The man aspires only to one thing; comprehensive truth. It is an impossible task, except he’s done things that I had taken for impossible before. I have shown him self-valuing logic, he saw what it meant and in one mail the phrase “…your value ontology…” came to pass, which, after considering its implication (what it says and what it obscures) that it was referent to the right aspect; namely it being objective truth, ontology, being. The fact that value is related to objectivity was enough to know that he understands how I see relations; there aren’t any objective values, that nonsense was introduced by miscellaneous posters years later, but there is the objective fact of valuing as a requirement to being; thus any instance in the world is best defined in the deepest subjectivity. The god that is supposedly dead is the passive god, who ‘just is’. That doesn’t apply to any philosophical sensibility, which observes that things appear. Wyld understands that sort of thing, so there is no confusion between us like there is between me or him and those who depart from premises wholly subphilosophical.
I warned him a few times not to come back, but this place is irresistible; it is the loony-bin that includes both independent thinkers and weird life-artists and not much else, and it becomes a cesspool when too stern or too little demands are being made. It is a self-valuing that is not itself philosophical, but that is like an animal at the feet of philosophy. Wyld or Parodites aren’t into that sort of cultivating, but I feel there is little else to go for except writing books, which is indeed what both P and W have been doing.
The question is ultimately: does one prefer animals, or thoughts? I am truly on the fence.