also being so. The question now is how to rationally (philosophically) define good and bad. That is what I am working on and I think VO can help here.
We need to remember that any subjectivity reduces to objectivity. What we call subjective is an emergence of perspective-valuing from a more objective context. This is the only basis for relation among subjective (self-valuing) beings; not only their shared “subjective” aspects but the reasons why these are shared like that.
Logically speaking no entity is ever entirely self-grounded, rather self-grounding is the result of a kind of tying together of various threads that comprise the entity, tying in such a way so that a center, a self, is created. The threads all still come from outside of that self, either originally or still at present; those “threads” all lead to the objectivity of the entity, and the “tying” leads to the subjectivity of the entity.
But it’s even more fun and complex than this, because the tying occurs at behest of certain logical and ontological principles and facts that arise in certain situations, and also the selfed-entity (the thing that emerges from and as the “tying” together or the various threads) must experience itself as separate from the larger reality even in the cases where it is not actually separate like that. So here we have two interesting problems to unravel.
To the first problem: it is an objective FACT that with certain objective CONDITIONS obtaining will be produced a subjective center or self. Thus the mere possibility of selves/subjectivities already exists in purely objective onto-logical space, as those such and such conditions and factors and natural laws and logics required for selves/subjectivities to appear.
A half-step up from this layer we have the layer of the subjectively created world of mutually interacting-valuing selves. Namely, the quasi-objectivity of the world created by the mutual agreements and arrangements of self-valuings. An uncountably huge number of selves self-valuing end up creating a mutual world for themselves as a byproduct of their valuations, but this created world is a pure objectivity not because self-valuings or subjectivities are what create objectivity but because self-valuings and subjectivities are themselves created by and out of objectivity. So we have two layers of objectivity (first layer is Pure Logic/Law or Fact, second layer is Pure Real or Conditions) mediated by a thin layer of subjectivity between them.
To the second problem: this is not a detriment but rather a huge asset and strength. Each self-valuing must act as if it were the center of the world, as if it were the world as such, even though this isn’t true. But it becomes subjectively true simply because that is what “subjectivity” logically means. And by becoming subjectively true like that, it becomes interpreted by the self as an objectivity, which in fact it is (but the subjective interpretation of this as objectivity as the self itself minus the larger objectivity from which that self has derived, is not in fact the case), but this error allows for subjectivity to play the role of passive mediator between those two layers of objectivity I mentioned above. By not believing in objectivity the self maximally potentiates objectivity by maximizing the potency of its own subjectivity, which subjectivity really always already meant objectivity (a certain perspective and blend of perspectives upon various ranges and limited purviews of objectivity) to begin with.
Self-valuing is the logic that allows us to think the primordial condition without finding it contradictory, as traditional “flat” logic cant help concluding in its primitive and inadequate capacity. But this demands of us that we push nothing back into “that just existed before”.
In this majestic effort of disclosing, that Ive been working at since 2011, the usage of the terms subjective and objective as you present it here has eroded away, making place for a new interpretation, in which there fundamentally only is Good - which makes perfect sense since there only is self-valuing, which can not, on its own terms, be defined as anything less than good, or it cant uphold itself.
“Good” is just a word for that which upholds itself. Whatever fails to do this, or botches the process, or requires to enslave and compromise and alter itself to a state of lesser power, determination, freedom, is “doing bad”.
So we can actually have a good entity doing bad. It will never be a bad entity, as things need to exist, thus self-value, thus be good.
But when it does enough bad, it will cease to exist. Thus badness points to objectivity only in the form of non-existence. Which is perfectly logical: good = the existent, bad is what isnt good.
Self-grounding is what self-valuing is. Yes, self-grounding grounds itself using other self grounding: clearly, the principle of selfvaluing logic does not allow for isolation of phenomena. Selfvaluing is valuing the world in terms of this self-valuing, as the first layer of the original definition goes. By this valuing, the selfvaluing perpetuates, i.e. grows.
Thats what seems to not be obvious to you - being is necessarily growth.
Thats what the Will to Power logic discloses.
