Which is First?

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Which is First?

Postby UrGod » Tue Aug 29, 2017 11:40 pm

Ah, ok then. I seem to read quickly through your statements and derive the wrong meaning, this has happened before. Perhaps there is a strange resonance between the ways we each write/read.

Glad it's been of some benefit to you also, though.
I am your master.
User avatar
UrGod
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: Which is First?

Postby UrGod » Tue Aug 29, 2017 11:42 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:Void -
What I say about consciousness being basically a postponement of value-attainment (due to whatever causes), describes succinctly the condition Parodites explicates and unfolds ( into which I won't go too deeply here in public, not throwing too many pearls out here, especially another philosophers ) as occurring due to the atrophying of instincts - namely, the failure of instincts to be directly, "blindly" functional - the failure to behave what we would now call unconsciously, automatically - and becoming things unto themselves and each other, rather than to merely a propagation of the meta-environment, the body.

The instincts became tracts of chemical-electric activity that just began to thrust into each other, work on each other, creating a whole realm of being between the generation of the valuing and its resolution - in fact virtually eliminating the possibility of complete resolution from the equation - only where consciousness bends toward animality and reproduction does the delay decrease and does the organism lose breadth of consciousness, "space for reflection" - does it becomes itself qua organism. In between these moments there is consciousness, which all people except philosophers know as a tremendous burden.


Yes and what you said of weakness and the earth, precisely. Weaknesses only become justified (earthy, enduring, beautiful) when paired with strengths. Then the weakness ceases to be a weakness and becomes productive of personality. And a way for strength to grow through its opposite.
I am your master.
User avatar
UrGod
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: Which is First?

Postby Serendipper » Tue Aug 29, 2017 11:48 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:You seem to write well enough, but not be able to read. So your writing is basically random nonsense, like that admitted "ambiguous" formulation of course, which is simply radical stupidity.

"It has nothing to do with light, but with causality. Just watch this video."

A very concentrated heap of dung, sir.

Take care.

Not sure if it's my inability to read or what, but it seems you're threatening me with a good time as if being absent ad homs and self-aggrandizing grandstanding were considered bad. Time to open the window again.
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." Howard Aiken
Serendipper
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Which is First?

Postby Serendipper » Tue Aug 29, 2017 11:53 pm

Void_X_Zero wrote:Ah, ok then. I seem to read quickly through your statements and derive the wrong meaning, this has happened before. Perhaps there is a strange resonance between the ways we each write/read.

It seems as if we're all in different countries. I've wondered that before.
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." Howard Aiken
Serendipper
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Which is First?

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Aug 29, 2017 11:54 pm

Sauwelios - this is why I put ethics first.
One (something) must first embody worth, to be able to amount to any logical process at all.

It must remain consistent when it goes through processes, calculations, etcetera. Consistency and worth are not identical, but certainly parallel concepts and impossible to understand without each other.

So for you (anyone) to understand VO - and the WtP - you have to be entirely consistent with yourself, which logically means to be a master, law-setter in that consistency, rather than a slave, law-follower - a follower can only be consistent with externality, not with its own integrity. It is simply too weak to value otherwise than what is put before it as value. Why trolls don't post premises, and like being insulted.

Perhaps you see strength and law-setting as mystification -- perhaps this is why you find it hard to admit to your own agency, it seems truer to not set the laws but follow them.

I have in part experienced my anger at those who hate VO as coming from outside of myself, as I understand very well how painful it is to understand it from a position of weakness - they would either have to gain integrity (no pain no gain there) or to be fully conscious of being at best a utility rather than an entity. I am only truly angry at those who I know not to be as weak as to justify belief in passive law-giving. I fucking want them to legislate like [....] - I will (them) to power.

My bad, I alway realize - and yet, my tirades have influenced thousands. People now know that it is possible to be this aggressive with logic; that alone is crucial standard setting. Perhaps in fact it is this that I have willed - I understood within a year or two that not a lot of people are going to want to understand this, less even than would endure understanding Nietzsche. After that I simply went about setting this particular standard. It certainly is a standard, widely used, as something to stand against.

Ha.

8)
Last edited by Fixed Cross on Wed Aug 30, 2017 12:08 am, edited 4 times in total.
Before the Light

Image

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6666
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

Re: Which is First?

Postby UrGod » Tue Aug 29, 2017 11:58 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:Sauwelios - this is why I put ethics first.
One (something) must first embody worth, to be able to amount to any logical process at all.

It must remain consistent when it goes through processes, calculations, etcetera.

So for you to understand VO - and the WtP - you have to be entirely consistent with yourself, and happen to be a master, law-setter in that consistency, rather than a slave, law-follower.

Perhaps you see strength and law-setting as mystification -- perhaps this is why you find it hard to admit to your own agency, it seems truer to not set the laws but follow them.

I have in part experience my anger at those who hate VO as coming from outside of myself, as I understand very well how painful it is to understand it from a position of weakness. I am only truly angry at those who I know not to be as weak as to justify belief in passive law-giving. I fucking want them to legislate like Parodites, Capable, myself, Nietzsche - I want things to get going. I will to power.


Ignorance is forgiveable, but the love of ignorance is not. I try to select out and filter away those who love ignorance from those who just don't know something (yet).

If one does not love ignorance then eventually they overcome it. But I can attest to the fact that understanding the notion of self-valuing logic requires a "leap" (I won't say of faith, but rather perhaps of courage) as it potentially calls everything that one is into question. "Is such and such aspect of myself justified, self-justified?" Self-valuing is a law-giving in the Nietzschean/Zarathustrian sense.
I am your master.
User avatar
UrGod
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: Which is First?

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Aug 30, 2017 12:22 am

Void_X_Zero wrote:Ignorance is forgiveable, but the love of ignorance is not. I try to select out and filter away those who love ignorance from those who just don't know something (yet).

Serendipper is more forthcoming with you, and your exchanges are interesting to read. He has brushed off a lot of things too easily in response to me, feigning ignorance where I could see he is far from. That is trolling - I bring it out in people, I am vulnerable. But people don't realize what they're getting into.

Sauwelios and you have in the past feigned ignorance to each other, out of ill liking of approaches, anticompatibility of values in a certain processing of valuing into mastery, power. That was excruciating and perfectly explicatory of VO - you refused to understand it in equal terms out of different natures. Still do. Now neither of you feigns ignorance toward the other anymore - there is a silent at least pretence of respect, which even if it is only that (I can not judge) it itself is a sign of respect - at ,east for a certain degree of consistency, worth - even though it may not pertain to ones own universe.

Why I respect proponents of all sorts of cultures, if they are consistent enough. Not if they also pretend to be all-inclusive and all-tolerant, which no one and nothing is.

If one does not love ignorance then eventually they overcome it. But I can attest to the fact that understanding the notion of self-valuing logic requires a "leap" (I won't say of faith, but rather perhaps of courage) as it potentially calls everything that one is into question. "Is such and such aspect of myself justified, self-justified?" Self-valuing is a law-giving in the Nietzschean/Zarathustrian sense.

Absolutely. This leap is one of strength. "Faith" is what the weak think a man who engages a big enemy is acting on. The fighter just acts on his will to overcome ever stronger enemies. The overcoming that leads to VO is perhaps then visualizable as an enemy, mythic monster. An abysmal un-creature to slay.

The difference between WtP and VO is indeed that WtP never attains, and can thus never be a particular standard.
VO is the formula for differentiation-unto-reintegration in the next instance -
instead of a mere statistical infinitesimal, we have a full fledged, relatable (operational, non-hypothetical) logic operating, calculating every consecutive instance in terms of every other consecutive instance of such logic, thereby deriving the power relations in real world terms, be they mathematical, military or medical (or of any type whatsoever).

The catch to all of the differences and gradations of worth in philosophies, is degrees of ease of use. A good philosophy is handy for a scientist. A bad philosophy stands in the way and tries to re invent the wheel. VO stands on the shoulders of greatest minds, and does so lightly. Parodites is even more of a dancer. You walk with absolute grace in the terrains of mathematics and all purely abstract things. Darwin is pure delicacy. Newton doesn't even touch. He is the greatest dancer of all, the greatest integrator of concepts. You can't do what he did anymore. It was the one thing, the turnaround, the real death of all gods but pure massive overbearing beauty.

Our philosophy tramples the grazing grounds of the herd, but it has now nearly reached its perimeter. Its a "pretence", a form... a limit - an aesthetic entry point, a politesse, a support line - a discharge of neutrons in a recognizable pattern... an objective thing - and yet it is entirely arbitrary qua content. Or so it would seem.

What are numbers anyway.

11511
9
Before the Light

Image

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6666
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

Re: Which is First?

