The Grand Scheme

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

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

The Grand Scheme

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Sep 14, 2016 2:22 am

To 'problematize' "value".
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: 6866
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: The Grand Scheme

Postby Erik_ » Wed Sep 14, 2016 2:04 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:To 'problematize' "value".


Too vague. Elaborate.
Erik_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2359
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 2:27 pm
Location: Kingdom

Re: The Grand Scheme

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Sep 14, 2016 3:42 pm

It may be hard to decipher for a bored, untested mind because it is the very opposite of vague.

It is an aphorism that is as sharp as aphorisms get.

But it remains an aphorism; one needs the carry powerful weight in philosophy to address it (to be addressed by it).
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: 6866
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: The Grand Scheme

Postby perpetualburn » Wed Sep 14, 2016 5:38 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:
It is an aphorism that is as sharp as aphorisms get.



And yet it's not even a sentence.
perpetualburn
 
Posts: 135
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 3:57 am

Re: The Grand Scheme

Postby iambiguous » Wed Sep 14, 2016 5:56 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:To 'problematize' "value".


Okay, how is to 'problematize' "value" different from to problematize value?

And how is that different from to not problematize value?

And can you provide us with a particular value of your own to which this is applicable.

Also, if another suggests that what you value is wrong how more or less problematic will/can that discussion become?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 22379
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: The Grand Scheme

Postby Sauwelios » Thu Sep 15, 2016 6:10 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:To 'problematize' "value".


Okay, how is to 'problematize' "value" different from to problematize value?


I'd say the single quotation marks are "scare quotes" whereas the double ones mark an actual quotation--which in this case, with no information about the source of the quote, must simply mean the word "value". (I personally don't distinguish between different kinds of quotes in this way, using single marks only for quotes within quotes.) So what I think Fixed Cross is suggesting here is that we turn the term "value" into what certain minds outside of the in-group addressed by him would consider a problem. His address may be titled "The Grand Scheme" because "problematizing" "value" is a "scheme" which is "grand", and/or because such "problems" are not really problems in the grand scheme of things; they are only problematic for the small-minded.
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7179
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: The Grand Scheme

Postby James S Saint » Thu Sep 15, 2016 6:54 pm

It is the "scheme" of "creating value" to promote "value".
.. " ".
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25609
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: The Grand Scheme

Postby iambiguous » Fri Sep 16, 2016 6:55 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:To 'problematize' "value".


Okay, how is to 'problematize' "value" different from to problematize value?


I'd say the single quotation marks are "scare quotes" whereas the double ones mark an actual quotation--which in this case, with no information about the source of the quote, must simply mean the word "value". (I personally don't distinguish between different kinds of quotes in this way, using single marks only for quotes within quotes.) So what I think Fixed Cross is suggesting here is that we turn the term "value" into what certain minds outside of the in-group addressed by him would consider a problem. His address may be titled "The Grand Scheme" because "problematizing" "value" is a "scheme" which is "grand", and/or because such "problems" are not really problems in the grand scheme of things; they are only problematic for the small-minded.


Maybe, but the part that interest me most still revolves more around this:

And can you provide us with a particular value of your own to which this is applicable.
Also, if another suggests that what you value is wrong how more or less problematic will/can that discussion become?


That way we can bring the words out into the world of actual human interactions and explore the extent to which whatever meaning he aims to impart in them might be made relevant to that which is of most interest to folks like me: How ought one to live?

Is there or is there not anything remotely the equivalent of a "grand scheme" here? And are there or are there not ways in which to make a rational distinction between the "small-minded" and the "high-minded"?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 22379
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: The Grand Scheme

Postby Sauwelios » Fri Sep 16, 2016 9:06 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Okay, how is to 'problematize' "value" different from to problematize value?


I'd say the single quotation marks are "scare quotes" whereas the double ones mark an actual quotation--which in this case, with no information about the source of the quote, must simply mean the word "value". (I personally don't distinguish between different kinds of quotes in this way, using single marks only for quotes within quotes.) So what I think Fixed Cross is suggesting here is that we turn the term "value" into what certain minds outside of the in-group addressed by him would consider a problem. His address may be titled "The Grand Scheme" because "problematizing" "value" is a "scheme" which is "grand", and/or because such "problems" are not really problems in the grand scheme of things; they are only problematic for the small-minded.


Maybe, but the part that interest me most still revolves more around this:

And can you provide us with a particular value of your own to which this is applicable.
Also, if another suggests that what you value is wrong how more or less problematic will/can that discussion become?


That way we can bring the words out into the world of actual human interactions and explore the extent to which whatever meaning he aims to impart in them might be made relevant to that which is of most interest to folks like me: How ought one to live?

Is there or is there not anything remotely the equivalent of a "grand scheme" here? And are there or are there not ways in which to make a rational distinction between the "small-minded" and the "high-minded"?


I think this calls for a quote:

"When President Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union 'the evil empire', right-thinking persons joined in an angry chorus of protest against such provocative rhetoric. At other times Mr. Reagan has said that the United States and the Soviet Union 'have different values' (italics added), an assertion that those same persons greet at worst with silence and frequently with approval. I believe he thought he was saying the same thing in both instances, and the different reation to his different words introduces us to the most important and most astonishing phenomenon of our time, all the more astonishing in being almost unnoticed: there is now an entirely new language of good and evil, originating in an attempt to get 'beyond good and evil' and preventing us from talking with any conviction about good and evil anymore. Even those who deplore our current moral condition do so in the very language that exemplifies that condition.
The new language is that of value relativism, and it constitutes a change in our view of things moral and political as great as the one that took place when Christianity replaced Greek and Roman paganism." (Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind, "The German Connection".)

Christianity--the preparation of whose replacement of Greek and Roman paganism already began around the time of Socrates, by the way--provided a simple answer to the question how one ought to live: "by being good as opposed to evil--i.e., by accepting Christ as one's Saviour, etc."

One "problematizes" "value" by showing--as you do, because you see it--that there is no obvious (self-evident) reason for valuing, say, life over liberty ("choice") or vice versa; in other words, that there is no simple answer to the question how one ought to live. Even the simplest answer is paradoxical:

When the question how one ought to live is not answered before it is raised, the simplest answer to it is the following: "Until the answer to that question is found, the most rational answer to it is: 'One ought to live in the service of the quest for that answer.'" Hence "Philosophical Supremacism".

But this supposes that there is such an answer. Is there an indisputable value? Valuation itself is a rational value, but reason rests on a merely axiomatic self-identical "A". Thus "knowledge" undermines itself; the only Being we know is the self-asserting Being...

We, the philosopically royal we, contend that high-mindedness consists in asserting one's own high-mindedness, in asserting the assertion of one's own high-mindedness, in asserting the high-mindedness of one's self-assertion! The problematicness of our value does not scare us off...
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7179
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: The Grand Scheme

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri Sep 16, 2016 10:31 pm

Ave Sauwelios

Independently of your work, a phrase that comes up explaining my position on quantumprocessing to Pezer (on which he agrees);


"yes-gradient"
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: 6866
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: The Grand Scheme

Postby Magnus Anderson » Fri Sep 16, 2016 11:46 pm

How pretentious.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3551
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: The Grand Scheme

Postby iambiguous » Sat Sep 17, 2016 8:05 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
One "problematizes" "value" by showing--as you do, because you see it--that there is no obvious (self-evident) reason for valuing, say, life over liberty ("choice") or vice versa; in other words, that there is no simple answer to the question how one ought to live.


There does not appear to be a moral foundation -- a transcending font -- that mere mortals can turn to in a Godless universe. Yet even that can only be a subjective assumption. After all, what particular mere mortals have any of us here come across who are actually able to demonstrate that a God, the God does or does not in fact exist?

Instead, each of us starts with one or another rendition of God or No God. And, if No God, one or another rendition of Reason. And, if Reason, one or another rendition of a deontological contraption [philosophical realism] or one or another rendition of ideology [political idealism].

And this [in my view] is rooted largely in dasein.

Nietzsche for example connected the dots and "thought up" the idea of the "Uberman". But all this is [in my view] is Nietzsche's own existential rendition of how men ought to live "naturally" given that there is no God able to embody the one and only one "supernatural" narrative/agenda.

It is just one of hundreds of political agendas that have been passed down to us through the ages. As were the more "scientific" agendas of Darwin and Marx and Freud.

But doesn't it always come down in the end to that which we are able or not able to demonstrate as "true for all of us"? After all, we can claim to believe or to know...anything. And we can create either more or less sophisticated arguments that are said to be true or not true depending almost entirely on conflicted sets of dueling definitions and deductions.

Sauwelios wrote:When the question how one ought to live is not answered before it is raised, the simplest answer to it is the following: "Until the answer to that question is found, the most rational answer to it is: 'One ought to live in the service of the quest for that answer.'" Hence "Philosophical Supremacism".


Which just brings me back to this:

1] ...can you provide us with a particular value of your own to which this is applicable?
2] ...if another suggests that what you value is wrong how more or less problematic will/can that discussion become?


And that's the part embedded largely in conflicting goods and political economy. Or so it seems to me.

Sauwelios wrote:But this supposes that there is such an answer. Is there an indisputable value? Valuation itself is a rational value, but reason rests on a merely axiomatic self-identical "A". Thus "knowledge" undermines itself; the only Being we know is the self-asserting Being...

We, the philosopically royal we, contend that high-mindedness consists in asserting one's own high-mindedness, in asserting the assertion of one's own high-mindedness, in asserting the high-mindedness of one's self-assertion! The problematicness of our value does not scare us off...


Same here.

What "on earth" do you mean by this pertaining to your own interactions with others?