You havent addressed the logic of the will to power at all in all your criticisms. It is this logic we are working with. im really not interested in anything less profound and world-changing. Hence, my setup for a new mathematics.
All analysis based on presumed neutrality or top down objectivity has resulted in the most radical blind bias toward reducing, evening out - it has been an approximation of “the bad” - attempting to reduce existence to a zero sum outcome.
So far, mathematics has been sterile, except in the field of en- and decrypting, which is how self-valuing actually operates; it decrypts itself by encrypting the world in its own terms.
Language is decryption of the subject by encryption of the object in that subjects terms, which are thereby disclosed (as power).
Decryption is what “the self” is made of, encryption is what amounts to “the world”.
People in general cannot maintain a sensible balance between extremes. The whole question of “How much” has been the very last question Man has found a way to address (socially applied mathematics). So when it comes to self-valuing, an enphasis on self-importance, it can be predicted and guaranteed that the average person will be overly selfish. The opposing extreme is being overly sacrificing.
Socially the decision has to be made as to when to be selfish and when to be sacrificing. Ideally, there is a balance of not too much of either (“maturity”). But the average person cannot maintain such a balance. So socially speaking, which is the better pit for the average person to fall into; selfishness or sacrifice?
New-age socialism (aka “democratic socialism”) is all about society being far more important than individuals, thus all plebes must bow (hence sacrifice is implicit). Selfishness is reserved only for the elite masters; “The first priority in being on the top is to stay on the top”. And as every dictator professes, “We altruistically enslave them for their own good (while hiding our own perversions)”.
An emphasis on self-valuing injected into the leaders makes for selfish dictators. An injection of self-valuing in the peons makes for anti-socialism, social degradation, and decay. Such apparent decay creates self-righteous justification for dictatorial socialism.
So how is self-valuing going to prevent a dictatorial socialism wherein all plebes must bow and sacrifice and thus be anti-self-valuing - “bad people”?
That may be so, but I meant that each being is subject to conditions external to itself and which it has no real control over; qua condition, I simply meant that beings are emergent products of those conditions in which and by which they came to be. This is true regardless whether or not we want to call those conditions themselves to be self-valuings or not.
I cannot agree, because many ostensibly bad things or entities can also uphold themselves. Imagine whatever standard you have for a “bad” human being; this human being is still able to uphold itself even though it is bad. Upholding oneself is an ontological function, what it means to exist and to continue to exist over time, but that does not necessarily speak to any moral quality of said entity. The mere fact of an entity’s existing does’t prescribe any kind of “good or bad” quality to that entity, as I think you have also noted that VO does not prescribe any kind of moral system or requirements either for good or bad.
By defining Good as that which upholds itself, I think you have defined away morality into non-existence. You have reduced morality to basic ontology, which is also what I see Nietzsche tried to do with the notion of the will to power (he mistakenly uses the notion of the will to power as both a moral and an ontological principle and standard-measure). As I’ve attempted to explain here in previous posts, it is certainly necessary that a being exist and keep existing in order to be ‘good’ (or in order to be anything else, for that matter… you cannot ‘be something’ if you do not first exist to be it), and therefore morality is somewhat conditioned to ontology in this way of it being necessary for an entity to succeed at the ontological conditions first in order to become capable of succeeding at the moral conditions. But they are interconnected, because what an entity is will determine what it ought to be/do. The moral ‘ought’ comes from the ontological ‘is’.
But it is even more complex than that, because the ontological ‘is’ is not immediately exhaustive or revelatory of the moral ‘ought’, in part because it is so difficult to determine what out own “is” is, and also because the moral sphere is situated not only partly within the ontological (as overlapping conditions as the “what an entity is will determine what it ought to be/do” as noted above) but is situated above it, in logical space. Morality can only be arrived at with conscious awareness and understanding; it cannot be arrived at by weeds or cockroaches or frogs or salmon or giraffes, it can only be arrived at by human beings. Why is this? It is because the condition of accessing the moral realm is different than is the condition of accessing the ontological realm; beings can survive ontologically-speaking with near-zero understanding at the abstract-conscious (philosophical, rational, linguistic) level, just look at the whole natural world for an example of that, but beings cannot survive morally-speaking like that. Morality implies a higher level of self-understanding and other-understanding and world-understanding than is possible for any known being sto have except human beings. In this way the moral space is logically situated above and subsequent to the ontological space, and therefore in this sense we cannot simply equate ontology and morality together through the operator of the self-valuing sign.