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Aug 30, 2017 12:44 am

I forgive Einstein for not seeing what was so easy to see logically, and yet so hard morally - I forgive him because I realize it wasn't a moral wish that he had, but a love of the splendid Newtonean universe that prevented him from differentiating phenomenon from logic in the same way he had integrated them. It was at his hand - he could have written a few signs and he'd have formulated what Im after (formally), the equation that puts VO into physics. (which would thereby become a form of it)

Speaking of which, this pre-VO discussion that definitely went into my understanding of a self-valuing, ties into what you and Serendipper are discussing about the collapse of a photon into matter.

Farsight wrote:Hi guys.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics) which describes spin as "a fundamental characteristic property of elementary particles" and doesn't really get to the bottom of it. To understand what exactly it is, you need to pull back to the photon and the electromagnetic field, and check out pair production and annihilation to understand the electron. There are bona-fide peer-reviews papers on this, like http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.2596 and http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0512265, but they haven't hit the popular media yet. What they're saying is that spin is a real rotation. It has to be, the electron really does have angular momentum.

In a nutshell you take a tip from LIGO, which is searching for gravity waves. These are expected to change the length of the arms of the interferometer. Then you say to yourself that a gravity wave is a wave of "spacewarp", and treat the photon as something similar. It's an electromagnetic wave in space, but what exactly is "waving"? There's only space there, so you have to look past the electromagnetic field and say "space". That means the photon is a wave of spacewarp too. It normally travels laterally at c, but pair production converts a +1022keV photon into an electron and a positron. These aren't travelling laterally at c, but they have opposite spin, so it is rather like the two opposite eddies that TheStumps mentioned. The spacewarp isn't travelling laterally at c any more, because it travels through itself. It's travelling through warped space, so it doesn't travel in a straight line. Instead it goes round and round.
Farsight wrote:
Mr_Anderson wrote:Interesting Farsight. Not seen it described that way before, I'm not sure how empirically valid it is but then spin is an issue that doesn't lend well to classical representation, nor is it tidily represented by maths as such. I'm the last person to think that anyone has really nailed the actuality beyond the equations and there are a million and one formulations. What we end up with is the fact that waves are wave like and adequately described by formulations of angular momentum, and they may change sign or polarity and they may not according to which fermion they are, beyond that it's very much a matter of interpretation and ideally philosophical.
I think you'll start to see more of this kind of description. Or at least I hope you will. I'm not sure why it's been such a big problem, and can only presume it's because the maths is difficult, as epitomized by "the mystery of the moebius strip" which lasted for 75 years. See http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucesest/moebius.html and note that the electron depiction is akin to a "moebius doughnut". It takes two revolutions to return to the original position and oreintation.

Mr_Anderson wrote:No a child can't understand it, even an adult can't that's why it's called science, most people wouldn't know there arse from their elbow, even some people in science. And even I to some extent. That said I'm confused about pair production here? Not sure what you are saying?
It's like riding a bike, once it clicks it's incredibly simple. I find that Falaco solitons are very useful for conceptual grasp. Find a swimming pool or a pond, preferably on a sunny windless day. Take two dinner plates, one in each hand. Dip one of the plates halfway into the water, and stroke it gently forward in a paddling motion whilst lifting it clear. You create a “U-tube” double whirlpool that moves slowly forward through the water. Now step to one side and create another one with the other dinner plate, aimed at the first. When the left-hand-side of one double whirlpool is near the right-hand-side of the other, the two opposite whirlpools move closer together. When the left-hand-side of one double whirlpool is near the left-hand-side of the other, the two similar whirlpools move apart. What you're seeing is a fluid analogy for electromagnetic attraction and repulsion. Now aim two double whirlpools straight at one another, face on. The two double whirlpools meet and merge and are gone with a surprisingly energetic puff of muddy water, which is akin to annihilation.

Pair production is key. It provides the very real scientific evidence that the electron is quite literally "made from light".

Image


However when you look into the mathematical details of this, (see http://www.cybsoc.org/cybcon2008prog.htm#jw) you find that rotation has to be in two dimensions. The best way to think of it is like the rotation of a steering wheel coupled to the rotation of a smoke ring. With this double rotation, you can no longer define which direction the spin is going. To understand this, think of ordinary spin as flying around the equator. It's a nice tidy circle with a nice tidy orientation, and you can adjust your flight path to fly from pole to pole. That's another nice tidy circle with a nice tidy orientation. But if you're continually adjusting your flight path so that you fly around the earth in a figure-of-eight motion, what direction are you flying in? You can't really say, because it keeps changing, and for the same reason you can't really assign a direction to electron spin. However if you flew backwards in the figure-of-eight loop, there is a clear difference. This is why we can distinguish electron spin and positron spin. Here's a depiction to give you an idea. The dark black line is the figure-of-eight loop, rearranged a little to map out a toroid rather than a sphere:

Image

As for what's spinning, the electron is made via pair production. You start with light. You can then destroy the electron via annihilation, and the result is light. Basically what's spinning, is light. It's all spelled out in layman's terms in http://www.amazon.co.uk/RELATIVITY-Theo ... 0956097804. Even a child can understand it.

Farsight wrote:
Jakob wrote:Greetings Lord Farsight. Thanks for this long awaited response.
Ouch, Jacob. Please don't call me "Lord". Most of this stuff I talk about isn't my own orginal work, It's just a simplified version of what's in peer-reviewed papers that haven't hit the popular media yet. They tend to get crowded out of mags like New Scientist and kept in the shade because too many editors don't know much physics and think string theory is "the only game in town".

Jakob wrote:Is it correct to say that light is made into an electron through the mechanism of spin? That's what I get out of this at first glance. That light is trapped into a self referring path, by splitting in two and revolving around itself, so to speak. Confining it to a more or less set location, making it into something resembling a particle, by inter-inter-interference.
Pretty much. The mechanism of spin is geometrical. The photon is a transient alteration to the geometry of space, so when it travels through itself it doesn't travel in a straight line. Get the wavelength right and make it travel entirely through itself, and it's trapped in a curved path. Then it's an electron with spin and angular momentum, and of course mass and charge. Annihilate an electron by chucking a positron at it, and all you get out is two 511keV photons. You don't get anything else. So whilst an electron doesn't look like light, light is only thing that's there.

The geometry here goes all the way back to Maxwell’s On Physical Lines of Force where he talks about a screw mechanism, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... df&page=53. You can also find a reference to this in Minkowski's wrench analogy about two pages from the end of Space and Time. The electric field is a "twist field" and the magnetic field is a "turn field" view of the selfsame thing when you move through it. Sounds odd, but the right-hand-rule works rather like shoving a drill bit up into your right fist. It's got a twist to it, so it turns:

Image

Unfortunately Heaviside reworked Maxwell's equations and changed them from quarternion to vector form. This reduced the emphasis on rotation and describes "what it does" rather than "what it is". It's important to appreciate that the electric field is not something separate to the magnetic field, they're just two different ways of experiencing the electromagnetic field, (see Jefimenko's equations) and it really is a spatial distortion. Hence the electromagnetic field-variation of a photon is a distortion too. The sine wave traces out a slope, which means the photon is more like a lemon-like pulse. See http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.2596 and it's the "enveloping shape" of figure 2.

Farsight wrote:Most people have heard of Minkowski’s Space and Time paper from 1908. They’re aware that it constituted an important development for special relativity. However very few people notice a little paragraph two pages from the back:

"Then in the description of the field produced by the electron we see that the separation of the field into electric and magnetic force is a relative one with regard to the underlying time axis; the most perspicuous way of describing the two forces together is on a certain analogy with the wrench in mechanics, though the analogy is not complete".

A wrench turns a bolt which has a screw thread. You turn a screw and it moves forward. Or you can use a pump-action screwdriver to convert linear motion into rotational motion. This is why alternators and generators and electric motors work, and you can find a reference to a screw mechanism in Maxwell’s On Physical Lines of Force. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:On_Ph ... _Force.pdf and note this line on the wikipedia page 53:

"A motion of translation along an axis cannot produce a rotation about that axis unless it meets with some special mechanism, like that of a screw "

Look at the page heading and see where it says The Theory of Molecular Vortices. Maxwell didn’t get this right, but it turns out he wasn’t far off. Once you understand the dualism of the electromagnetic field, it’s horribly simple: it's a "twist/turn" field with an underlying curved spatial geometry.

