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 Sauwelios » Thu Aug 31, 2017 3:00 am

Fixed Cross wrote: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.


Sure, I was addressing "us people". Regardless if you fall into the category "people" (a category which may have no logical merit but still exists, in minds), my point still applies: by psycho-logical necessity, for you it will always be Fixed Cross types all the way down. This does of course not mean that non-Fixed Cross types are also Fixed Cross types (law of noncontradiction), not that all types have the same degree of integrity, but that they all have some degree of integrity. In your understanding.


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.


Exactly.


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 concept of unconscious understanding makes no sense to me. I think Satyr is more understanding than gold because he is more conscious. To be sure, he may very well misunderstand gold more than you do, and you more than gold does.

::

Fixed Cross wrote: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 don't see human consciousness as the basic element; rather my own consciousness. And I may define "human" that way, but that must then be made explicit.


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".


I only know how things appear to me. You're the only one who knows reality...
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7177
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Which is First?

Postby Fixed Cross » Thu Aug 31, 2017 3:08 am

Sauwelios wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote: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.


Sure, I was addressing "us people". Regardless if you fall into the category "people" (a category which may have no logical merit but still exists, in minds), my point still applies: by psycho-logical necessity, for you it will always be Fixed Cross types all the way down. This does of course not mean that non-Fixed Cross types are also Fixed Cross types (law of noncontradiction), not that all types have the same degree of integrity, but that they all have some degree of integrity. In your understanding.

Meaning you agree, reluctantly, that indeed we do not see "people" all the way down. Or rather, a confirmation that you only see Sauwelioses - and certainly no Fixed Crosses.

The concept of unconscious understanding makes no sense to me. I think Satyr is more understanding than gold because he is more conscious. To be sure, he may very well misunderstand gold more than you do, and you more than gold does.

Again, tacit agreement; gold doesn't misunderstand, Satyr does. Satyr mis-appropriates, ruins. He could not exist in the wild, he does not understand, grasp, as I conditioned.

Fixed Cross wrote: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 don't see human consciousness as the basic element; rather my own consciousness. And I may define "human" that way, but that must then be made explicit.

Bravo.
But I see human consciousness as a material with which I work through philosophy. I shape it to my will.
Most people aren't conscious at all.
Philosophers are, so thats who I shape.

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

I only know how things appear to me. You're the only one who knows reality...

No, I have stricter standards of discernment, and of interpreting what I discern. I discern more of my interpretation. So I am realer. "In your understanding."
Thunderbolt steers all things.

Image

I've been guided somewhat by William Blake's quote: "I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create". Just change 'system' for 'style'. - Bill

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6860
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Which is First?

Postby UrGod » Thu Aug 31, 2017 3:36 am

S- it is not possible to love, or have romantic attraction for another example, without objectifying the other. As I said, objectification can be low or high. You are focused only on the low, I am focused only on the high. That is the difference between us and why you cannot see my view.

I do see your view, but I also see it is but one small and lowly part of a much larger richer whole. I never understand why capable minds choose to restrict their focus to a narrow bandwidth of the lowliest of the low. But this seems to account for a good deal of the need to mystify.

I am a god, and I will not stand to have a beautiful creation of value -- objectification of the other -- sullied by being dragged through the mud and then associated with that mud. Nonsense. Let us be men, not vermin.
I am your master.
User avatar
UrGod
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1662
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: Which is First?

Postby Fixed Cross » Thu Aug 31, 2017 4:06 am

Strife, as it was in the beginning when Faust invited me here -- I will say in contrast that where it concerns his own standard-setting. I think Sauwelioses values are exquisite, such as the wheel of recurring cycles of human valuing, willing - his imagined, forged scheme has us plausibly heading in a lofty direction, that alone is worth a great deal, to begin with - but what frustrates is where he prefers to analyze in terms of what is given to him as seemingly self-evident rather than in what he evidently forces into existence -- he, personally, which also means in connection to the others that work the same material - this is not abstract, neither is it fully personal, it is simply powerful - but this is either a new Athens with a consistency, a real context in nature, or it is simply another Vienna circle, a flash of brightness at the precipice of a great cataclysm. Is there something in the future to be loyal to? That is the question. For me it is easy to answer, but Ill still have to prove my answer to be correct. And that is not going to be happening in the form of a philosophical argument alone.

This is the first thing I must have written after I devised VO, before I had a name for the understanding.