Bad things can survive, too. Failed things, enslaved things, things with lesser power, lesser freedom, these sort of things/beings all exist all around us, and continue to survive over time. Therefore if you are talking about how “bad” these things are, you cannot at the same time say that these bad things are failing to uphold themselves, because they do uphold themselves and they do continue to exist over time. Nietzsche himself said the last man lives longest; perhaps it is the case that less moral beings are more ontologically viable in certain cases (this would appear to be a lesson from the natural world that we could at least infer: the vast survivability of the non-moral natural world).
So no, I cannot so easily equate survivability or upholding oneself with moral goodness. To me, moral goodness means something very different than merely “surviving and growing”.
Why cannot an entity be “bad” and also self-valuing? I thought VO did not prescribe any morality.
It can also be the case that when an entity does enough good it will also cease to exist. And far more commonly, entities will cease to exist through no consequence of their being either good or bad, but simply through some sort of accident such as disease or injury. You will perhaps counter that the entity was ‘bad’ because it didn’t avoid those hazards, but the ability to avoid all hazards is impossible therefore that standard of “goodness” being to avoid hazards would be impossible, and also, again as I noted above, confusing or conflating an ontological standard with a moral one.
Being “good” doesn’t necessarily mean that one has the strongest immune system or the best 20/20 vision. It is quite easy to imagine a human being who is good who also has relatively poor vision or a relatively weak immune system. The two things simply aren’t that directly related. But yeah, if the immune system or vision gets bad enough then survival becomes impossible, in which case we are back to the ontological (not moral) condition.
The logic of the will to power is, as I have already noted here, simply the logic of expansion and growth. I likened it to DNA. All beings must have a capacity to ontically cohere themselves or else they would simply dissolve and stop existing; reality is always changing over time and new conditions and other beings are being encountered all the time, therefore it is required to be dynamic and adapt to these changes if one is to maintain one’s existing. As for the expansive-growth logic of the will to power, I do not see rocks expanding-growing, “increasing their will to power”, I do not see grains of sand doing this, I do not see water doing this, I do not see the sky doing this, I do not see the moon doing this, I do not see atoms or photons doing this; only life does this. Only life shows the propensity to expand and grow, and that is because only life is genetic. When Nietzsche talks about the will to power he is really talking about life and the genetics underneath life, the blueprint that requires the logic of expansion and growth within every living thing.
If you want to look for the reason for this expansion-growth logic, which is the heart of what the will to power really means as “being is necessarily growth” as you said (but of course this only applies to living beings, since rocks of course do not “necessarily grow”), then you need to ask what were the conditions that early life faced in the primordial soup wherein the first amino acids were combining together to form molecules capable of the most basic selections and ultimately the most basic reproductions? The basic conditions within the primordial soup were competition for finite resources. This is basic natural selection at work, which is the real logic behind how life turned out and also therefore explains the real logic behind the “will to power” and its supposed “necessary growth”, namely that survival as such was dictated and tied directly into a mechanism of reproduction of that which oneself already is, one’s genetic code. The growth of the genetic code was assured by virtue of the competition amongst such codes for finite resources, which led to an arms race of genetics, which led to the fact that more experimentation with different gene codes and the ability to include more gene codes within oneself tended to give oneself an advantage in that competition. Life grows because genetics compete as self-modifying themselves to the ends of either the surviving of that code or the perishing of that code. Rocks do not do that.
So not only is genetics as such a logic of growth an expansion, but even within the mechanism (natural selection) determining how genetic entities compete with one another and survive or perish we also see an element of incentive to grow and expand the genetic code’s possibilities for experimentation with new gene codes. The larger a genetic code is then is the case both that the more it can experiment with new genes and also the more that while experimenting in this way it will still remain stable enough as it already is so that experiments that turn out badly will affect it in a less detrimental manner. All this logic here explains what the “will to power” really means. The will to power isn’t an ontological principle, it is a principle of living (genetic) things specifically.