Think about a vertical column of electrons and try to envisage the surrounding electromagnetic field. If you are motionless with respect to this, you’ll see the electric aspect of the field, with radial “electric field” lines and linear motion along them. If however you move downwards past the column of electrons, you’ll see the magnetic aspect of the field, with orbital “magnetic field” lines and rotational motion around them. Your downward motion is relative, so the magnetic aspect is visible if you are motionless and the electrons are moving upwards, as per a current in a wire and the right-hand-rule:

Image

Note that it’s one field, it’s the electromagnetic field, not separate electric fields and magnetic fields. Jefimenko's equations are a useful reminder in this respect. The electromagnetic field is a dual entity, there’s only one field there. Moving through an electric field doesn’t cause a magnetic field to be generated, because as Minkowski said, it’s the electromagnetic field, and it exerts force in two ways. It doesn’t actually look like anything, but iron filings on a piece of paper tells you that you can visualize a field. Note though that the iron filings only show you a slice through a “magnetic” field, and you need to see the electromagnetic twist/turn field in three dimensions. You can use a drill bit for this, but a reamer is better. This kind of thing:

Image

Grasp a reamer in your right fist, place your left thumb on the bottom of it, and push upwards. It turns. The disposition of the electromagnetic field around a column of electrons is like a reamer. It has an innate twist, and motion through it causes turn. If you imagine a nested family of reamers all centred on the same vertical line, you can get an idea of how the field strength diminishes with distance. Then when you imagine a horizontal slice through the field, it would have a spatial twist like this:

Image

This twist is however in three dimensions, which is why Minkowski said the analogy is not complete. Take a piece of wire and bend it to form a Fibonacci spiral. It is now curved, and resembles one of the lines in the picture above. Now lie the wire flat on your desk and bend in another Fibonacci spiral orthogonal to the first. Your wire is now “curled”. Hence magnetic curl. In Europe this is called rot, which is short for “rotor”. It’s caused by a frame-dragging effect by a central soliton or more properly "vorton" rotating in two dimensions, like this:

Image

This is a depiction of the electron. It''s a self-trapped photon. See http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf and http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0512265 . Note the black line in the depiction, indicating a double-rotation, hence spin ½ . Again we see twist and turn. The electron is often called an elementary or fundamental particle, but it isn't. You can create an electron via pair production:

Image

It's like throwing a wave at an obstruction and seeing two opposite eddies coming out. These affect the surrounding space - something like a rotating electric floor polisher on a thin rubber sheet, but in three dimensions. The result is an electromagnetic field. Conservation of charge is rather like conservation of angular momentum - if you were up in space in a spacesuit and you manhandled a satellite to give it a rotation, you’d find yourself counter-rotating.

The reason why the photon self-traps at 511keV is straighforward. An electromagnetic field is a twist/turn field, and it is a spatial geometry. A light wave is an electromagnetic field variation, which is actually a pulse of "twist/turn". It's best to think in terms of a pulse of spacewarp in a cubic lattice. Imagine a lemon-shaped extensional distortion of the lattice in the centre - a bulge like a swell wave on the ocean surface, but symmetrical top and bottom because this is in a bulk. The archetypal sinusoidal electromagnetic wave is telling you the slope of the horizontal lattice lines. Around a lemon-like shape, the slope rises to a maximum a quarter-way along the lemon, goes back to zero at the top of the lemon, then falls to a negative maximum three-quarters along, then goes to zero again. If this pulse of spacewarp encounters another pulse of spacewarp, it's moving through warped space, and so its path changes. If this causes it to encounter more spacewarp, its path will change further. That black line in the depiction above is telling you that here we have spacewarp that is travelling entirely through itself. At 511keV, where the degree of spacewarp is just right. The path keeps changing, and as a result the photon energy/momentum is now travelling in a circular path. Hence angular momentum and magnetic dipole moment with a g-factor of 2.0023.

But we don't call it a photon any more. We call it an electron.
Before the Light

Image

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6666
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

Re: Which is First?

Postby Sauwelios » Wed Aug 30, 2017 2:20 am

I haven't read new posts in this thread after my last one, but before I do, here's some more I want to say.

People seem to forget, or never to grasp in the first place, the psycho-logical necessity that, for us, it will always be people, not turtles, all the way down. If you'll allow me a simplification (the notion of "subjects" and "objects"), we can never understand what an object is, as we can never understand what it's like to be an object: in fact, an object is supposed to be an entity for which the answer to the question "what's it like to be that entity" is: "nothing".

A clear example is when men objectify women: it means the former don't empathize or sympathize with the latter (depending on you definitions of "empathy" and "sympathy").

We cannot understand affects except as homunculi (little men); or rather, the best we can understand them is when we experience ourselves as all affect (big affects): what Nietzsche describes as "what poets of strong ages called inspiration" (Ecce Homo, "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", section 3) is the state in which we can best understand the will to power at its most fundamental level. Or, to quote from that exemplar of inspired poetry:

"When you are the willers of a single will, and this acting against God is to you an act of God: there is the origin of your virtue." (Zarathustra, "Of the Bestowing Virtue", section 1.)

::

Fixed Cross wrote:S - No, it is rather that each perspective, formula, entity, behaves as a self valuing, (trying to integrate the rest in its terms) and that this is self-evident.


What exactly are you saying "no" to here? Everything I said?


You seem to conflate the term with the logic. Ive expressed a need of a more intuitively fitting term for the logic.
The logic, the idea, the philosophy has been hermetically completed and sealed, perfected, the very instant I conceived of it.

If it hadn't been, it would obviously not be a logic.


But a logic has axioms. What exactly are the axioms, and only the axioms, of this logic?

I have been unable to conceive valuing otherwise than as willing, or as having the feeling of will. That is, I have done my best to ascertain precisely what "valuing" means for me, and arrived at the conclusion that it means "experiencing something in accompaniment with the feeling of will". (In the case of disvaluing, what's felt is a will away from the thing experienced.)

In your last post before my last in this thread, you said:

Value, one other hand, applies as differentiation. Which is part of the reason it is the very basis of any axiom-setting; it allows us to discern real criteria.


If value is the very basis of any axiom-setting, then it cannot be a logic, as logics are based on their axioms. That is to say, it cannot be a logic, one logic among others. It could be the logic, meta-logic; but if it is the logic of all logics, it's also its own logic, which would make it circular. Which has of course always been clear about it.

"Axiom-setting" means "logic-setting" (unless the axiom(s) do(es)n't suffice to base a logic on). I'm not against VO's being a mystification, in fact I insist on its being a mystification... Logic-setting is a law-positing. What has always been most obvious is that you're insisting on the soundness (the sanity) of VO. But paradoxically, it seems it, and you, will seem "fundamentally unsound" to me (to quote Jeeves and Wooster on Nietzsche) until you acknowledge your insistence, nay insist on your insistence... And this is of course my insistence, my will, my irrational, stubborn ass. Anyway, let me see if you address this self-application of VO below.


I can't precisely tell from your post how much is still unclear to you. I know you generally think in relevant areas, but from my perspective as a VO-ist it always is you who is mystifying, putting terms like self and consciousness into the equation where they are entirely out of place in VO.


I try to start from common sense--which is where all science and philosophy must start from. The "direct (self-)valuing" of gold, for instance(?), can make no sense to us. It must make sense to us on our scale.


Naturally, a logic that defies the logic of object-subject grammar (the thing Nietzsche and Heidegger tried to resolve) can not be simply expressed in that same grammar. It needs to be grasped logically, purely, abstractly, as a method, a new conception of method, of logic - basically a purely active agent.


"Purity" is quite literally an empty word. I say the world must be grasped phenomenologically (that is, psychologically, but not positivistic- or naturalistic-psychologically), "impurely", concretely--that is, concrescently, con-creatively:

    "The Chastity whose Magical Energy both protects and urges the aspirant to the Sacred Mysteries is quite contrary in its deepest nature to all vulgar ideas of it; for it is, in the first place, a positive passion; [...].

    It may assist us to create in our minds a clear concept of this noblest and rarest--yet most necessary--of the Virtues, if we draw the distinction between it and one of its ingredients, Purity.

    Purity is a passive or at least static quality; it connotes the absence of all alien admixture from any given idea; as, pure gallium, pure mathematics, pure race. It is a secondary and derived use of the word which we find in such expressions as 'pure milk,' which imply freedom from contamination.

    Chastity, per contra, as the etymology (castus, possibly connected with castrum, a fortified camp) suggests, may be supposed to assert the moral attitude of readiness to resist any assault upon an existing state of Purity.

    [...]

    The Sphinx is not to be mastered by holding aloof; and the brutish innocence of Paradise is always at the mercy of the Serpent. It is his Wisdom that should guard our Ways; we need his swiftness, subtlety, and his royal prerogative of dealing death.

    The Innocence of the Adept? We are at once reminded of the strong Innocence of Harpocrates, and of His Energy of Silence. A chaste man is thus not merely one who avoids the contagion of impure thoughts and their results, but whose virility is competent to restore Perfection to the world about him. [...]

