Moderator: Only_Humean
Pezer wrote:So, how about a psychology that studies us with the scope of the will to power, which I think here applies quite well, as in the art of understanding the will? A psychology that understands itself as a tool, a craft, and not a leveler. In this way, psychological craft, or study, would value itself and its art. Everything that it found would be included in a valuing system instead of a leveling, with many levels.
Sauwelios wrote:Fixed Cross wrote:You have it wrong. The distortion is the massive 'object', and it is not an object, but affect.
I was just using xkcd's words. And don't you mean "effect"? Or is that your own, Nietzschean addition? For surely the science does not say that it's affect!
Nor would such a simplistic analysis do away with the usefulness of the model.
One of its uses is that it enables us to imagine time and mass /energy as being the same fabric.
That's fine, but in that it's no different from any other space-time model (e.g., block-time). What does the notion of curvedness add to the notion of a space-time continuum, with regard to its imaginability?
Ah, so you decided to use the word "metaphysical" correctly again for a change. Yes, of course I believe that; so do you! The bond that you propose is the bond of their shared "self-valuing".
No, I don't. This nonsense is precisely what value-ontology does away with. There is no valuing-ness being posited. Self-valuings are not units of a greater, all encompassing meta-thing that gives them their character.
They're all "self-valuings"... You coined the term "will-to-power-ness". I've never claimed that the will to power be an all-encompassing "meta-thing" that gives beings their character!
Obviously "it's simply there" is not all I say about it! As Heidegger himself says, "will to power" is a Nietzschean answer to the question "What is being [Seiendes]?"...
And that answer is not "it is simply there" at all.
Really?? Does Nietzsche ask, "Why is there will to power and not rather nothing?" or anything like that?? Then tell me where!
1. An individual, group, structure, or other entity regarded as an elementary structural or functional constituent of a whole.
2. A group regarded as a distinct entity within a larger group.
3.
a. A mechanical part or module.
b. An entire apparatus or the equipment that performs a specific function.
4. A precisely specified quantity in terms of which the magnitudes of other quantities of the same kind can be stated.
5. Medicine The quantity of a vaccine, serum, drug, or other agent necessary to produce a specific effect.
6.
a. A fixed amount of scholastic study used as a basis for calculating academic credits, usually measured in hours of classroom instruction or laboratory work.
b. A section of an academic course focusing on a selected theme: a unit on Native Americans.
7. The number immediately to the left of the decimal point in the Arabic numeral system.
8. Mathematics
a. The lowest positive whole number; one.
b. An element of a ring with a multiplicative inverse.
( http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unit )
Fixed Cross wrote:What is needed here is the explanation of the relation, the relating, of different encroaching units. The explanation of why units are both the same (will to power, energy, being) and different (not occupying the same space, interacting with each other, exerting force on each other, willing power over each other).
James S Saint wrote:Fixed Cross wrote:What is needed here is the explanation of the relation, the relating, of different encroaching units. The explanation of why units are both the same (will to power, energy, being) and different (not occupying the same space, interacting with each other, exerting force on each other, willing power over each other).
And in steps Rational Metaphysics..
An essential element in RM is Definitional Logic, obviously focused on definitions. Throughout this thread, I couldn't help but note that a quintessential word has been left undefined and freely used with both of its common definitions. Such always leads to arguments of course (as intended). That word, is "Truth".
When that word is defined in a specific manner, I can fully support the notion and concept of "Value-Ontology" and can even incontrovertibly prove its validity. But on the other hand, if left loosely defined or undefined, much like the issue of the undefined "God", disbelief and serpent bane is inevitable. And because the word was not defined by the authors of Value-Ontology, I could only support its notion casually and by exception of noting that the word "probably meant a specific thing, although since it was never defined", much like the Bible, it becomes anyone's guess and not worth the political struggle to support whether it was true or not, valuable or not. It loses its value due to its obscurity and vague implications, which in the case of Nietzsche leads directly into serious selfish conflict and disharmony.