Or is it -- the Grand Scheme itself -- meant merely to be ironic?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 22379
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: The Grand Scheme

Postby Sauwelios » Sun Sep 18, 2016 2:36 am

iambiguous wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
One "problematizes" "value" by showing--as you do, because you see it--that there is no obvious (self-evident) reason for valuing, say, life over liberty ("choice") or vice versa; in other words, that there is no simple answer to the question how one ought to live.


There does not appear to be a moral foundation -- a transcending font -- that mere mortals can turn to in a Godless universe. Yet even that can only be a subjective assumption. After all, what particular mere mortals have any of us here come across who are actually able to demonstrate that a God, the God does or does not in fact exist?

Instead, each of us starts with one or another rendition of God or No God. And, if No God, one or another rendition of Reason. And, if Reason, one or another rendition of a deontological contraption [philosophical realism] or one or another rendition of ideology [political idealism].

And this [in my view] is rooted largely in dasein.

Nietzsche for example connected the dots and "thought up" the idea of the "Uberman". But all this is [in my view] is Nietzsche's own existential rendition of how men ought to live "naturally" given that there is no God able to embody the one and only one "supernatural" narrative/agenda.

It is just one of hundreds of political agendas that have been passed down to us through the ages. As were the more "scientific" agendas of Darwin and Marx and Freud.

But doesn't it always come down in the end to that which we are able or not able to demonstrate as "true for all of us"? After all, we can claim to believe or to know...anything. And we can create either more or less sophisticated arguments that are said to be true or not true depending almost entirely on conflicted sets of dueling definitions and deductions.


I disagree with you about Nietzsche, because I don't think there's a (fundamental) difference between his "there is no God" and your "(in my view) it's all largely rooted in dasein". His Übermensch is a largely open concept. What's clear, however, is that, unlike you, an Übermensch will not wallow in the infirmity of dasein, but affirm it and thereby sublate it.

Your wallowing is clear from your last paragraph, your conclusion, your "what it always come down to in the end" (which however your infirmity forces you to phrase as a question): you've halted at "what it seems like to me"; you're halted before the threshold which one must will oneself across, have the strength of will to cross, muster the strength to cross--again and again.


Sauwelios wrote:When the question how one ought to live is not answered before it is raised, the simplest answer to it is the following: "Until the answer to that question is found, the most rational answer to it is: 'One ought to live in the service of the quest for that answer.'" Hence "Philosophical Supremacism".


Which just brings me back to this:

1] ...can you provide us with a particular value of your own to which this is applicable?
2] ...if another suggests that what you value is wrong how more or less problematic will/can that discussion become?


And that's the part embedded largely in conflicting goods and political economy. Or so it seems to me.


We've had this discussion before. If, say, aborting you baby furthers philosophy more, you should abort it; if keeping it furthers it more, you should keep it. But how do you know? You don't, you have to consider how it seems to you and then make a decision...


Sauwelios wrote:But this supposes that there is such an answer. Is there an indisputable value? Valuation itself is a rational value, but reason rests on a merely axiomatic self-identical "A". Thus "knowledge" undermines itself; the only Being we know is the self-asserting Being...

We, the philosopically royal we, contend that high-mindedness consists in asserting one's own high-mindedness, in asserting the assertion of one's own high-mindedness, in asserting the high-mindedness of one's self-assertion! The problematicness of our value does not scare us off...


Same here.

What "on earth" do you mean by this pertaining to your own interactions with others?


It means I value self-assertion insofar as it's self-aware--i.e., aware of the "fact" that it's an assertion. What this means pertaining to my interactions with others I will leave, in part, to your imagination: what do you think happens when one asserts oneself as high-minded for such a self-aware self-assertion? But I won't just leave it to your imagination, as this correspondence is itself an interaction of mine with another...


Or is it -- the Grand Scheme itself -- meant merely to be ironic?


What does "merely ironic" mean when irony both means what it says and its opposite?
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7179
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: The Grand Scheme

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Sep 18, 2016 7:33 am

Fixed Cross wrote:To 'problematize' "value".

To 'problematize' would involve 'problem-solving.'
To apply problem-solving techniques to "value" we need to quantify 'value' in some effective approaches to establish some initial grounds and bases for relative comparisons.
There are many ways to quantify "value" e.g. axiology.

Axiology (from Greek ἀξίᾱ, axiā, "value, worth"; and -λόγος, -logos) is the philosophical study of value. It is either the collective term for ethics and aesthetics[1]—philosophical fields that depend crucially on notions of worth—or the foundation for these fields, and thus similar to value theory and meta-ethics. The term was first used by Paul Lapie, in 1902,[2] and Eduard von Hartmann, in 1908.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1019
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: The Grand Scheme

Postby iambiguous » Mon Sep 19, 2016 8:05 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
I disagree with you about Nietzsche, because I don't think there's a (fundamental) difference between his "there is no God" and your "(in my view) it's all largely rooted in dasein". His Übermensch is a largely open concept. What's clear, however, is that, unlike you, an Übermensch will not wallow in the infirmity of dasein, but affirm it and thereby sublate it.