    'Beware of abstinence from action!' is it not written in Our lection? For the nature of the Universe being Creative Energy, aught else blasphemes the Goddess, and seeks to introduce the elements of a real death within the pulses of Life.

    The chaste man, the true Knight-Errant of the Stars, imposes continually his essential virility upon the throbbing Womb of the King's Daughter; with every stroke of his Spear he penetrates the heart of Holiness, and bids spring forth the Fountain of the Sacred Blood, splashing its scarlet dew throughout Space and Time. His Innocence melts with its white-hot Energy the felon fetters of that Restriction which is Sin, and his Integrity with its fury of Righteousness establishes that Justice which alone can satisfy the yearning lust of the Womanhood whose name is Opportunity. As the function of the castrum or castellum is not merely to resist a siege, but to compel to Obedience of Law and Order every pagan within range of its riders, so also it is the Way of Chastity to do more than defend its purity against assault. For he is not wholly pure who is imperfect; and perfect is no man in himself without his fulfillment in all possibility." (Crowley, Little Essays toward Truth, "Chastity".)


Existence is active - there is nothing that it enforces on itself that it isn't itself. Unless the opposite can be demonstrated, this is self-evident.


Reality is will to power. Does reality enforce itself on itself? Well, yes. But that doesn't make it an artifice or a mystification. I don't mystify reality if I shoot someone in the head. I just enact it. Even though that persons perspective is then gone, I haven't done anything artificial or mystical.


This does not clarify anything for me.

::

Void_X_Zero wrote:Valuing is not a form of consciousness. Consciousness is a form of valuing.


Except that consciousness is immediately intelligible to us--and only for that reason impervious to our attempst to define it--, whereas valuing is not. "Value" is almost as empty a word as "good". Etymologically, "good" means "fitting together". Likewise, "valuable, of value" means "strong enough" in the sense of "weighing up against"; the latter also goes for "worth" and axios. But these are objective judgments. What we need is to be able to relate to it subjectively. What does it mean when we are inclined to-ward (to-worth!) something?

"[A]ll becoming [Werden, "worthing") seemed to me dancing of Gods, and wantoning of Gods, and the world unloosed and unbridled and fleeing back to itself:--
--As an eternal self-fleeing and re-seeking of one another of many Gods, as the blessed self-contradicting, recommuning, and refraternising with one another of many Gods[.]" (Zarathustra, "Old and New Tables", section 2, Common trans.)

::

Fixed Cross wrote:I think, S, that the part that you re missing, is conviction, completeness of will; only from absolute and total engagement of the will can we derive abstract principles that apply under all conditions. All conditions that include ones existence, that is. Existence is indeed a criterium for deciding what existence is. I would not agree that that is mystification.


You would not agree, exactly! It's your conviction that it's not. And this conviction is a convincing yourself. Insisting, as I've called it.


Yes, self-valuing obviously describes itself, and the one who practices it, and the ones refusing it, and this very war - it is really the war between what I see as corrupted beings and what I see as beings of integrities, that I have initiated in this field - as I have been the first to introduce the logic of integrity.

Or let me call it Jakob Milikowski's first law: the logic of integrity.


In the first and last place, the "obviousness" of the SVOL is owing to your (plural) positing it "in the way" (ob viam), as the way even (Tao, the Logos, Ereignis). But I can only join you, be joined with you, in (re)minding us of this time and again. I demand that our valuing be conscious...

I had (again?) started to read that thread of yours, by the way, but haven't finished it (yet), not even close.

::

Fixed Cross wrote:Perhaps you see strength and law-setting as mystification -- perhaps this is why you find it hard to admit to your own agency, it seems truer to not set the laws but follow them.


Sorry, what? I find it hard to admit my own agency? I'm the one who's been insisting on his own agency!

::

Void_X_Zero wrote:Ignorance is forgiveable, but the love of ignorance is not. I try to select out and filter away those who love ignorance from those who just don't know something (yet).

If one does not love ignorance then eventually they overcome it.


Philosophy is about overcoming one's ignorance about one's ignorance--about loving one's knowledge of one's own ignorance.

If a philosopher overcame his ignorance, he would no longer be a philosopher, but a sage--or a lunatic...

You may have the neck of a bull, but you don't have the eyes of an angel--which is why you cover the angel-eyed Nietzsche with sunglasses, and make him look like a douchebag.

Humility is the virtue that balances the evil of Selbstsucht. It changes it from a necessary evil into an unnecessary good--lead into gold. The Philosopher's Stone, lapis exilis et vilis.


But I can attest to the fact that understanding the notion of self-valuing logic requires a "leap" (I won't say of faith, but rather perhaps of courage) as it potentially calls everything that one is into question. "Is such and such aspect of myself justified, self-justified?" Self-valuing is a law-giving in the Nietzschean/Zarathustrian sense.


Sounds good. I basically did that when I read The Will to Power roughly around 2000, though (and I haven't stopped, either).

I look forward to where your recent embrace of the will to power metaphysics will lead you!


::

Fixed Cross wrote:"Faith" is what the weak think a man who engages a big enemy is acting on. The fighter just acts on his will to overcome ever stronger enemies. The overcoming that leads to VO is perhaps then visualizable as an enemy, mythic monster. An abysmal un-creature to slay.


"Bite off the serpent's head!" It seems you and I demand of each other the same thing?
Last edited by Sauwelios on Thu Aug 31, 2017 6:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7134
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Which is First?

Postby UrGod » Wed Aug 30, 2017 10:04 am

Sauwelios wrote:A clear example is when men objectify women: it means the former don't empathize or sympathize with the latter (depending on you definitions of "empathy" and "sympathy.


No, when we objectify a woman we directly empathize/sympathize with that aspect/s of her which are "objectified". She is valued for being that which she is, and wishes to be. It just depends on what you objectify, and how accurate that is. And this works just as equally for men when it comes to women valuing us, too.

You think women do not want to be "objectified"? Lol. Empathy and sympathy mean understanding, and respect. Creating room for; protecting, valuing. Feminism has done so much to destroy the feminine psyche that now even men seem to think that it is somehow "bad" to objectify a woman, and there are even women who also think that they think this (but they never really do think it, in so far as they are women.
I am your master.
User avatar
UrGod
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: Which is First?

Postby UrGod » Wed Aug 30, 2017 10:12 am

Anyone who doesn't want to be "objectified" merely does not believe that there is anything about themselves which is worthy of being "object-ed", turned into coherent and valued reality in the eyes of another.
I am your master.
User avatar
UrGod
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: Which is First?

Postby UrGod » Wed Aug 30, 2017 10:49 am

Fixed Cross wrote:Absolutely. This leap is one of strength. "Faith" is what the weak think a man who engages a big enemy is acting on. The fighter just acts on his will to overcome ever stronger enemies.


Indeed.

Gods do not make leaps of faith. They make leaps of value.
I am your master.
User avatar
UrGod
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: Which is First?

Postby Arcturus Descending » Wed Aug 30, 2017 6:56 pm

urGod

Sauwelios wrote: A clear example is when men objectify women: it means the former don't empathize or sympathize with the latter (depending on you definitions of "empathy" and "sympathy.


I have to agree with Sauwelios here. It also means that men see women as more *objects* hence objectify and less equal and less human ~~ in other words, perhaps things or toys.


No, when we objectify a woman we directly empathize/sympathize with that aspect/s of her which are "objectified".


That makes absolutely no sense to me. Can you explain it. Maybe you are using language other than how I would use it.
What you seem to be saying is that you join the herd.
How does someone become capable in the moment of putting their self in another's shoes and experience what they are experiencing (empathizing) or having a harmonious understanding of another ~ it's like a chemical reaction of sorts (sympathy or simpatico) by objectifying them?
When a person is objectified, they become less human to the other. What ought to be an I and Thou relationship becomes an I and It relationship.


She is valued for being that which she is, and wishes to be. It just depends on what you objectify, and how accurate that is. And this works just as equally for men when it comes to women valuing us, too.


Perhaps you are using different language when it comes objectifying because I do not get it.
Objectifying a woman or a man is not the same as affirming them or accepting them as they are.

You think women do not want to be "objectified"? Lol.

I know that I do not. What am I - a toy to be played with for someone's pleasure?
Anyway, you need to see the INDIVIDUAL not the whole. We are not the borg.

Empathy and sympathy mean understanding, and respect
.
Yes. So then how can you speak of objectifying a woman?
Hmmm... perhaps you are speaking of seeing a woman as she really is? But I don't think that a man or a woman is capable of doing that since being human, there are far too many variables to us. We are too complicated.
But some can see more than others.