There is no logical necessity to grow that exists in being itself, ontologically. If you think there is, then please explain how this applies to non-living beings. Which non-living beings are expanding and growing in order to remain in existence, and why is that occurring? I can’t even think of a single example.
Yes, and yet this is precisely what I see is happening with the concepts of the will to power and of self-valuing. A presumed neutrality and top-down objectivity as standard is being imposed retroactively upon everything. And everything is being warped and made to conform to that imposition.
I am not trying to impose anything on anything, I am simply trying to explain what things are and how/why they are that way. To me, reducing morality to “surviving/growing” makes no sense at all, because we can understand both of these things separately and as being quite different. And we can also understand how they are related, which would be a higher level analysis but certainly not a kind of direct equation between the two.
This is interesting, but could also be reversed: Encryption is what the self is made of, decryption amounts to the world. The self is highly encrypted to itself, opaque to itself, and self-enexhasutible and self-unknowable as we already know; likewise, the world imposes things (as stimuli) upon this encrypted self and these imposed stimuli act as decryption tools with this the self gradually beings to unlock the encryptions. But to be more specific I would probably say that both the self and the world are encrypted, and decryption is the gradual slow process of the unfolding of life and eventually self-conscious, understanding (rational, moral) life.
No self exists in a vacuum, as you’ve already noted; interconnection is logically necessary, and I agree. This means it is possible or even likely that encryption and decryption are always both the case and always both going on all the time, simultaneously. To me this is what living things are always doing, and consciousness, self-awareness, understanding, reason and morality are all aspects of ‘decryption’ of the inherently encrypted situation that these living things find themselves in (for example, early human life say 50,000 years ago). I also agree that math is usually stale when it comes to philosophy, and this is one reason why analytic philosophy is so soul-deadening and silly.
There are no objective methods of judgement because judgement by definition can only be subjective
And prior observations are subjective because everyone has a frame of reference that is unique to them
But a frame of reference has to be objective before it can be rwgwrred to.A self referential object leads to an absolute identity, which is the absolute.
It is with misgivings I wore this, almost self accusing, of tel like behavior, but was compelled on basis of the ‘Truth’
It seems Void makes an absolute distinction between good and bad. I’ll invoke what I’ve often told KTS minions, that the absolutely bad would be nothing, nonexistent, that all that exists is relatively good. Of course, they wouldn’t hear of it, as KTS derives its “appeal” from being negative. But this goes essentially for all moral men: the immoral must be made absolutely despicable or hateful, the moral must be exempt from it–empty, void. Only that is the pure. To be sure, Satyr at least acknowledges that the pure is inaccessible, that it’s just an ideal, an idea, and that it’s especially despicable to take it for more than that. All there is is “need” for him. So then the absolutely good is nonexistent, and all that exists is relatively bad; the least bad is precisely he who best acknowledges the bad, who deals with it as much as possible without self-deception. And what is this “need” if not unfreedom? Precisely this was at least the early Nietzsche’s position. His philosophy is inverted Platonism: the Ideas are the summit of unrealness and precisely for that reason the summit of value. Yet it’s precisely because of them that true reality, the Primordial One, is not just bad–too good, so good it’s absolutely bad again–, but also simply good. Reality as we usually know it, as flux, as need, is the Primordial One’s relief from Its eternal, infinite freedom, but Its complete redemption is only the temporary, finite semblances of freedom that arise within that flux, in the minds of temporary, finite “beings” like us. These same semblances however are only our relief, whereas our complete redemption consists in being transported into identification with the Primordial One, so as to experience our usual need as a relief instead of distress, and our ideals as redemption instead of relief.
And what exactly does that mean?
What does it mean that judgment is, by definition or not, subjective?
What does it mean that observations are subjective?
This unfreedom must be only based on virtual simlitude, guaranteed by a deception, so as to enable man to be delivered, without sacrificing its ideals. How its done,is draped in mistery, but the results are known the birth of the higher, Faustian man.
You need to explain to me what it means for a judgment to be open to interpretation.