Jakob wrote:Argument aimed at the conclusion that philosophy is the natural ruler of science

If we assume that only objective laws effectively describe reality to us, then only the context where we may apply such laws should be referred to as reality.

Since we have not succeeded in applying objective laws to explain for example the emergence of life or the mechanism behind gravity, gravity and life do not theoretically belong to reality. They stand outside, beneath objective reality - the most we can say is that they are givens on which reality is based.

I would rather use the word reality to describe these unexplained givens; this means that objective lawmaking takes the back seat, as one of the many a subjective perspectives.

Behind the wheel I would rather see a less disinterested mind. The objective observer might calmly steer the the world of knowledge towards a rock, while illuminating us to the truth: "apparently we are crashing into a rock."

Philosophy departs from the opposite perspective: we do not want the barrenness of generalized meaning, we want the truth, our truth, the most noble truth - at all costs.

To attain this, the first thing to be subjected to our will is objectivity. It exist, but only to serve us, in places where its assets permit it. These are necessarily humble places, territory of the most common values.


viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175897
Thunderbolt steers all things.

Image

I've been guided somewhat by William Blake's quote: "I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create". Just change 'system' for 'style'. - Bill

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6860
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Which is First?

Postby Arcturus Descending » Thu Aug 31, 2017 6:03 pm

UrGod wrote:S- it is not possible to love, or have romantic attraction for another example, without objectifying the other. As I said, objectification can be low or high. You are focused only on the low, I am focused only on the high. That is the difference between us and why you cannot see my view.

I do see your view, but I also see it is but one small and lowly part of a much larger richer whole. I never understand why capable minds choose to restrict their focus to a narrow bandwidth of the lowliest of the low. But this seems to account for a good deal of the need to mystify.

I am a god, and I will not stand to have a beautiful creation of value -- objectification of the other -- sullied by being dragged through the mud and then associated with that mud. Nonsense. Let us be men, not vermin.


So, you are by and large using the word *objectify* to mean the second definition...

Definition of objectify
objectified; objectifying
transitive verb
1
: to treat as an object or cause to have objective reality They believe that beauty pageants objectify women.

2
: to give expression to (something, such as an abstract notion, feeling, or ideal) in a form that can be experienced by others
It is the essence of the fairy tale to objectify differing facets of the child's emotional experience … — John Updike


It is always a good idea when using words which have more than one meaning to point to the meaning which you are using.
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: 14907
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Ecstasy on Earth.

Re: Which is First?

Postby UrGod » Thu Aug 31, 2017 8:34 pm

"I treat my objects like women." --Bo Burnham
I am your master.
User avatar
UrGod
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1662
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: Which is First?

Postby UrGod » Thu Aug 31, 2017 8:35 pm

Feminism is a disease of the soul, soul-rot. For men and women. No progress can be made until feminism is thrown in the trash heap of history. And only women can accomplish that.
I am your master.
User avatar
UrGod
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1662
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: Which is First?

Postby Serendipper » Thu Aug 31, 2017 10:12 pm

UrGod wrote:Feminism is a disease of the soul, soul-rot. For men and women. No progress can be made until feminism is thrown in the trash heap of history. And only women can accomplish that.

Feminism has repeatedly thrown empires into the trash heap and when women regain their humility by necessity of survival, the cycle repeats into a new empire built on strong families only to destroy itself once again by its own prosperity. https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2010/12 ... l-of-rome/
"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 Arcturus Descending » Fri Sep 01, 2017 3:23 pm

UrGod wrote:"I treat my objects like women." --Bo Burnham


I would suggest to you and Burnham that at the initial date or encounter with a woman you/he reveal that to her.

She could thereby observe/take note of just how you to treat your objects and how in turn you may treat her.

For example, if you gently pick up a chair and lovingly place it where you want it to be, she may learn something about you there.

If you grab the chair and just drop it to the floor, she will also learn something about you from that.

Of course, some men treat their material objects, place more value on them than they do women - so who is to say?

It all comes down to how you see value.
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: 14907
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Ecstasy on Earth.

Re: Which is First?

Postby Arcturus Descending » Fri Sep 01, 2017 3:25 pm

UrGod wrote:Feminism is a disease of the soul, soul-rot. For men and women. No progress can be made until feminism is thrown in the trash heap of history. And only women can accomplish that.


Was it one of your parents which brought you to that perspective? There are other lenses to try on, you know.
Or are you afraid of what you might see, what you might have to give up?
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: 14907
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Ecstasy on Earth.

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron