Value Ontology Resolutions

The problem was always to categorically define what a self-valuing is, or rather where it ends, what it is not. After all the notion includes everything that is involved in the sustenance of the process to which it pertains.

Natures majesty is that, in order to exist, which is to value the world in ones own terms / to be a subject / to nurture oneself and ward off threats, one has to be compatible with myriad other valuings.

So it is really quite simple: in order to be a self-valuing, one must be value. This value is not value to oneself, directly, but the same way a tree is of value to a human as it breathes out oxygen.

If not, evolution takes care of it; ‘the market will eliminate it’ as better, realer, higher values are selected.

To what is one of value? This determines largely ones self-valuing, in a practical arrangement. The ‘goal’ might be to be of value to precisely that which one values highest, so that its terms become ones own.

The golden rule is not enough - it fails on two accounts;

• one must be specific in ones own merit; one is not naturally gifted to do to others that which one would others have do to oneself’; one factually has no idea, usually, of either.
• one must act better than one would expect of others. The key to evolution is to outdo, in what Nietzsche calls bestowing virtue, ones environment.

Do you mind me asking what, exactly, you have resolved?

Ha. No. Which does not mean that it’s easy to explain. Admittedly, this thread is aimed mostly at those who have been with me, in cracking the cosmology that follows from the ontology; or rather cracking open the ontology into a cosmology.

VO starts as a monadoliogical principle which results, by implication, in plurality and difference.

One of the big questions was which path to take to relate the monads/logics/monado-logics to each other in synthetic terms. The resolution is basically me admitting to myself that the answer is pretty damned simple;

the outcome, in ethical, practical, philosophical terms, is simply that one has to have something to offer to thrive. Its ultrasimple, but it negates all Abrahamic religions, to begin with, which is important. It negates the idea that one can have a dignified existence without providing that dignity oneself; the world has nothing to offers besides being a willing recepticle for whoever does have something to offer; to those beings it grants survival and thriving and a cultivating of its type.

Depressed people, and Ive been depressed (though Pezer says I lack the real capacity for it) are basically too poor in the face of nature; they arent able to give anything, they are worthless to the world, and thus have no prospects of conquest; in extremo, Caesar and Alexander are men who knew what they have to give and that they had, at all costs, to give it.

In less extreme terms, there are the billions that freely give of themselves in kinds and dosages that arent so overbearing as to require physical violence for their proliferation.

Im saying though that the bestowing virtue is a violent thing, that gifts are always impositions, and that no one really wants to live in a world without violence. This is easily extended to physics; we could not exist without that unimaginable pit of destruction that is the sun; basically we need to find our proper distance to a violence for it to be benefic; but without violence, nothing lives.

This is reflected in the principle Thymos.

For good measure:

beforethelight.forumotion.com/t1 … e-ontology
beforethelight.forumotion.com/t4 … uing-logic
beforethelight.forumotion.com/t6 … e-ontology

By reading these threads, it will become clearer what there was for me to Resolve.

In a nutshell, the Theory is so Vast in its implications, that formulating it caused an Avalanche of new, unexplored ideas about all the fundamental concepts of the human mind.

Thence, my work on it was in supreme modesty, humbled as I was before the Majestic Nature of the Theory.
As my Ethics were rewarded by Time, the deep implications that were impossible to draw directly, simply because a Man can only hold so much Power at once, or Increase in Power only so much at once, were there to see once I had been somewhat immersed in Value-Ontological Praxis.

And this is why My Philosophy Works;
It only makes sense when you Work It.

Just like Life becomes unbearable when you are, like a good number of my readers, fundamentally opposed to Investing In It; Life will not Give anything to those who would rather take away from Existence than Enjoy;

“Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” - H.L. Mencken

I would say that self-valuing is not its own excess, and by that I mean that self-valuing is a fundamentally positive entity. To be a value to oneself is a negative equation, but to be a value for oneself is just what it means to be a value to others who are also a value to oneself… Mutualism. Oneself cannot be the direct object of one’s value, although of course all values of a self-valuing are ultimately self-referential and must serve some personal telos of some kind, even if a harmful one. Value-for is a world relation and mutual/multidimensional, value-to is an object relation and linear in nature.