Does it perhaps mean that it is subject to change?
If so, why is that a necessary condition for objectivity?
Why is it required of judgments, and other things to which attributes subjective and objective apply, to never change?
Besides, how can we observe something that never changes?
We can verify that something does not change within some fixed period of time.
But we cannot verify that something never changes.
Words such as absolute, infinite, unlimited, eternal and so on are strictly speaking meaningless.
And if that’s what you mean by objective, then your word is meaningless and you shouldn’t be using it at all.
Then you have to explain to me what it means that senses have limited capability.
A judgement is an interpretation which means that it itself can be interpreted. Multiple and contradictory interpretations of the same idea or phenomenon
cannot all logically be true. Objectivity does not pertain to something never changing but to it merely existing at any given point in time or space but with
out any interpretation. And senses which inform judgements have limited capability because the biological organisms which have them also have it as well
I suspect Im the only one here who uses VO as an actual logic, not merely a model or theory.
When using VO as a logic, to say ‘regardless whether we want to call those conditions selfvalungs or not’ means to use math and then say ‘regardless whether we want to use he law of identity, or not.’
The logic builds. New foundational concepts are born of it. It doesnt passively analyze theories that are already in place and can not work with elements that are products of entirely different logics. Like we cant use semantics in math, so we cant use morality in VO.
Morality is synthetic. VO is prior to that. It does not directly prescribe morality, but it is the only thing that can produce morality that is consistent with itself. To this end it needs to compute it based on a specific selfvsaluings standard. And that standard needs to be selected on the basis of selfvaluing logic; thus the quest for a morality itself begs the moral question; hence, the deeply convoluted and jagged path towards it.
You keep speaking of morality as an a priori given that can just be stated and Ill have to agree that it exists. But I disagree, there is no such thing as morality-as-such. Morality as such doesnt have a nature. Its just a word that can refer to all kinds of opposites - and does.
If there were a given structural integrity (selfvaluing) to morality, there wouldnt be all sorts of different moralities.
Morality is essentially a compromise.
Compromises can very well be justified. But they are never outcomes of purely logical chains.
Morality and philosophy thus can not mix. Morality is for lesser beings, beings that need to be compelled to be wise, and then it usually doesnt work. A philosopher of the type that actually thinks is a standard unto himself, this is precisely what philosophy is. All morality begins with interpreting a philosphers standards.
The only external condition to selfvaluing is this:
THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF NOTHINGNESS.
Beyond this, not a single statement of cosmic or natural or human architecture can be made that is not part of a sequence of deriving the world from the ground up from self-valuing principle.
Any concept taken from older thought will destroy the chain of thought.
Morality might comer to exist under VO, but it needs to be created. Statements about morality existing and being crucial are entirely impertinent to VO, and thus to me, and as far as Im concerned, to the future of philosophy.
The actual hard work is deriving morality from ones standard using VO.
It needs to be argued, step by step, in hard consistent consecutive necessities. And these cant be objective they require the philosophers own spine, convictions, and willingness to stand for them throughout the whole VO-logical chain.
Morality is only justified in as far as it is perpetually sustainable as itself, i.e if it operates on selfvaluing logic.
No such morality has yet existed. Many approximations have, but we all know the value of an approximation in theoretical mnathematics; it’s work even less in VO.
So in this light you need to see my use of the term “good”.
It is a building block.
Morality isnt merely pointing to ‘the good’, it’s ‘the best we can be’. ‘The good’ is a beginning.
And to reject parts of existence as ‘bad’ even before analyzing them from the ontic ground up is perfectly inadequate to philosophy.
A real morality builds. It doesnt judge what it doesnt face - it changes what it judges, because it faces it, and wth superior conviction. We see this in all great men - they are fearless, and often they die for that sin. That is selfvaluing proper; not minding death at all when it comes to standing firm for ones values.
Archimedes is a far better example than Socrates, but both of them serve.
I certainly respect Socrates as a philosopher, even though I think he is wrong about most things, I do not live in his time. What is clear is that he has a spine.
As you see, I see it differently.
And for VO to be used as a morality builder, it requires that we are consistent with its inner logic.