Feminism has done so much to destroy the feminine psyche that now even men seem to think that it is somehow "bad" to objectify a woman,


Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. There is feminism and then there is feminism. We have come a long way from where we were and into having our own sense of identity and worth. We are not so much chattel anymore.
Some men are more staunch feminists than are many women. Many men real men are happy that we have come into our own or are in the process of continuing to do just that. Kudos to them.

Maybe *objectify* needs to be re-defined here. Say what it is to you and what it isn't to you.
Again, if you are using the term to mean to see someone (in this case) as they actually are, then it is your perspective and bias which can still objectify the woman and make her less than she is.

and there are even women who also think that they think this (but they never really do think it, in so far as they are women.

Say what? lol
It takes a lifetime to rid ourselves of particular kinds of conditioning and and self-patterns and beliefs and attitudes which have been pushed on us...and we are never quite done with that.
So how could what you say be otherwise unless these women met other women or even other men who could teach them differently? Some never lose the effect the parents perhaps especially that the father had on them and sometimes it is even more the mother -- it's an ad continuum. It takes time to become a Phoenix in one's own right and over and over and over again.

We shall be consumed in the flames and rise up again ad continuum.
SAPERE AUDE!


If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.


What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

Thomas Nagel


I learn as I write!
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 14783
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A snowy dark luminous landscape bathed in solitude

Re: Which is First?

Postby Sauwelios » Wed Aug 30, 2017 8:06 pm

UrGod wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:A clear example is when men objectify women: it means the former don't empathize or sympathize with the latter (depending on you definitions of "empathy" and "sympathy.


No, when we objectify a woman we directly empathize/sympathize with that aspect/s of her which are "objectified".


Utter nonsense. You cannot empathize/sympathize with tits or an ass...


She is valued for being that which she is, and wishes to be. It just depends on what you objectify, and how accurate that is. And this works just as equally for men when it comes to women valuing us, too.


Sure, I didn't mean to suggest women never objectify men. I just used the most widely known example. And I was talking about understanding, not valuing.


You think women do not want to be "objectified"? Lol.


I never said that.


Empathy and sympathy mean understanding, and respect. Creating room for; protecting, valuing.


Like battery caged animals? Those are surely valued and protected--as a resource--, created just enough room for; but understood and respected? empathized or sympathized with? I think not.


Feminism has done so much to destroy the feminine psyche that now even men seem to think that it is somehow "bad" to objectify a woman, and there are even women who also think that they think this (but they never really do think it, in so far as they are women.


I'm not saying it's bad, I'm saying it will keep you from understanding her. You may understand her wanting to be objectified, but that's not the part that's objectified...

::

UrGod wrote:Anyone who doesn't want to be "objectified" merely does not believe that there is anything about themselves which is worthy of being "object-ed", turned into coherent and valued reality in the eyes of another.


Again, beside the point. You're still on the plane of Gestell, not of Ereignis.

::

UrGod wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:Absolutely. This leap is one of strength. "Faith" is what the weak think a man who engages a big enemy is acting on. The fighter just acts on his will to overcome ever stronger enemies.


Indeed.

Gods do not make leaps of faith. They make leaps of value.


Of will?...

The conundrum may be this:

"Do not let yourself be deceived: great intellects are sceptical. Zarathustra is a sceptic. The strength, the freedom which proceed from intellectual power, from a superabundance of intellectual power, manifest themselves as scepticism. Men of fixed convictions do not count when it comes to determining what is fundamental in values and lack of values. Men of convictions are prisoners. They do not see far enough, they do not see what is below them: whereas a man who would talk to any purpose about value and non-value must be able to see five hundred convictions beneath him--and behind him.... A mind that aspires to great things, and that wills the means thereto, is necessarily sceptical. Freedom from any sort of conviction belongs to strength, and to an independent point of view... That grand passion which is at once the foundation and the power of a sceptic's existence, and is both more enlightened and more despotic than he is himself, drafts the whole of his intellect into its service; it makes him unscrupulous; it gives him courage to employ unholy means; under certain circumstances it does not begrudge him even convictions. Conviction as a means: one may achieve a good deal by means of a conviction. A grand passion makes use of and uses up convictions; it does not yield to them--it knows itself to be sovereign.--On the contrary, the need of faith, of some thing unconditioned by yea or nay, of Carlylism, if I may be allowed the word, is a need of weakness. The man of faith, the 'believer' of any sort, is necessarily a dependent man--such a man cannot posit himself as a goal, nor can he find goals within himself. The 'believer' does not belong to himself; he can only be a means to an end; he must be used up; he needs some one to use him up. His instinct gives the highest honours to an ethic of self-effacement; he is prompted to embrace it by everything: his prudence, his experience, his vanity. Every sort of faith is in itself an evidence of self-effacement, of self-estrangement... When one reflects how necessary it is to the great majority that there be regulations to restrain them from without and hold them fast, and to what extent control, or, in a higher sense, slavery, is the one and only condition which makes for the well-being of the weak-willed man, and especially woman, then one at once understands conviction and 'faith.' To the man with convictions they are his backbone. To avoid seeing many things, to be impartial about nothing, to be a party man through and through, to estimate all values strictly and infallibly--these are conditions necessary to the existence of such a man. But by the same token they are antagonists of the truthful man--of the truth.... The believer is not free to answer the question, 'true' or 'not true,' according to the dictates of his own conscience: integrity on this point would work his instant downfall. The pathological limitations of his vision turn the man of convictions into a fanatic--Savonarola, Luther, Rousseau, Robespierre, Saint-Simon--these types stand in opposition to the strong, emancipated spirit. But the grandiose attitudes of these sick intellects, these intellectual epileptics, are of influence upon the great masses--fanatics are picturesque, and mankind prefers observing poses to listening to reasons...." (Nietzsche, The Antichrist, section 54 whole, Mencken trans.)

I know this is ironic coming from me. It is, however, only ironic. I hope some of you may see that sometime.

FC: I post this, of course, not just in the expectation that you may see that, but moreover that it applies to you positively.
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7134
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Which is First?

Postby Arcturus Descending » Wed Aug 30, 2017 8:20 pm

The conundrum may be this:

"Do not let yourself be deceived: great intellects are sceptical. Zarathustra is a sceptic. The strength, the freedom which proceed from intellectual power, from a superabundance of intellectual power, manifest themselves as scepticism. Men of fixed convictions do not count when it comes to determining what is fundamental in values and lack of values. Men of convictions are prisoners. They do not see far enough, they do not see what is below them: whereas a man who would talk to any purpose about value and non-value must be able to see five hundred convictions beneath him--and behind him.... A mind that aspires to great things, and that wills the means thereto, is necessarily sceptical. Freedom from any sort of conviction belongs to strength, and to an independent point of view... That grand passion which is at once the foundation and the power of a sceptic's existence, and is both more enlightened and more despotic than he is himself, drafts the whole of his intellect into its service; it makes him unscrupulous; it gives him courage to employ unholy means; under certain circumstances it does not begrudge him even convictions. Conviction as a means: one may achieve a good deal by means of a conviction. A grand passion makes use of and uses up convictions; it does not yield to them--it knows itself to be sovereign.--On the contrary, the need of faith, of some thing unconditioned by yea or nay, of Carlylism, if I may be allowed the word, is a need of weakness. The man of faith, the 'believer' of any sort, is necessarily a dependent man--such a man cannot posit himself as a goal, nor can he find goals within himself. The 'believer' does not belong to himself; he can only be a means to an end; he must be used up; he needs some one to use him up. His instinct gives the highest honours to an ethic of self-effacement; he is prompted to embrace it by everything: his prudence, his experience, his vanity. Every sort of faith is in itself an evidence of self-effacement, of self-estrangement... When one reflects how necessary it is to the great majority that there be regulations to restrain them from without and hold them fast, and to what extent control, or, in a higher sense, slavery, is the one and only condition which makes for the well-being of the weak-willed man, and especially woman, then one at once understands conviction and 'faith.' To the man with convictions they are his backbone. To avoid seeing many things, to be impartial about nothing, to be a party man through and through, to estimate all values strictly and infallibly--these are conditions necessary to the existence of such a man. But by the same token they are antagonists of the truthful man--of the truth.... The believer is not free to answer the question, 'true' or 'not true,' according to the dictates of his own conscience: integrity on this point would work his instant downfall. The pathological limitations of his vision turn the man of convictions into a fanatic--Savonarola, Luther, Rousseau, Robespierre, Saint-Simon--these types stand in opposition to the strong, emancipated spirit. But the grandiose attitudes of these sick intellects, these intellectual epileptics, are of influence upon the great masses--fanatics are picturesque, and mankind prefers observing poses to listening to reasons...." (Nietzsche, The Antichrist, section 54 whole, Mencken trans.)

That was beautiful. I don't recall if I read The Antichrist.
Thank you for that.
SAPERE AUDE!


If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.