Over and again I make it clear that dasein can educe either positive or negative embodiments of nihilism. Yes, to the extent that I am entangled in my dilemma, I recognize the essential futility of any particular political prejudice that I might have come to embrace existentially. There are no necessarily moral or immoral behaviors. And the extent to which I embrace one or another personal opinion is rooted subjectively/subjunctively in the life that I have lived. Rather than through, say, a philosophical analysis a la folks like Plato or Descartes or Kant.

Or Nietzsche. The Übermensch is no less a political prejudice derived from a set of subjective assumptions that Nietzsche made regarding human interaction in Godless universe. Just as are all the political contraptions concocted by those who reject it.

But there is clearly a distinction to be made between "there is no God" and "largely rooted in dasein". In other words, as this pertains to moral and political values. After all, someone might reject God but then merely replace Him with one or another rendition of Reason:

1] a dogmatic political ideology or
2] a deontological philosophical agenda

But, from my perspective, both approaches become embodied psychologically in this:

1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life.

2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.

3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.

4] Some begin to share this philosophy with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others...it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.

5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.

6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity....on their very Self.

7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with "logic".

And, in a more positive vein, once you come to recognize the extent to which your values are the embodiment of dasein [in a world of conflicting goods and political economy] you recognize that you are afforded considerably more options. After all, to the extent that you embrace one or another "value ontology" is the extent to which you always judge your own behaviors [and the behaviors of others] is either Reasonable or Unreasonable, Right or Wrong.

Instead of beyond both. You come to a particular conclusion regarding the "natural" way in which to live [in sync with the way in which you construe the world to be] and then you set about making that crucial distinction between "one of them" and "one of us". Call it the Satyr Syndrome. But there are any number of folks here who are just like him. They simply argue that, "no, Satyr is wrong because he does not think like I do".

Sauwelios wrote:Your wallowing is clear from your last paragraph, your conclusion, your "what it always come down to in the end" (which however your infirmity forces you to phrase as a question): you've halted at "what it seems like to me"; you're halted before the threshold which one must will oneself across, have the strength of will to cross, muster the strength to cross--again and again.


Again and again: What on earth does something like this mean? Can you cite a particular context enabling you to demonstrate how it is not applicable to you?


Sauwelios wrote:When the question how one ought to live is not answered before it is raised, the simplest answer to it is the following: "Until the answer to that question is found, the most rational answer to it is: 'One ought to live in the service of the quest for that answer.'" Hence "Philosophical Supremacism".


Which just brings me back to this:

1] ...can you provide us with a particular value of your own to which this is applicable?
2] ...if another suggests that what you value is wrong how more or less problematic will/can that discussion become?


And that's the part embedded largely in conflicting goods and political economy. Or so it seems to me.


Sauwelios wrote:We've had this discussion before. If, say, aborting you baby furthers philosophy more, you should abort it; if keeping it furthers it more, you should keep it. But how do you know? You don't, you have to consider how it seems to you and then make a decision...


Do you honestly imagine that when folks embrace either of the conflicting goods embedded in the abortion wars, they are concerned with furthering or not furthering philosophy?

Instead, my point is that "how it seems to you" is embodied existentially in dasein. And to the extent some folks recognize this and try to "make a decision" they construe to be the most rational or virtuous [using the tools of philosophy], they are still entangled in the conflicting goods.

What are your own views on abortion? And when you bump into others who argue that your views are wrong [because they are not the same as their views] how is "how it seems to you" not entangled in my dilemma?

You say things like this:

Sauwelios wrote:It means I value self-assertion insofar as it's self-aware--i.e., aware of the "fact" that it's an assertion. What this means pertaining to my interactions with others I will leave, in part, to your imagination: what do you think happens when one asserts oneself as high-minded for such a self-aware self-assertion? But I won't just leave it to your imagination, as this correspondence is itself an interaction of mine with another...


Note to others:

How is this relevant to the points that I raise? What do I keep missing?


Or is it -- the Grand Scheme itself -- meant merely to be ironic?


Sauwelios wrote:What does "merely ironic" mean when irony both means what it says and its opposite?


It means that one notes the existence of a Grand Scheme but their tongue is firmly in cheek.

In other words, they are really mocking the idea of any Grand Scheme relating to value judgments.

And I certainly do not construe my own arguments here as anything other than an existential contraption/fabrication --- a subjective analysis rooted in "I" rooted in the manner in which I have come [here and now] to construe the meaning of all my accumulated experiences and relationships and sources of information/knowledge.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 22379
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: The Grand Scheme

Postby Sauwelios » Mon Sep 19, 2016 10:36 pm

iambiguous wrote:there is clearly a distinction to be made between "there is no God" and "largely rooted in dasein". In other words, as this pertains to moral and political values. After all, someone might reject God but then merely replace Him with one or another rendition of Reason


No. The God whose "death" Nietzsche proclaimed is "the God of the philosophers" ("des philosophes et des savants", as Pascal put it).