Value-for adds surplus value beyond the investment of all parties; value-to equates gains and costs directly through 1:1 categorical conversions. For example a slave is a value-to a master or an economy but doesn’t add any additional value beyond that value of being a slave, whereas if a slave is also a value-for then they are values-linked to others in society somehow and are producing or contributing to a larger swell of value beyond their narrow role as a slave.

The principle of freedom is so fundamental because when you enshrine freedom as a legal and social value you free self-valuing more toward value-for and away from only value-to, and naturally self-valuing will seek those experiences in which it links to larger surplus value fields. The problem is that as you mention some people cannot figure how to add value and so focus on taking value, so even their somewhat freed value-for becomes collapsed into a kind of value-to (to themselves), in compensation first for the fact that for whatever reason they cannot add value and then later for the fact that due to the first fact no one else is going to add value to them either, so they are stuck trying to do it alone, which doesn’t really work.

Well it would work if there is a very large field of resources and shared values to draw from so the self-valuing can value-to itself as an object relation without immediate depletion of its values surplus. The fast that human being has recorded itself in written, spoken and video word, images and stories, makes it possible for self-valuing in isolation to attempt to simulate value-for relationships by fetishizing recorded images of human being. And yet even that can end up producing real writing, real art, real theory and philosophy but again, is not really receiving any value-for transactions of mutual values so it’s questionable how long that could last.

I would say the resolutions should include the immanently social nature of self-valuing. Even an isolated self-valuing is already-always socially rooted and world-interconnected. Self-valuing is a more realistic psychological principle with which to replace the idea of the ego.

In the field of psychology, this is what it is, indeed. It also shows what the whole narrative of ‘sacrificing the ego for the higher self’ means; to start self-valuing on a realistic level. To take into account the actual influences that one receives and exerts, to understand ‘dharma’ as it is called in India - to understand this social nature of the human entity. I.e. to understand ones own conditions means to become more of an entity.

As I said on BTL (beforethelight.forumotion.com/t668-tax-rates) I am in strong agreement with the value-to and value-for distinction.

I think it’s often not so much the case that people cant figure out how to add value, but that they lack the ‘minerals’, that they just have to be accepted as quasi-entities. This may be very cynical, but Ive never seen someone transform from a bland sack of shit to a creative genius.

Most people will simply not be able to do more than, say, bake bread, and will usually be engaged in much less, such as sales or bureaucratic administration, works that reduces to pure analytic states, quasi-being. A kind of ‘potential existence’ state from which an entity can be born, in case that say, someone potentially healthy who is in telephone sales decides to start to bake bread or plant vegetables. Or even pick up a guitar and spend the next year with bleeding hands.

Scene 1-
Fabulous exit… so much drama.

Iakob recedes into the shadows… his gestures were not enough to impress, not flamboyant, not extreme, not impact enough, for such “numb” minds.
The magic spells had failed. He had failed Abraham.
He had been un-covered, re-veel-ed.
Time to heal, come up with a new plan, settle for the men-children clamoring to be his children, hungry for the teet, so darn sweet.
Soon a clever plan will be concocted, to taunt, from afar… to draw them back, to make them look his way, when the men-children bore him, once more, and they are no longer enough for his fragile ego, and slavish spirit to inflate.
He had failed his God of nil, dressed in positivist drab, drag-queen, paraphernalia.
They could not accepted his genius, he the true heir of the commander, no less, but I digress.
Nobody gets it… nobody understands.
It is simple, but complex, you must feel it, heart it, accept it into your spirit, to see the magic.
It defies definition, not wanting to be exposed, as no more than hot flashes, trembling eye-lashes.
Nobody could appreciate the magician - his offering not for this age.
He would have to return with new ways, new words, new tricks - performances updated for discriminating minds, of all kinds.
He will make them see his brilliance.
What did the commander think of you?
Did he appreciate you?
Did he?
The only true Nieatzschean.

Maybe a new word, to baptize his new God, rename him for the children - freshen up the image, repackage recycled garbage, for a new generation of idiots.

One having no father, the other no sons, they were bromancers, dancers, prancers, looking to the other for what they could not find in self.

Scene 2-
You just don’t get it random reader, Value Ontology is magic.
It is here, there, everywhere - quicksilver, it is and it is not.
It can be anything, at any time, for any one… it is perspectivism pushed to its limit, its absolute end.
It is all and nothing.
It in within and without - up, and down and all-around.
It is whatever you say it is, and more.
Not even he can explain it, like Jesus, you have to let him into your heart for him to make sense.
He refuses to try, because that would limit the way some other chooses to accept the “philosophy”, less fish to fry - it restricts the potential audience, of this universal spiritual gift.
He has to sell, SELL, SELL!!!
It is meant to seduce, all, be universal.

It is “substance”, but not exactly, like “love”, but that word is taken, like “will”, but let us distance ourselves from that word because value encompasses and surpasses it… it is “type” but that would be too simple for such a mystical word worthy of a uni-versal urban shaman.
The word gathers the worthy, the chosen, the van-clan.
Each understanding it in his/her own way.

It is value-selfing, when you like him, and not that, when you criticize.
It’s all about you, the self, see.
You admiring him.
If you have the right stuff… like Muslims who accuse those that reject Allah of having no soul, deserving not the glory of eternal life.
You have to feeeel it in your heart, surrender to it, like the infantile minds he prefers.
The more positive your attitude the closer you get - negativity distances value from you.
Accept it, and it makes sense, it is clear; reject it and you are unworthy, you just cannot understand.
You cannot have it… because you hate.
It’s a mind-trap, clap-trap, rat-trap - vermin cometh and move in to stay, and play… drums and piano, cRapping into the night.
Bugs in warm rugs, cunts with cigarette blunts.
A better alternative to dish-washing, that’s for sure.

It’s this and it is that, depending on the attack, the motive…and the time of day - star alignments and the such.

If this exposes the mind, then it is not this, then it is that again.
It is an idea before its time - to be fully understood hundreds of years from now, when greater minds evolve - then his genius will be fully appreciated.
It is power but also vulnerability, love but also hate… it is tolerant and elitist, Christian and Pagan, true when false, and false when true, harsh but kind, yours and mine, all the time sublime - it is whatever self it is, at any given time - self-valuing… loving self no matter what.
What could be wrong with that?
Not ego, self.
Biiig difference.
It is whatever self says it is.

=D>
Mention my name, once more, calling for the authorities.
'Till next time, when wounds heal, and you have answers.
Until then… I am looking forward to the deep significance of your fArt.
Master-Baiter
I will be watching, the trailers, not buying a ticket.

Ta… and Ta!

p.s.
Stop following me around, obsessive twat.
Addiction is to the body what obsession is to the mind.
I leave you to pan for gold, in this mud-pile.

^ How is this user allowed to keep posting here?

I think those kind of transformations are happening a lot, but on small levels. If we could look inside someone’s emotions for example, or their ideas, we would see these kind of ‘sparks’ flying around the self-valuing matrices and sometimes gathering into a little firestorm of sorts. The material conditions are lacking much of the time to clearly and directly potentiate genius-level work, but there are many tiers of sub-genius work that are still significant and valuable. As you noted, humans are just fucking awesome beings, if you get right down to it.

The world doesn’t need more than a small number of true geniuses at any given time. It is enough that a large chunk of the rest of the populace is able to somewhat follow suit and be the active translation of those higher values into life, weaving history.

Blessed are the meek of heart.

Instead of iron rules, the wise follow silk rules; threads, delicately placed by fate.

Rules one takes up because of where they may lead, rather than where they certainly come from; one trusts in the first instance ones hopeful expectations, precisely because one has been born with the proclivity for such; the millions of sexual acts that amounted in this being were performed by people with the optimism of health. A pessimism is strong only when, as in Nietzsche’s case, sickness is a certainty.

He performs sexual favors to Only Humean.

Before the gods I proclaim that such is my experience, and that this is why I am so in love with the world.
It is my pride and joy to awaken sparks in men and women and children and even animals, and my gratitude to those that spark storms in me is infinite.

Ah, beautifully said.
I was about to put it in my signature, for its sheer brutality. It certainly speaks directly to the Thucydidean heart.

I wished to make a thread for this but saw that there is no better place for a definition of valuing types, than this one.

The Wretch pur-sang;
the phrase itself is a painful contradiction.
But what such a wretch will never fail to do, is to take anothers blessing, botch it by his own measure & ratio and spit it back at the nobleman, from whom it was issued as a blessing, in the form and quality of the cursed but harmless bad breath of a one-too-many.