We can not judge as from some detached vantage point that another being has no moral right to act on its own values.
This sort of a priori preventive judgment on some subjects part is the basis of all totalitarianism. I am surprised that you dont see this.
Who are you to decide what is bad?
Only the one with the power to change another’s behavior he sees as bad, can rightly judge that it is bad - he can prevent it from upholding itself, he can show that there is a better way. Hence Socrates, and Jesus.
Wherever you insert yourself successfully in valuing processes, you are a proper function of morality, as you are apparently able to touch internal logics: selfvaluing.
It should be clear that value ontology can not exist without including value judgments as the very ontic ground.
I am surprised that you havent seen this.
What you call morality is just ‘what beings do’. It is arbitrary in any other way.
Why does morality exist?
VO can serve to have that explained. After which, a non arbitrary system can be devised.
And yet, it will still not be objective.
It will be my standard.
Which is good for me, which is the best for me.
There is no god. There is thus no given morality. Philosophy is not the task of simply pointing to something and say that it is ostensibly bad, and that whoever doesnt think so is deranged. At least I dont consider it so.
Philosophy before Socrates and after Aristotle has been an attempt to perceive an immutable truth. I, and I alone, have finally accomplished this.
From this truth, which is the fact that valuing and reality are the same, it becomes possible to think about values sanely.
No, it is so difficult to determine that precisely because the two do equate.
Neither is given. Both are actions, in the process of being unfolded, disclosed, decrypted.
Selfvaluing logic is value ontology.
Valuing and being are the same.
there is no logical sphere separate of reality.
First of all because the logical sphere is derived of reality.
That I derived it so as for it to be able to re-produce reality flawlessly as a logical system is just because Im the best that ever did this work, the first who succeeded in doing it cleanly.
So then why are you stating that certain beings you dont name or explain are bad? Why do you make moral claims without perfectly logical chains of argument?
That certainly contradicts your ethos here.
Yes, but they are held int being.
They arent actively keeping them-selves into being.
They have no selves.
They are, as Ive said innumerable times, not actually existing.
They are goo that moves as function of other selfvaluings, and disintegrate as soon as their master is gone or changes drection. See Clinton voters. They are bad, yes, but only because they have no existence, no structural integrity.
All this is really VO 101.
Neither have I used these terms in that capacity.
Please be wary of loosely paraphrasing me, as that invariably leads to absolute error.
You cant safely paraphrase in mathematics and logic.
Bad is not a moral term in the philosophical tradition Im from, as you know as you say you have read almost all of Nietzsche s published works. it refers to health, to functionality. You mean “evil”. Yes, “evil” selfvaluings exist. I.e. selfvaluings that hurt others and thrive on that. But these arent “bad”. They dont function badly. All of us are evil, in as far as we kill remorselessly, arent we?
Your very low thinking of animal consciousness can be seen as evil, unempathic and prejudiced.
I perceive in animals far greater value awareness than in modern humans, and I intimately relate to them.
They all are in touch with selfvaluing logic and have no botched concepts to ruin it for them.
Morality may have to first mean returning to an animal state. That is to say to a state of greater honesty, more direct response to values. Moral hygiene.
In as far as the entity was good ( a structural integrity) having the accident was bad.
I argue from my axioms, from the selfvaluing logic.
The accident is bad, as seen from that entity.
Whereas in case of a slave, who is bad (incapable of standard setting), an accident that disrupt its state can be good.
Ive addressed this now.
I see no difference between animate and inanimate.
All things emerged out of mere potential, all has grown into being.
The only thing that does not still grow in the inanimate world is gold and other noble metals. They are finished, perfect selfvaluings.
Things grow in structural integrity.
Ive often explained that a rock is not a selfvaluing. The concept “rock” is too indefinite, like “goo”.
But a minerals are selfvaluing, and mineralstructures do grow.
Let’s back up… way back. You step into a situation where there are alrerady all sorts of phenomena that havent even been explained as arising out of sv logic.
What formed the first atoms? Ive done this work. The formation of stars follows.
But then:
What caused the planetary system to emerge out of the Suns plasma?
What first constituted the Earths primordial soup?
When we get there, it was lightning, the electricity of the atmosphere, that eventually allowed for the formation of cells. This has been shown in labs, and it kind of speaks for itself.
Electricity is the ontic web that keeps organic selfvaluings together and in contact with their environment. It is what constitutes their ‘time’, it is ‘what makes them tick’.
A full philosophic explanation of the first entities requires detailed molecular physics.
Why Chemistry, next to AI, is the most potentiating field for VO.
The WtP logic takes hold right at the precipice of conceptual thought, it applies to all phenomena. It is not a theory about life. Every time N deals with it methodically he treats it in terms of physics, of quanta of force. This is the context that caused my wondering that led to VO.
Because anything that does not grow in integrity is overtaken by that what does.
It is a slow process, yes, atoms can last in their state for billions of years.
All moves to denser, deeper selfvaluing. Systems are being formed in the inorganic realm, minute selfvaluings gather in atoms, then from these atoms that gather together, stars are born and acquire planetary systems, in which life can emerge - all this is one continuous process.
The greater a structural integrity, the greater the structure it can support. Things first grow stronger inward, so that then they can grow bigger outward.
I have no idea how you arrived at this perspective.
It is the opposite of what VO does.
Neutrality is a drect refutation of selfvaluing. Equally of WtP.
There is only highest level analysis.
All the rest is botched wormery.
Obviously, all philosophic standard setting is only valid if it happens from a perfectly accomplished perspective.
I didnt propose VO as a working theory. Its the finished product of 2600 years of thought. It is the supreme vantage point from which we can finally look at origins without botching everything.It is the purest subtlety of intellectual touch.
Nothing ‘simply is’.
All real things are unfathomably complex and refined. Even just for that they deserve to be regarded as ‘good’ - the endless virtue poured into them, by themselves and by their environment.
The facile, easy, quick and superficial judgments are all signs of badness, of quasi-existing.
All real existence engages completely, immerses. It can afford it, due to its structural integrity.
You are in rough agreement with my proposal then.
Yes, the self is opaque to itself and becomes perceptible to itself by immersing in the world, which it thereby encrypts with its own parameters, which, without resulting in any evident order, make the world less ‘self-evident’ and more ‘deep’.
The self is explicit only in as far as it unfolds into the world- explicates.
But yes, the nature of encryption works two ways. It is a beautiful way of viewing VO phenomenology, I find.
Or rather, from presenting all that values as negative; it considers existence as a negative thing, and derives virtues from the capacity to slander existence in the most disgraceful ways.
Void however is not of that school. His dismissals here are grounded in an understanding of morality as deriving from a comprehensive view on of existence - my previous post is addressing that view, challenging it to ground itself explicitly.
Voids attacks are never meant to lower things, he cant bring things to his level by lowering them, he is rather angered that he cant raise them up as quickly as he would have it/see it. This causes his dismissals - excessively strong standards.
Arguing with him has never failed to be productive for me, BTL is a product of it, whereas KTS folk structurally fail to put up even the most minor resistance. All they ever do is give in, resorting to personal attacks that reveal their horror at being.
Excellent analysis. I like this method.
The notion of a primordial One is the notion of God, of absolute structural integrity preceding reality.
What Nietzsche does to that notion is what’s interesting; how he destroys it.
It would be worthwhile to study that transition.
In the end what is said about the Primordial One is that it it is impossible for him/it to exist. The concept it used to negate itself. It is used as an anti-selfvaluing principle to illuminate a truth about self-valuing.
Can you tell me of a thing that exist without interpreting it?
The younger posters here are still in the pre-philological phase of philosophy - they believe in language. They dont know how it prescribes and conditions them, they have yet to become skeptical of their own desire to speak trusted words.
What philosophy begins with is a becoming conscious of the nature and structure of language. We see that words dont passively represent things, they act to bring about things in the mind, thereby shaping the mind and its powers, laws and convictions.
This is why humans, as creatures driven by words, have technology.
All tools derive of word-use, the practice of placing reality out of the present into ‘heaven’; the ‘universal’ realm where words have meaning.
The catch is that this realm isnt actually universal.