Sauwelios wrote:Your wallowing is clear from your last paragraph, your conclusion, your "what it always come down to in the end" (which however your infirmity forces you to phrase as a question): you've halted at "what it seems like to me"; you're halted before the threshold which one must will oneself across, have the strength of will to cross, muster the strength to cross--again and again.


Again and again: What on earth does something like this mean? Can you cite a particular context enabling you to demonstrate how it is not applicable to you?


As I said, this particular context--this very discussion of ours--is an example.


Sauwelios wrote:When the question how one ought to live is not answered before it is raised, the simplest answer to it is the following: "Until the answer to that question is found, the most rational answer to it is: 'One ought to live in the service of the quest for that answer.'" Hence "Philosophical Supremacism".


Which just brings me back to this:

1] ...can you provide us with a particular value of your own to which this is applicable?
2] ...if another suggests that what you value is wrong how more or less problematic will/can that discussion become?


And that's the part embedded largely in conflicting goods and political economy. Or so it seems to me.


Sauwelios wrote:We've had this discussion before. If, say, aborting you baby furthers philosophy more, you should abort it; if keeping it furthers it more, you should keep it. But how do you know? You don't, you have to consider how it seems to you and then make a decision...


Do you honestly imagine that when folks embrace either of the conflicting goods embedded in the abortion wars, they are concerned with furthering or not furthering philosophy?


Before playing the incredulity card, try to follow the argument:

1. When the question how one ought to live is not answered before it is raised, the simplest answer to it is the following: "Until the answer to that question is found, the most rational answer to it is: 'One ought to live in the service of the quest for that answer [i.e., of philosophy].'"

2. If, say, aborting your baby furthers philosophy more, you should abort it; if keeping it furthers it more, you should keep it.


What are your own views on abortion?


Do you see how it says "Philosophical Supremacist" right under my name? Now compare this to my "Hence 'Philosophical Supremacism'" remark.


Sauwelios wrote:It means I value self-assertion insofar as it's self-aware--i.e., aware of the "fact" that it's an assertion. What this means pertaining to my interactions with others I will leave, in part, to your imagination: what do you think happens when one asserts oneself as high-minded for such a self-aware self-assertion? But I won't just leave it to your imagination, as this correspondence is itself an interaction of mine with another...


Note to others:

How is this relevant to the points that I raise? What do I keep missing?


You seem to keep missing the fact that this correspondence is itself an interaction of mine with another...
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7179
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: The Grand Scheme

Postby Fixed Cross » Mon Sep 19, 2016 10:54 pm

You've become a true hammer, Sowilo.

Iamb - I was surprised to hear you are a Nietzschean - Pezer wasnt.
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: 6866
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: The Grand Scheme

Postby iambiguous » Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:37 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
iambiguous wrote:there is clearly a distinction to be made between "there is no God" and "largely rooted in dasein". In other words, as this pertains to moral and political values. After all, someone might reject God but then merely replace Him with one or another rendition of Reason


No. The God whose "death" Nietzsche proclaimed is "the God of the philosophers" ("des philosophes et des savants", as Pascal put it).


Okay, with respect to morality on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation on the other side of the grave, how is the God of the savants different from the God of mere mortals?

In my view, what's crucial is that if No God then there is no transcending font available in which to obviate the idea/praxis embedded/embodied in "beyond good and evil". In other words, "any aim is lacking, any answer to the question 'why' is lacking. What does nihilism mean?---that the supreme values devaluate themselves."

Moral nihilism [as I have come to understand it] is derived precisely from the assumption that no Gods exist.

Sauwelios wrote:Your wallowing is clear from your last paragraph, your conclusion, your "what it always come down to in the end" (which however your infirmity forces you to phrase as a question): you've halted at "what it seems like to me"; you're halted before the threshold which one must will oneself across, have the strength of will to cross, muster the strength to cross--again and again.


Again and again: What on earth does something like this mean? Can you cite a particular context enabling you to demonstrate how it is not applicable to you?


Sauwelios wrote: As I said, this particular context--this very discussion of ours--is an example.


But my point is in making the distinction between 1] those things expressed as "what it seems like to me" able to be demonstrated as that which is in fact true for all rational human beings and 2] those things that are embodied only in subjective personal opinions and political prejudices. It would be the distinction between demonstrating that this discussion is in fact unfolding here at ILP and demonstrating which of our narratives is more in sync epistemologically with the whole rational truth.

Between saying "it seems to me that Mary had an abortion" [she either did or did not...applicable to all of us] and "it seems to me that abortions are immoral" [some argue yes, others no]. With [in my view] no "value ontology" able to demonstrate that it either is or is not. Instead, value judgments, are embedded existentially in the manner in which I have come to construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

What I am curious about regarding you is that which you think is reasonable or unreasonable when your own value judgments come into conflict with others.

Sauwelios wrote:We've had this discussion before. If, say, aborting you baby furthers philosophy more, you should abort it; if keeping it furthers it more, you should keep it. But how do you know? You don't, you have to consider how it seems to you and then make a decision...


Do you honestly imagine that when folks embrace either of the conflicting goods embedded in the abortion wars, they are concerned with furthering or not furthering philosophy?


Sauwelios wrote: Before playing the incredulity card, try to follow the argument:

1. When the question how one ought to live is not answered before it is raised, the simplest answer to it is the following: "Until the answer to that question is found, the most rational answer to it is: 'One ought to live in the service of the quest for that answer [i.e., of philosophy].'"

2. If, say, aborting your baby furthers philosophy more, you should abort it; if keeping it furthers it more, you should keep it.


Again, I can only imagine you in the middle of any particular confrontation among any particular group of people. One side embracing the "natural right" [God given or otherwise] of the baby to live, the other side embracing the "political right" of the women to choose to kill it.

What I am imagining is the incredulity in their faces as they respond, "what on earth does that have to do with the life or the death of this baby?"

And how would whatever rational argument given [from either side] not be embedded in dasein? How is a purely "philosophical argument" to be derived that obviates the manner in which we are brainwashed as children to think one thing rather than another; and how, over the course of the life that we live, we become embedded in experiences that predispose us to one or another political prejudice?

Thus, what I am looking for from you [and others] is your own rendition of this:

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin. Both in and out of church.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my "tour of duty" in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman's right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary's choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett's Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding "rival goods".
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.


Thus when someone asks me about my own value judgments here, I can note this particular existential trajectory.

In other words, why, with respect to conflicting value judgments, I am now entangled in my dilemma above. Ever and always I am curious to note how others manage not to be.

And yet when I try to pin this down...

What are your own views on abortion?


I get this...

Sauwelios wrote: Do you see how it says "Philosophical Supremacist" right under my name? Now compare this to my "Hence 'Philosophical Supremacism'" remark.


That is your answer?!!!

Sauwelios wrote:It means I value self-assertion insofar as it's self-aware--i.e., aware of the "fact" that it's an assertion. What this means pertaining to my interactions with others I will leave, in part, to your imagination: what do you think happens when one asserts oneself as high-minded for such a self-aware self-assertion? But I won't just leave it to your imagination, as this correspondence is itself an interaction of mine with another...


Note to others:

How is this relevant to the points that I raise? What do I keep missing?


Sauwelios wrote: You seem to keep missing the fact that this correspondence is itself an interaction of mine with another...


Note to others:

Try, if you will, to reconfigure this point into an argument that I might begin to grasp more clearly. How is it an effective rebuttal to the points I make above?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 22379
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: The Grand Scheme

Postby iambiguous » Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:48 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:
Iamb - I was surprised to hear you are a Nietzschean - Pezer wasnt.


Wouldn't it have been easier to just make a video? :wink:

Just joshing.

Why don't you join the discussion? You know, when you are finished "chatting" with mr reasonable.

And, sure, invite Pezer.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 22379
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: The Grand Scheme

Postby Sauwelios » Wed Sep 21, 2016 8:34 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
iambiguous wrote:there is clearly a distinction to be made between "there is no God" and "largely rooted in dasein". In other words, as this pertains to moral and political values. After all, someone might reject God but then merely replace Him with one or another rendition of Reason


No. The God whose "death" Nietzsche proclaimed is "the God of the philosophers" ("des philosophes et des savants", as Pascal put it).


Okay, with respect to morality on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation on the other side of the grave, how is the God of the savants different from the God of mere mortals?


Simply put, the God of the philosophers was pure Reason.


Sauwelios wrote:Your wallowing is clear from your last paragraph, your conclusion, your "what it always come down to in the end" (which however your infirmity forces you to phrase as a question): you've halted at "what it seems like to me"; you're halted before the threshold which one must will oneself across, have the strength of will to cross, muster the strength to cross--again and again.


Again and again: What on earth does something like this mean? Can you cite a particular context enabling you to demonstrate how it is not applicable to you?


Sauwelios wrote: As I said, this particular context--this very discussion of ours--is an example.


But my point is in making the distinction between 1] those things expressed as "what it seems like to me" able to be demonstrated as that which is in fact true for all rational human beings and 2] those things that are embodied only in subjective personal opinions and political prejudices. It would be the distinction between demonstrating that this discussion is in fact unfolding here at ILP and demonstrating which of our narratives is more in sync epistemologically with the whole rational truth.

Between saying "it seems to me that Mary had an abortion" [she either did or did not...applicable to all of us] and "it seems to me that abortions are immoral" [some argue yes, others no]. With [in my view] no "value ontology" able to demonstrate that it either is or is not. Instead, value judgments, are embedded existentially in the manner in which I have come to construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

What I am curious about regarding you is that which you think is reasonable or unreasonable when your own value judgments come into conflict with others.

Sauwelios wrote:We've had this discussion before. If, say, aborting you baby furthers philosophy more, you should abort it; if keeping it furthers it more, you should keep it. But how do you know? You don't, you have to consider how it seems to you and then make a decision...


Do you honestly imagine that when folks embrace either of the conflicting goods embedded in the abortion wars, they are concerned with furthering or not furthering philosophy?


Sauwelios wrote: Before playing the incredulity card, try to follow the argument:

1. When the question how one ought to live is not answered before it is raised, the simplest answer to it is the following: "Until the answer to that question is found, the most rational answer to it is: 'One ought to live in the service of the quest for that answer [i.e., of philosophy].'"

2. If, say, aborting your baby furthers philosophy more, you should abort it; if keeping it furthers it more, you should keep it.


Again, I can only imagine you in the middle of any particular confrontation among any particular group of people. One side embracing the "natural right" [God given or otherwise] of the baby to live, the other side embracing the "political right" of the women to choose to kill it.

What I am imagining is the incredulity in their faces as they respond, "what on earth does that have to do with the life or the death of this baby?"


Sounds like this is coming from the "pro life" side. The "pro choice" party no less than the "pro life" party appeals to a supposed natural right. The one appeals to the natural rights of the baby, the other rather to those of the mother. The antonym of "natural right" is "positive right", not "political right", by the way.

I've provided a rational standard for deciding whether or not to have an abortion. You're just saying "I can't imagine a group of protesters and counterprotesters would be swayed by reason".

To be sure, the problem isn't limited to protests and the like, when emotions heat up. Most people will _never_ be swayed by my argument, because they just don't value philosophy; they will prefer to insist that they're already wise (or their God is), that they don't need philosophy. But saying that they can't help acting like that because their minds are embedded in dasein is no excuse; with that, they deserve to be overpowered by force or by guile or both. Tigers can't help eating people when they encounter them, but that doesn't mean tigers are accepted in society as the equals of men...


And how would whatever rational argument given [from either side] not be embedded in dasein? How is a purely "philosophical argument" to be derived that obviates the manner in which we are brainwashed as children to think one thing rather than another; and how, over the course of the life that we live, we become embedded in experiences that predispose us to one or another political prejudice?

Thus, what I am looking for from you [and others] is your own rendition of this:

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin. Both in and out of church.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my "tour of duty" in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman's right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary's choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett's Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding "rival goods".
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.


Thus when someone asks me about my own value judgments here, I can note this particular existential trajectory.

In other words, why, with respect to conflicting value judgments, I am now entangled in my dilemma above. Ever and always I am curious to note how others manage not to be.

And yet when I try to pin this down...

What are your own views on abortion?


I get this...

Sauwelios wrote: Do you see how it says "Philosophical Supremacist" right under my name? Now compare this to my "Hence 'Philosophical Supremacism'" remark.


That is your answer?!!!


Yes, because that should make it clear to you--if you've been paying attention to what I've been saying--that my view on abortion is this: "if aborting your baby furthers philosophy more, you should abort it; if keeping it furthers it more, you should keep it."
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7179
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: The Grand Scheme

Postby Pezerocles » Wed Sep 21, 2016 11:36 pm

Why the obssession about quotation marks?
Pezerocles
Led Zeppelin Satanist
 
Posts: 3559
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:54 am

Re: The Grand Scheme

Postby Fixed Cross » Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:02 am

Sauwelios wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:To 'problematize' "value".


Okay, how is to 'problematize' "value" different from to problematize value?


I'd say the single quotation marks are "scare quotes" whereas the double ones mark an actual quotation--which in this case, with no information about the source of the quote, must simply mean the word "value". (I personally don't distinguish between different kinds of quotes in this way, using single marks only for quotes within quotes.) So what I think Fixed Cross is suggesting here is that we turn the term "value" into what certain minds outside of the in-group addressed by him would consider a problem. His address may be titled "The Grand Scheme" because "problematizing" "value" is a "scheme" which is "grand", and/or because such "problems" are not really problems in the grand scheme of things; they are only problematic for the small-minded.

Yep.

The word value as used generally. Thus that which has to be broken up and made to dance.
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: 6866
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: The Grand Scheme

Postby iambiguous » Thu Sep 22, 2016 7:08 pm

Sauwelios wrote: No. The God whose "death" Nietzsche proclaimed is "the God of the philosophers" ("des philosophes et des savants", as Pascal put it).


iambiguous wrote:Okay, with respect to morality on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation on the other side of the grave, how is the God of the savants different from the God of mere mortals?


Sauwelios wrote: Simply put, the God of the philosophers was pure Reason.


Hmm...

I am trying to grasp how I might make this relevant to that which interests me philosophically -- the relationship between identity [dasein], value judgments [conflicting goods] and power [political economy].

Nope, nothing comes to mind.

Also, what on earth does it mean to explore this in differentiating the God of the philosophers [the God of pure Reason] and the God worshiped and adored by all the rest of them [actual denominational Gods]?

As this pertains to conflicting human behaviors derived from conflicting moral and political narratives/agendas.

Sauwelios wrote: Before playing the incredulity card, try to follow the argument:

1. When the question how one ought to live is not answered before it is raised, the simplest answer to it is the following: "Until the answer to that question is found, the most rational answer to it is: 'One ought to live in the service of the quest for that answer [i.e., of philosophy].'"

2. If, say, aborting your baby furthers philosophy more, you should abort it; if keeping it furthers it more, you should keep it.


Again, I can only imagine you in the middle of any particular confrontation among any particular group of people. One side embracing the "natural right" [God given or otherwise] of the baby to live, the other side embracing the "political right" of the women to choose to kill it.

What I am imagining is the incredulity in their faces as they respond, "what on earth does that have to do with the life or the death of this baby?"


Sauwelios wrote: Sounds like this is coming from the "pro life" side. The "pro choice" party no less than the "pro life" party appeals to a supposed natural right. The one appeals to the natural rights of the baby, the other rather to those of the mother. The antonym of "natural right" is "positive right", not "political right", by the way.


To the extent that others understand the manner in which I am now entangled in my dilemma, they recognize that I am in both camps. That I could not not be in both camps.

Again, here is the actual existential trajectory. I always come back to this in order to remind the objectivists that they themselves almost never explore their own values in a similar manner. At least not with me. Instead, most are convinced that, using the tools of philosophy, a trajectory of this sort can be obviated by subsuming their values in one or another scholastic, intellectual contraption. An "analysis". A "world of words".

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin. Both in and out of church.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my "tour of duty" in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman's right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary's choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett's Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding "rival goods".
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.


Here and now this trajectory has predisposed me to embrace the political narrative of those in the pro-choice camp. But that does not make the arguments of the pro-life camp go away. And I can well imagine an existential trajectory in which I sustained the pro-life narrative I started out with. Had I for example had a higher draft number.

Now, please examine your own value judgments relating to abortion [or to another set of conflicting goods that we will all be familiar with] and note how you have come to believe that your own "rational standard" must be the standard of all reasonable men and women.

How is your "rational standard" different from, say, Kant's deontological agenda? or from the philosophical realism embedded in philosophers like Plato?

My point is this: How do the "value ontologists" on either side of the political divide make the conflicting goods go away? And how do they construct an argument that renders the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein and political economy go away?

Now, I'm not suggesting that such arguments do not exist. Instead, with respect to abortion and all the other is/ought conflagrations, I argue only that I have not come across an argument [of late] that convinces me that moral objectivism is compatible -- for all practical purposes -- with human interaction out in the real world.

But: If you have managed to convince yourself, fine. That "works" for you. My point is only that any number of moral objectivists down through the ages have then set about to root out those they deem to be "one of them" and not "one of us".

But not you?

Sauwelios wrote: I've provided a rational standard for deciding whether or not to have an abortion. You're just saying "I can't imagine a group of protesters and counterprotesters would be swayed by reason".


Classic objectivism. How is that not but one more rendition of this:

1] I am rational
2] I am rational because I have access to the ideal
3] I have access to the ideal because I grasp the one true nature of the objective world
4] I grasp the one true nature of the objective world because I am rational


Unless, perhaps, I am not understanding your point here.

...with respect to conflicting value judgments, I am now entangled in my dilemma above. Ever and always I am curious to note how others manage not to be.

And yet when I try to pin this down...

What are your own views on abortion?

I get this...


Sauwelios wrote: Do you see how it says "Philosophical Supremacist" right under my name? Now compare this to my "Hence 'Philosophical Supremacism'" remark.


That is your answer?!!!


Sauwelios wrote: Yes, because that should make it clear to you--if you've been paying attention to what I've been saying--that my view on abortion is this: "if aborting your baby furthers philosophy more, you should abort it; if keeping it furthers it more, you should keep it."


Note to others:

So, given your own experience with abortion, is this even remotely how folks decide these things?

And, if not, are they then "sheep"?
Last edited by iambiguous on Thu Sep 22, 2016 7:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 22379
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: The Grand Scheme

Postby iambiguous » Thu Sep 22, 2016 7:10 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:Yep.

The word value as used generally. Thus that which has to be broken up and made to dance.


Deep.

But that's really not what I had in mind when asking you to join the discussion. :wink:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 22379
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: The Grand Scheme

Postby Fixed Cross » Thu Sep 22, 2016 9:46 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:Yep.

The word value as used generally. Thus that which has to be broken up and made to dance.


Deep.

But that's really not what I had in mind when asking you to join the discussion. :wink:

Its amusing that you are derailing my thread, and when I bring it back on topic, you ask me to 'join the discussion'.

Sauwelios so far is the only one who has proven to have a clue as to what the OP is about.
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: 6866
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Next

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]