To us, who regardless of whatever bask in the glory of the world because we are able to value it in our own terms, wretchedness is pervasive as vapor but equally harmless; health is precisely that which withstands wretchedness, and great health withstands it joyfully.

VO dictates that it is noble to give unto Ceasar what is rightfully his… and to this end, I say, fools deserve just as much.
And more,
So praise be with those who seek to make dresses, for soft caresses, starting a fashion trend,
Because an artist who thinks of posterity, and prosperity, before his art, is truly a one-eyed cyclops among the blind
Who only wish to be treated kind

And what a revolution, to the philosophical continuity, this idea of goodness, pre-existence
for the cowards an insistence

For what lies not out there, must certainly be placed in there, for the needy, and the greedy
In all, a share, Marxist equality, to do away with nature’s “depravity”.
Finally a new term for humanity

Let us dance to love creating world
And we not fooled
surrendering to its glee
everywhere we look a deity
spirit in a stone, hugging itself into one-ness
such tender self value-ness, value selfishness.

inject Jesus back into the Pagan soul
Modernize the scripture
for a cynical crowd of youthful knaves high on chemical joy
how is there no value in itself
lost souls, sold on detaching the past from souls
glory to the one who beholds

Weakness has always been exploited by weaker shamelessness
history unfolds.
repeating its-self
Dawn to dusk and dusk to dawn

What joy is there, in being ill?
But still, better than none at all.

for the strong, to stand tall, the world is a blessing
not requiring a mind numbing parsing
Wretchedness is that which lies to itself, and selectively sees, and collectively admirers
to be one, in other, it aspires.

How wonderful to live, and watch manimals live and die, run and hide,
feel such happiness in their wretchedness.
Madman feels solace in the madhouse, by reinventing lucidity to mean insanity
What powerful magic words hold, when they require no standard beyond the self, except the dictionary.
aiding in the spread of the dis-ease
When words are felt, what limit is left, but emotion…exploding in devotion
for all that make it feel good.

would not a bug feel superior to a man?
Because more radiation it can withstand?

scripture cleanses the spirit of such sins.
repeat the prayer, and cast your fears aside, let love take over
let pleasure be our guide.

How many of the wretched have been sold
to the lies of the shameless bold?
What more is needed but a pleasant word?
a certainty
hope
to cope

What value does love have when all deserve it?
What pride does a man gain, being pleasured by a whore?
How precious is she if all can find her, and have her, if they work and earn the right?

peitho banned. I should have held out for those sexual favours, though.

It is distressing to see someone so utterly helpless. Especially since the helplessness has increased as he labored harder for years on end. Some years ago it was still possible to now and and then traces of a functioning mind.

VO is an ontology. “Value Ontology” is an ontology. I know this is difficult to understand if you have braindamage.
But regardless of some peoples braindamage, ontology does not ‘dictate what is noble’. I mean it does this in the damaged brain, but that isn’t really our concern.

An ontology describes what is.
Not what should be. Or what should be done.

Even if one is not as severely disabled as to be thinking that ontology prescribes what is noble, one may still find it difficult to understand how value is an ontic substance.
This difficulty is because of the resistance of the Christian idea that value is a god-given thing. This is not the case; in fact, there is no god, and value is only that toward which an entity moves. An entity is always in motion, and always to its values, or away from its negative values.

And since physics declares that all is motion, all is determined by values.

Let this sink in.
Questions will be answered if they are somewhat sane.

Satyr and Jakob have each adopted a philosophical world view which is diametrically opposite to that of the other
one. But some times they leave their ivory towers and start discussing more mundane matters. Such as each others
cock size and sexual history. Now they are old sparring partners and so there is no need to be alarmed and so watch
from the gallery like everyone else. To see what [ if any ] wisdom they may be imparting to us mere mortals this time

What is wrong with analytical philosophy ? What is wrong with critical thinking ? What is wrong with
favouring logic over emotion or science over philosophy as a means of understanding the universe ?
Are you a negative or positive nihilist ? What is your worldview compressed into a single sentence ?

Precisely. Analytical philosophy does not provide means to rationally think. In fact, it demands that we abandon all reason before we enter its ‘logics’, which are hallucinatory contraptions of very silly, very silly men.

Science over philosophy? How would that work?
But again, analytic philosophy has no relation to logic. It plays with the terms, and juggles them around like it’s carnival, but it’s for show only.