What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

Thomas Nagel


I learn as I write!
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 14783
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A snowy dark luminous landscape bathed in solitude

Re: Which is First?

Postby Serendipper » Wed Aug 30, 2017 8:27 pm

Sauwelios wrote:Men of convictions are prisoners.

That seems fairly remedial.

That which enters the mind through reason can be corrected. That which is admitted through faith, hardly ever. - Santiago Ramon y Cajal

A reasonable person will always be open to correction as he constantly refines what he suspects may be true. A cocky person has admitted by faith that what he knows is true, therefore he is unable to be self-correcting, evolving, capable of adaptation and inevitably will be wrong, given enough time.

So, therefore, we could say wisdom is a philosophy where one element is staying open to the fact that we may not know everything quite yet regardless how sure we feel.
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." Howard Aiken
Serendipper
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Which is First?

Postby UrGod » Wed Aug 30, 2017 8:29 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
UrGod wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:A clear example is when men objectify women: it means the former don't empathize or sympathize with the latter (depending on you definitions of "empathy" and "sympathy.


No, when we objectify a woman we directly empathize/sympathize with that aspect/s of her which are "objectified".


Utter nonsense. You cannot empathize/sympathize with tits or an ass...


You seem to have a very narrow idea of what is being objectified. And why.

She is valued for being that which she is, and wishes to be. It just depends on what you objectify, and how accurate that is. And this works just as equally for men when it comes to women valuing us, too.


Sure, I didn't mean to suggest women never objectify men. I just used the most widely known example. And I was talking about understanding, not valuing.


Since when can we talk about understanding without taking about valuing?

You think women do not want to be "objectified"? Lol.


I never said that.


But you don't answer the question either.

Empathy and sympathy mean understanding, and respect. Creating room for; protecting, valuing.


Like battery caged animals? Those are surely valued and protected--as a resource--, created just enough room for; but understood and respected? empathized or sympathized with? I think not.


You act as if there is only one kind of objectifying.. the lowliest kind.

Does Sauwelios mean "always looks down"?

Feminism has done so much to destroy the feminine psyche that now even men seem to think that it is somehow "bad" to objectify a woman, and there are even women who also think that they think this (but they never really do think it, in so far as they are women.


I'm not saying it's bad, I'm saying it will keep you from understanding her. You may understand her wanting to be objectified, but that's not the part that's objectified...

::


Desire and understanding are forms of valuing. By objectifying something you turn it into something that you are able to desire and understand. Tell me how something could be desired and understood without first being "object-ed"?

You have this typical leftist sort of very naive, linear view that so much can fail under the label of "objectifying" and that this is somehow bad, as it destroyed empathy/sympathy. This view could not be further from the truth.

The differentiation is not between objectifying and not objectifying, it is between low and high objectifying. What is objectified and why? More importantly from where does the impulse come to do that? Yes you can have lowly objectifying of women, but unlike you I am not restricting the issue to what the scum of the earth do.

UrGod wrote:Anyone who doesn't want to be "objectified" merely does not believe that there is anything about themselves which is worthy of being "object-ed", turned into coherent and valued reality in the eyes of another.


Again, beside the point. You're still on the plane of Gestell, not of Ereignis.

::


Please feel free to try to be coherent. I'll wait.

UrGod wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:Absolutely. This leap is one of strength. "Faith" is what the weak think a man who engages a big enemy is acting on. The fighter just acts on his will to overcome ever stronger enemies.


Indeed.

Gods do not make leaps of faith. They make leaps of value.


Of will?...

The conundrum may be this:

"Do not let yourself be deceived: great intellects are sceptical. Zarathustra is a sceptic. The strength, the freedom which proceed from intellectual power, from a superabundance of intellectual power, manifest themselves as scepticism. Men of fixed convictions do not count when it comes to determining what is fundamental in values and lack of values. Men of convictions are prisoners. They do not see far enough, they do not see what is below them: whereas a man who would talk to any purpose about value and non-value must be able to see five hundred convictions beneath him--and behind him.... A mind that aspires to great things, and that wills the means thereto, is necessarily sceptical. Freedom from any sort of conviction belongs to strength, and to an independent point of view... That grand passion which is at once the foundation and the power of a sceptic's existence, and is both more enlightened and more despotic than he is himself, drafts the whole of his intellect into its service; it makes him unscrupulous; it gives him courage to employ unholy means; under certain circumstances it does not begrudge him even convictions. Conviction as a means: one may achieve a good deal by means of a conviction. A grand passion makes use of and uses up convictions; it does not yield to them--it knows itself to be sovereign.--On the contrary, the need of faith, of some thing unconditioned by yea or nay, of Carlylism, if I may be allowed the word, is a need of weakness. The man of faith, the 'believer' of any sort, is necessarily a dependent man--such a man cannot posit himself as a goal, nor can he find goals within himself. The 'believer' does not belong to himself; he can only be a means to an end; he must be used up; he needs some one to use him up. His instinct gives the highest honours to an ethic of self-effacement; he is prompted to embrace it by everything: his prudence, his experience, his vanity. Every sort of faith is in itself an evidence of self-effacement, of self-estrangement... When one reflects how necessary it is to the great majority that there be regulations to restrain them from without and hold them fast, and to what extent control, or, in a higher sense, slavery, is the one and only condition which makes for the well-being of the weak-willed man, and especially woman, then one at once understands conviction and 'faith.' To the man with convictions they are his backbone. To avoid seeing many things, to be impartial about nothing, to be a party man through and through, to estimate all values strictly and infallibly--these are conditions necessary to the existence of such a man. But by the same token they are antagonists of the truthful man--of the truth.... The believer is not free to answer the question, 'true' or 'not true,' according to the dictates of his own conscience: integrity on this point would work his instant downfall. The pathological limitations of his vision turn the man of convictions into a fanatic--Savonarola, Luther, Rousseau, Robespierre, Saint-Simon--these types stand in opposition to the strong, emancipated spirit. But the grandiose attitudes of these sick intellects, these intellectual epileptics, are of influence upon the great masses--fanatics are picturesque, and mankind prefers observing poses to listening to reasons...." (Nietzsche, The Antichrist, section 54 whole, Mencken trans.)

I know this is ironic coming from me. It is, however, only ironic. I hope some of you may see that sometime.


Yes quite ironic coming from someone who says that objectifying someone destroys ability for empathy/sympathy.

"Will" is not a fundamental concept for me. Leaps of will mean nothing except the courage to act on values.
I am your master.
User avatar
UrGod
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: Which is First?

Postby Arcturus Descending » Wed Aug 30, 2017 8:30 pm

Serendipper wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:Men of convictions are prisoners.

That seems fairly remedial.

That which enters the mind through reason can be corrected. That which is admitted through faith, hardly ever. - Santiago Ramon y Cajal

A reasonable person will always be open to correction as he constantly refines what he suspects may be true. A cocky person has admitted by faith that what he knows is true, therefore he is unable to be self-correcting, evolving, capable of adaptation and inevitably will be wrong, given enough time.

So, therefore, we could say wisdom is a philosophy where one element is staying open to the fact that we may not know everything quite yet regardless how sure we feel.


Doubt is a wonderful tool.
SAPERE AUDE!


If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.


What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

Thomas Nagel


I learn as I write!
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 14783
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A snowy dark luminous landscape bathed in solitude

Re: Which is First?

Postby surreptitious75 » Wed Aug 30, 2017 9:56 pm

Serendipper wrote:
we could say wisdom is a philosophy where one element is staying open to the fact that we may not know everything quite yet regardless how sure we feel

I know nothing but far from being restrictive I find it very liberating for there is so much knowledge to acquire
To know everything would be so intellectual debilitating for I would have no need to learn anything ever again
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 114
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Which is First?

Postby Serendipper » Wed Aug 30, 2017 10:39 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
we could say wisdom is a philosophy where one element is staying open to the fact that we may not know everything quite yet regardless how sure we feel

I know nothing but far from being restrictive I find it very liberating for there is so much knowledge to acquire
To know everything would be so intellectual debilitating for I would have no need to learn anything ever again

Yep, you may learn yourself out of existence as if yang consumed yin because the known only exists relative to the unknown and if there were no unknown, there would be no known.

Once the first bite of the fruit of the tree of knowledge has been taken, one must eat all the fruit to escape the game.
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." Howard Aiken
Serendipper
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Which is First?

Postby Sauwelios » Wed Aug 30, 2017 11:30 pm

UrGod wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
UrGod wrote:No, when we objectify a woman we directly empathize/sympathize with that aspect/s of her which are "objectified".


Utter nonsense. You cannot empathize/sympathize with tits or an ass...


You seem to have a very narrow idea of what is being objectified. And why.


Feel free to expound.


She is valued for being that which she is, and wishes to be. It just depends on what you objectify, and how accurate that is. And this works just as equally for men when it comes to women valuing us, too.


Sure, I didn't mean to suggest women never objectify men. I just used the most widely known example. And I was talking about understanding, not valuing.


Since when can we talk about understanding without taking about valuing?


The point is that we can talk about valuing without talking about understanding. And that is a problem, as I've been trying to bring to you guys' attention.

Anyway, you said she was "valued for being what she is, and wishes to be." First off, what she is is of course not what she wishes to be, necessarily (though what she wishes is of the essence of what she is). And when she is valued as an object, that may be what she wishes to be valued as, but it's not what she is; she's a subject, like you, after all...

Of course, she's also an "object" (which I define as a subject or a group of subjects that is or are not her), namely her body, but you cannot understand her body, in the sense of "understanding" I mean, without answering the question "what's it like to be that?"


You think women do not want to be "objectified"? Lol.


I never said that.


But you don't answer the question either.


Wasn't it rhetorical? This one is.


Empathy and sympathy mean understanding, and respect. Creating room for; protecting, valuing.


Like battery caged animals? Those are surely valued and protected--as a resource--, created just enough room for; but understood and respected? empathized or sympathized with? I think not.


You act as if there is only one kind of objectifying.. the lowliest kind.

Does Sauwelios mean "always looks down"?


I provided a counterexample. Deal with it.

If you haven't expounded yet, as I asked you to do above, kindly do so now.


Feminism has done so much to destroy the feminine psyche that now even men seem to think that it is somehow "bad" to objectify a woman, and there are even women who also think that they think this (but they never really do think it, in so far as they are women.


I'm not saying it's bad, I'm saying it will keep you from understanding her. You may understand her wanting to be objectified, but that's not the part that's objectified...

::


Desire and understanding are forms of valuing. By objectifying something you turn it into something that you are able to desire and understand. Tell me how something could be desired and understood without first being "object-ed"?


You make an odd kind of switch here. I was talking about her desire (her wanting to be objectified), not yours.

You're unable to understand her without understanding her understanding. So yes, we cannot under-stand anything without first conceiving it as an object, but we still won't understand it if we don't subjectify that object--empathize/sympathize with it. This is indeed a pro-jection of us sub-jects on our ob-jects.


You have this typical leftist sort of very naive, linear view that so much can fail under the label of "objectifying" and that this is somehow bad, as it destroyed empathy/sympathy. This view could not be further from the truth.


It's bad if you're concerned with understanding, as philosophers are supposed to be.

Don't project your view of the typical leftist on me. I've already pointed out to you that you made unwarranted assumptions (abductions?) based on what I said.


The differentiation is not between objectifying and not objectifying, it is between low and high objectifying. What is objectified and why? More importantly from where does the impulse come to do that? Yes you can have lowly objectifying of women, but unlike you I am not restricting the issue to what the scum of the earth do.


As I said, I gave a counterexample. Your assertion that I'm restricting the issue is just another unwarranted assumption.

Kindly give an example of a high objectification, explicating what is objectified and why, and where the impulse to do that comes from.


UrGod wrote:Anyone who doesn't want to be "objectified" merely does not believe that there is anything about themselves which is worthy of being "object-ed", turned into coherent and valued reality in the eyes of another.


Again, beside the point. You're still on the plane of Gestell, not of Ereignis.

::


Please feel free to try to be coherent. I'll wait.


It coheres with what I said immediately before that. But yeah, if you're unfamiliar with Heidegger's use of those German words, it may seem incoherent. In any case, that was a deliberate mystification. Here's another:

Heidegger on the Law of Identity, Part 4 of 4


UrGod wrote:Indeed.

Gods do not make leaps of faith. They make leaps of value.


Of will?...

The conundrum may be this:

"Do not let yourself be deceived: great intellects are sceptical. Zarathustra is a sceptic. The strength, the freedom which proceed from intellectual power, from a superabundance of intellectual power, manifest themselves as scepticism. Men of fixed convictions do not count when it comes to determining what is fundamental in values and lack of values. Men of convictions are prisoners. They do not see far enough, they do not see what is below them: whereas a man who would talk to any purpose about value and non-value must be able to see five hundred convictions beneath him--and behind him.... A mind that aspires to great things, and that wills the means thereto, is necessarily sceptical. Freedom from any sort of conviction belongs to strength, and to an independent point of view... That grand passion which is at once the foundation and the power of a sceptic's existence, and is both more enlightened and more despotic than he is himself, drafts the whole of his intellect into its service; it makes him unscrupulous; it gives him courage to employ unholy means; under certain circumstances it does not begrudge him even convictions. Conviction as a means: one may achieve a good deal by means of a conviction. A grand passion makes use of and uses up convictions; it does not yield to them--it knows itself to be sovereign.--On the contrary, the need of faith, of some thing unconditioned by yea or nay, of Carlylism, if I may be allowed the word, is a need of weakness. The man of faith, the 'believer' of any sort, is necessarily a dependent man--such a man cannot posit himself as a goal, nor can he find goals within himself. The 'believer' does not belong to himself; he can only be a means to an end; he must be used up; he needs some one to use him up. His instinct gives the highest honours to an ethic of self-effacement; he is prompted to embrace it by everything: his prudence, his experience, his vanity. Every sort of faith is in itself an evidence of self-effacement, of self-estrangement... When one reflects how necessary it is to the great majority that there be regulations to restrain them from without and hold them fast, and to what extent control, or, in a higher sense, slavery, is the one and only condition which makes for the well-being of the weak-willed man, and especially woman, then one at once understands conviction and 'faith.' To the man with convictions they are his backbone. To avoid seeing many things, to be impartial about nothing, to be a party man through and through, to estimate all values strictly and infallibly--these are conditions necessary to the existence of such a man. But by the same token they are antagonists of the truthful man--of the truth.... The believer is not free to answer the question, 'true' or 'not true,' according to the dictates of his own conscience: integrity on this point would work his instant downfall. The pathological limitations of his vision turn the man of convictions into a fanatic--Savonarola, Luther, Rousseau, Robespierre, Saint-Simon--these types stand in opposition to the strong, emancipated spirit. But the grandiose attitudes of these sick intellects, these intellectual epileptics, are of influence upon the great masses--fanatics are picturesque, and mankind prefers observing poses to listening to reasons...." (Nietzsche, The Antichrist, section 54 whole, Mencken trans.)

I know this is ironic coming from me. It is, however, only ironic. I hope some of you may see that sometime.


Yes quite ironic coming from someone who says that objectifying someone destroys ability for empathy/sympathy.

"Will" is not a fundamental concept for me. Leaps of will mean nothing except the courage to act on values.


As I argued earlier in this thread, being at its most basic is determinic upon, willing:

http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2676503#p2676503
http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2676719#p2676719

This means that values, too, are determined upon by the will. That is to say, willing does not occur on the basis of values, but itself first sets all values...

You remind me of what Heidegger said about national socialism:

"What is offered everywhere today as the philosophy of national socialism, but actually has nothing to do with the inner truth and greatness of this movement (namely the meeting of global technology and modern man), is fishing in these murky waters of 'values' and 'wholenesses' ['Ganzheiten']." (Heidegger, Introduction to Metaphysics.)

Now of course, you're not fishing for your values in the outside world, but in your inner world. But insofar as it's unconscious, that world might as well not exist...

"Nietzsche has recourse to the will to overpower [sic] primarily to overpower a nihilist reality in which any moral-political concern is futile. His aristocratic contempt for contemporary egalitarianism forced him to reject the inherent nihilism of conscious experience in favor of that unconscious will to overpower it. Thus the will to power is primarily a will to overpower nihilism. [...]
The superman's will to save the common sense universe (by willing everything's eternal return) springs from repugnance to nihilism. If reality is nihilistic--and Nietzsche never denied this of all conscious life--that repugnance is directed against reality itself. It is a desire for vengeance against reality, a need to conquer nature. [...]
Since that subconscious will or self is unavailable for rational scrutiny, nobody can know whether it is essentially aristocratic, egalitarian or even nihilist. For, unlike Freud and others, who consciously and rationally try to examine the unconscious self, Nietzsche realized that such examination literally would be self-defeating, restoring the nihilism which the primacy of inner, dionysian depth was meant to overpower. Since that inward depth has no external, conscious manifestation,

    there is a famous danger for this inwardness about which it is assumed that it cannot even be seen from outside: It might some day take the opportunity to vanish. From outside one would notice its absence as little as its previous presence. [Nietzsche, Uses and Disadvantages 4.]

At bottom, recourse to the redemptive powers of Dionysus, of unconscious experience, is a deus ex machina for halfhearted nihilists incapable of overcoming their moral-political needs. Those needs are responsible for Dionysus, the concept of an unconscious instinctual will to overpower the nihilism of Apollo's conscious, common sense world. Dionysus is the yearning to bestow depth or substance on what is in reality groundless, if god is dead." (Harry Neumann, Liberalism, "Nietzsche', Part II.)

Now I've spoken before of "willing, or [...] having the feeling of will." This phrasing shows "the inherent nihilism of conscious experience". In our conscious experience, the will is a mere feeling, an accompaniment of an event, a phenomenon. In Mach's terms, a "sensation"; in Hume's, an "impression". It is my deepest experience that it appears most strongly as the will to be more than a feeling, to actually be a will, an affect, a cause... But this does not make it so.

The temptation is to be-lieve, to think wishfully. Philosophy has always been the uneasy straddling of the fence between skepticism and faith or conviction (Nietzsche says somewhere that men tend to prefer to speak of their "conviction" whereas women tend to prefer to speak of their "faith"...); between leaping up and falling back down; between strength and weakness of will:

"This is the first preliminary schooling in spirituality [Geistigkeit]: not to react at once to a stimulus, but to gain control of the inhibiting, secluding instincts. Learning to see, as I understand it, is almost what, unphilosophically speaking, is called 'strong will': the essential feature is precisely not to 'will', to be able to suspend decision. All unspirituality, all vulgarity, is due to the incapacity to resist a stimulus--one must react, one follows every impulse. [...] A practical application of having learned to see: one will have become slow, mistrustful, recalcitrant as a learner in general. In an attitude of hostile calm one will let the strange, the novel of every kind come to oneself first,--one will draw one's hand back from it. To stand open with all doors, to prostrate oneself servilely before every little fact, to always be eager to put oneself in the place of, plunge into other people and other things, in short the famous modern 'objectivity', is bad taste, is ignoble par excellence.--" (Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols, "What the Germans Lack", section 6.)

It may be a consolation, though, that only the God of the philosophers, Reason, is dead; only the herd-moral God is dead... Also, there's a difference between the Apollonian and the Socratic or Platonic. There is wine, there is water, and there is--

http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2673493#p2673493
http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=161070
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7134
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Which is First?

Postby Fixed Cross » Thu Aug 31, 2017 12:34 am

Sauwelios - your first point is disagreeable to me, as I do not consider people a category of any logical merit.
I think in terms of types of being, and types are determined in degree of integrity.

I compare the philosopher of power to a noble metal and a lion in terms of how he/it pictures the world.

I am not in the same category as say () or [] - they will always see worms all the way down, I see integrity and valuing - indeed, willing - all the way down. I exist in my thinking, they do not think and as thinkers thus do not exist - they lack integrity, self-valuing, set no standards - they are people though. Humanity is like a layer of excrement of the elemental gods, on which al sorts of species thrive and compete for and over shared values. (e.g. a place in the sun, gold, love)

What we see depends on our power and our cleanliness before it. It does not matter what species of being one is, I understand gold better than I understand Satyr, and gold understands me better, unconsciously, than Satyr understands either. Gold values kings in its ultra violent historical terms and shines black laughter.

The world is will to power - and nothing besides. And you are also will to power, and nothing besides.

The capacity for will, which is for a good part resistance, is a matter of structural integrity, which in simpler terms means strength. The strength of the type is my standard throughout the whole matrix of types and their integrities. Value is produced when strength relates to strength; it is the common term between them.

The strengths are the self-valuing that together bring about an objective evaluation - a hierarchy of power.
Ask Cat 1.

&

Gold grasps what proper philosophy grasps: itself. Iron does not grasp itself, it corrodes by the mere presence of other elements. So do all species except the noble ones.

&

Consistency is the fundamental activity.

We can verify this in terms of the periodic table and at the same time we so verify the logic of this categorization that nature apparently produces on her own accord, by asking what makes for a consistency of an elements. We may consider the most consistent to be those which are least influenced by other elements or energies. The are the 'noble' elements. What make as an element noble is that it does not change internally in reaction to outward stimuli. It holds no potential for internal change, is never inconsistent with itself. It is universe enclosed in itself, all of its values are perfectly attainable, for ever. Gold is this absolutely active; it holds in its structure the maximum amount activities, its many electron rings are filled, its inner tensions are all in play. Maximization of activity within a given structure amounts to a maximal consistency.

Contemplate the correspondence between consistency, activity, the noble elements, and value.
Before the Light

Image

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6666
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

Re: Which is First?

Postby Fixed Cross » Thu Aug 31, 2017 1:22 am

If we draw a line under the relevant items in the matrix for our integrity standard and we look at the column of people, what is underscored besides those well described by the term philosophy are those with a heart of gold; reliable, good ones that last unchanged relative to their environment. Of course within the gold, there is tremendous activity, but simpler and less consistent beings can by their definition not penetrate or grasp any of that. In any case, in such people I have decided some years ago to put my trust. As gold commands, it is a violent process, but as integrity generates, it is worth its resources.

A philosopher type will always draw close to the goodness in peoples hearts, as well as to the power scheming of nature herself is sometimes the is present in human form, as some German thinkers beheld her in Napoleon, and some Romans in Caesar, and some Greeks in Alexander, and some of us in Trump. Nature likes to hide, because she must to survive herself - in more composed times, she can't endure her full self - this is differentiation, the rainbow, the political spectrum, the semblance of peace through mild contrasts that brings real peace. The avoidance of that splitting headache from which the future's born, the primordial one who doesn't exist for his own sake. The world exists so that God doesn't have to. Existing is a nuisance, if all you've done so far was being born into existence. Puberty is where existence becomes a "selfing". The Hagalic crisis of elements resulting in the knot, Nauthiz, need-fire, restriction toward formation, followed by Isa, the isolated I, the prideful resistance. Then, harvest comes in Jera, ripeness. And from thereon, the heroic down-going begins, ending in Dagaz, Daybreak.
Before the Light

Image

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6666
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

Re: Which is First?

Postby Fixed Cross » Thu Aug 31, 2017 1:41 am

Value is the passive element, valuing the active.
Value could be seen as the sediment of the conflict between valuing - the riverbed in a sense, thus the "form" of the river... which is nonetheless never the same, because its elements are constantly changing.

The wanted-ness of the value is its value, a value is a condition that is required for the existence of a will, which I have called a self-valuing for the reason that, in order to relate to value, there must a value-standard, and this standard must be set, and that is what happens when a will becomes manifest.

Self-valuing = consistency = will to power = standard = standard-setting = being = Relativity, it could be argued ad nauseam even that it equals experience, though I disagree.
The term in any case is a matter of which concepts we wish to relate the underlying understanding to. Why I disagree with experimentalism - I do not wish to make things more subjective. Rather, value objectifies even power, by interpreting it in terms of its end - its self-overcoming.

We could say that gold is being that has overcome itself entirely so that it now reflects no other being in an unfavourable light. It has been hammered into beauty by the utmost brute force that this cosmos produces along with the utmost of "luck" - what are the odds of two dead stars colliding? Further, what are the odds that the greatest structural integrities of the clash find their way into an inhabited planet? But of course there is a relation between the presence of gold, and of lesser minerals, and the existence of life, namely that the former is required for the latter.

We naturally even contain a degree of gold. From my calculations it appears that in terms of the current goldprice, a human is on average worth about one cent of a dollar or euro.
Before the Light

Image

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6666
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

Re: Which is First?

Postby Fixed Cross » Thu Aug 31, 2017 2:11 am

Gold is not only structurally stronger than humanity, but humanity is even more evidently largely a function of golds self-valuing.
They die to obtain it, when they obtain it they kill using it to hire mercenaries. The golden rule applies: he who has the gold, rules. There is no need for gold to be conscious to be in control.

This is value ontological analysis as I practice it, on the earth, under the sun, not discerning between species, seeking out the highest types everywhere and setting them against each other as standards to produce a greater self-valuing friction and allow the creation of noble values from the material of consciousness, or lets say for your convenience, humanity, human self-awareness.

In a sense our approaches differ, opposing diametrically: where you see human consciousness as the basic element, I see it as something to yet be attained. I don't think humanity yet exists. I think its wars are that from which it is going to be born. Soon, Thor is going to have to play the midwife.

&

Sorry, what? I find it hard to admit my own agency? I'm the one who's been insisting on his own agency!

Only apparently - in reality only in order to interpret your particular entity-specific agency as relative to the very weak category/standard of "people".

In short: one can not successfully practice VO in another way than as a coup, an attempt at a law setting, species-defining "primordial crime" that wipes away all pre existing standards of consciousness. In this aspect one will recognize it as the true heritage of Nietzsche.
Before the Light

Image

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6666
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users