Being a little familiar with Fixed Cross, I can surmise what he is intending to say and can confirm, assuming I have guessed properly, that Value-Ontology is in fact valid and valuable as a real and fundamental philosophy of life. Presuming what it really means, I can state that reality itself does in fact work exactly as is being described. Entities respond to all things with respect to their own "self-interest" or they perish, in all cases. Value-Ontology in the interest of its own name, must learn the self-value of fully knowing thyself, and in this case, revealing it in clear text.
But a small bit of advice would be to very quickly establish the proposed means to avoid the train of disharmony quickly approaching by very thoroughly specifying by what means any particulate harmony is to be established under such a value system or thought. That which cannot maintain its "self-interest" harmony (Self-Harmony), WILLs itself to the power of extinction. Homosapian as a species is quickly actualizing that as we idly converse.
Cezar wrote:1. Christianity is anti-master morality.
2. The Enlightenment movement was against "superstition", but it could not create new gods or create new values and a new class to stand behind those new values.
3. The Enlightenment has so opened the door for the atheist form of Christianity - socialism.
Today we suffer from crazy women who think they are the measure of all things (because women are socialists) and from infertile intellectuals who are unable to beat that socialism and create new values.
Cezar wrote: The Enlightenment movement was against "superstition", but it could not create new gods or create new values and a new class to stand behind those new values.
Liberty from the church and the tyrannical God - but liberty for what? As this question remains unanswered by anything other than in general "the fulfillment of passions", capital flows towards all sources of pleasure. The "artist-tyrant" is he who conceives of higher pleasures, capable of inspiring greater forces than the attraction of sex and violence, and from such power may flow a healthy super-national capitalist state, naturally ranked, layered in terms of capacity to value and attain to higher values. Of course capacity to value is physiologically defined, so there will have to be, as part of such a meta-states establishment and maintenance, a tradition of physical, physiological and psychological discipline, a "yoga" whereby strong willed humans are enabled to ascend and educate their children.
Cezar wrote:So, you claim nationalism and "Nazism" are in deed reactions upon something, as if there were an action behind that?
Until now I have seen the occurrence of nationalism as a typical English product which had no root in any action or reaction upon Enlightenment.
Like I have said once:
Nationalism - a lie that all people who speak the same language belong to the same race (a Christian lie against warriors and aristocracy)
"Nazism" (national-socialism) - a lie that people who speak the similar language belong to the same race (a Christian lie against warriors, aristocracy and oligarchy)
Socialism - a lie that all people are equal, i.e. belong to the same "Human race". (a Christian lie against W, A, O and everybody who is able to affirm life which is not suffering)
There is and was no connection between them and the Greeks. Who claims the opposite he works for Christianity.
Liberty from the church and the tyrannical God - but liberty for what? As this question remains unanswered by anything other than in general "the fulfillment of passions", capital flows towards all sources of pleasure. The "artist-tyrant" is he who conceives of higher pleasures, capable of inspiring greater forces than the attraction of sex and violence, and from such power may flow a healthy super-national capitalist state, naturally ranked, layered in terms of capacity to value and attain to higher values. Of course capacity to value is physiologically defined, so there will have to be, as part of such a meta-states establishment and maintenance, a tradition of physical, physiological and psychological discipline, a "yoga" whereby strong willed humans are enabled to ascend and educate their children.
You approve all the lies mentioned above!
And this is pure decadence. It doesn't matter how many drives you take under observation as long as there is no rule of the reason. "Pleasure" means to lose control over yourself and to ignore a higher happiness, a victory or a higher body! In fact, without the reason, higher drives can not exist. Higher drives are lived inside of the works of art, but which arts do you have available in out modern times? And which classes are present? Thus this all is eliminated and drugs and sex become wings.
The future depends on the forces which are capable for a revaluation-based new aristocratization.
Cezar wrote:I thought you were talking about nationalism as reaction against the idea of the brotherly love.
But pleasure shall not be mistaken with happiness.
Someone who is able to have sex still doesn't need to affirm life.
Someone who can differ happiness from sex can surely affirm life.
Sex is a humiliation to the degree of lower types of organisms. That is why it is made secretly.
Also work is a humiliation to the degree of an animal, because it serves only to gain food.
Who is humiliated, he can surely not affirm life.
Therefore, if we are decadents a half of a life, I would not allow someone who is over 30 (or maybe over 25) to mix up pleasure and happiness.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot]