Challenge to Sauwelios

[Fixed Cross]

Since 2001 Ive been having Sauwelios as an online adversary in terms of philosophy. We took different paths, I could not follow in the nazi-sympathy that he indulged in while conversing with Bill Osbourne, whose Aryan-styled Nietzscheanism had intoxicated both of us with its sheer poetic power, which to this day is a hard standard of philosophical aesthetics to me. Bill never was abstract, though - he didn't offend me in this sense. Just a violent warrior of the mind, cleaning up politic correctness, showing greatness without regard for the mouse-hearts he might speed up beyond the mouses comfort.

My dispute with Sauwelios is not over these terms - it is over his notion of what consists mysticism, superstition and un-reason. This conflict became too great for me to ignore just this morning. The issue is that I think Sauweios believes in the absolute meaning of words, and works to make experiences subservient to some term he has anointed with his belief in its absolute meaning.

Because I certainly do not fool myself into thinking words have meaning of themselves, not even the words "will" or "power", I have proceeded to develop a linguistic logic, which makes words subservient to it, and gives them a fixed meaning, in terms of a standard term which refers to each and every experience that may or may not be attributed words. This standard term is not a "word", it is a basic grammar of being, making language into an actual Being.

Value ontology therefore refers to a logical circularity that is expressed in temporality as a circuitry tending to expand itself by integrating what it encounters while maintaining its integral structure.

The theory explains why what exists exists and persists through time, by making it evident that whatever does not have a "self-valuing" (such a mechanism by which a standard is maintained that serves to keep this mechanism operative) can not maintain structural integrity, i.e. can not persist.

Now I maintain that only through this logic of self-valuing, can language have consistent philosophic meaning at all.
Philosophy hitherto has been the attempt to arrive at coherent language. With the hel of Nietzsche and Heidegger, I have created the first ever method to say things without being a hypocrite.

Implication and Challenge to Sauwelios: you have not understood VO and thus also not understood Nietzsches thinking behind the Will to Power.
The Will to Power is about the actual Earth, and Heidegger paved the way for a philosopher to come around and make language into a means to Master the Earth.

One can not master the Earth with what feeble artifice mankind had created before, so riddled with internal contradiction. But with the notion of valuing at the ground of all ontology, man is destined to master the Earth. I challenge you, Sauwelios, to show that you are not irrelevant in terms of the Mastery of the Earth. I challenge you to show me where your philosophy applies. I challenge you to become true to the Earth, or to prove your existing loyalty to her.

This challenge is a result of genuine worry, suddenly born, that you are dissolving.

[Fixed Cross]

My challenge to Sauwelios is really part of a much larger issue.

This world is a world of wolf and sheep. I am building a pack of wolves, and this pack has a common code. It just so happens that I am the master of this code. I can't abide any straying from the core-pack without responding quite aggressively.

The world is really not going to be safe for people not grounded in a worldly, earthly philosophy. And there really isn't much around except my work, in that respect.

Mr R has suggested I take it to a more neutral, scientific path, but this is precisely what I won't do, because it will fall into the hands of cowards and pointless institutions. This philosophy is for wolf-pups and for grown wolves, it is the opposite of sterile.

We will take the world, don't worry. But I will lead. At least the Fixed Star of my mind (Zarathustras Eagle) will be the touchstone to your future.

[Fixed Cross]

Okay for good form, as obviously this isn't clear, not even perhaps to Sauwelios -
I only care so much as to make a challenge and expose like this because much hinges on his participation.
I dont know what exactly, but, much.




(and for all: yes, I am aware, aways am, of how my "megalomania" will shock people and force them to ridicule. But deep down people know we can't wait any longer, philosophy must usurp politics or we perish.)

[Fixed Cross]

Also this is a reckoning with the nazi shit that is really shit. Nazism as Capable observed was a ghost-play of dying Christianity. A charade - it just haphazardly inverted runes and the sun wheel just to have an effect.

Nazism = Snapchat.

[Sauwelios]

I only saw this thread just now. As it's addressed to Sauwelios, I will reply on that account, though you should not confound that name with me.

As has been my theme recently, I'm divided, I have two answers. On the one hand, I don't really recognize myself in what you say at all:

The issue is that I think Sauweios believes in the absolute meaning of words, and works to make experiences subservient to some term he has anointed with his belief in its absolute meaning.

In fact, this reminded me of something a fellow student of ours under Bill O. told _you_:

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?style=9&p=2288542#p2288542

Dear FixedCross,

The trouble is that F.Nietzsche refers to something using the words you and I both see. If somebody takes the words as the only matter at hand, then the witchbrew ingredients are denatured. It becomes well-mashed and shaken and stirred water, but water nonetheless. This is how I had come to imagine (in Nietzsche) the transhuman possibilities that intoxicate me, and how you deal today with the Recurrence. However, niether of those constructs was Nietzsche's, but only yours and mine.

I refer to your omnipresent arguments of the form: "The philosopher claims he sees red. If red is a colour, then it is part of the rainbow, and therefore what concerned Nietzsche was atmospheric precipitation. Luckily today we have much better data on this. We may overcome Nietzsche using this data and my logics." Meanwhile, the red may have been there as a sign of danger, or simply to agitate the bullheaded.

This note is to caution you against drawing semantic conclusions from the linguistic or logical behaviour of English labels.

-WL

Please bear with this. Note that I was just _reminded_ of this. I was reminded because for me, words always refer to something. Or, almost always. "Valuing" didn't, really. Not long ago, I traced it back to "willing". "Will" for me refers to something I feel--in fact, I've often spoken of it as the _feeling_ of will, just as one might distinguish between power and the feeling of power.

But, I now think you may be right. It may be apt if "valuing" is kind of an empty term by itself, because there can never be a single valuing. For example, my valuing of you is my valuing of your valuing of me, which in turn is your valuing of my valuing of you, etc. etc. etc. And this fans my feeling of my own value like a fire. This value-feeling is indicated by the word "value" only etymologically, really: through the root *wal- which means "to be strong". My value-feeling is my feeling of strength--Kraft in German. Is this the same as power, Macht in German? "Might" certainly comes closer than "power", I think. And is this strength strength of _will_? Only, if at all, if "will" and "power", if the will to power is understood really clearly. It cannot _just_ be understood selfishly, though it must always also be so understood. Altruism by itself is as unhealthy as egoism. And it's not for nothing that the will to power is usually (mis)understood as mere egoism. The will to power "as a whole", the world as will to power that Nietzsche shows us in his mirror in the final section of The Will to Power, would still be a single valuing, even though it consist of many. It is finite and as such dead, no matter how lively, how changeable it may seem. In a higher dimension it's a lifeless ring. It is undead, because the dead and even the lifeless are still alive in the sense of valuing, and being valued by, other valuings.

The whole must be understood as being more than the sum of its parts, and that makes it infinite, in the sense that finite beings (like us) can't grasp it. I've often said that that also goes for Nietzsche's finite quantum of force which is "enclosed by 'nothingness' as by a boundary". All we can imagine is darkness, and not even endless darkness, as our minds are not endless. That is, insofar as we are finite beings--when we understand ourselves as finite beings. We can be more than the finite parts we are, and we are more when we participate in the greater whole, when we make the whole greater, when we allow ourselves to be made greater by offering ourselves to it--to _them, to other self-valuings we deem worthy of us. And this "worthy of us" must be understood in the light of what I said above about etc. etc. etc.

I'm reminded of Crowley's Little Essay on Mastery, which I intend to read soon. I also intended to leave it at this, for now, but I will add this. I will be proud to be a servant in this sense, a Knight, with you as my King. Note though that I do this with Blake's proverb in mind, "The most sublime act is to set another before you." It is a kingly gift--I too am a king, but you are the King of kings. And as yet we are still Striders, Riders on the Storm. Let us _make_ you a King, successfully claim your Kingship. And this means our Kingdom, the meaningful Earth. The alternative to the circle: the Laune!

[Sauwelios]

Hm, I didn't find Crowley's Little Essay very helpful, except for this:

"The word 'serve' is indeed misleading and objectionable: it implies a false and despicable attitude. The relation between men should be the brotherly respect which obtains between noble strangers. The idea of service is either true, and humiliating; or false, and arrogant."

With regard to that thread I linked to, I wrote the following today:

Instead of explaining why it is necessary to affirm the eternal return, Nietzsche indicates that the highest achievement, as all earlier high achievements, is in the last analysis not the work of reason but of nature; in the last analysis all thought depends on something unteachable "deep down," on a fundamental stupidity; the nature of the individual, the individual nature, not evident and universally valid insights, it seems, is the ground of all worthwhile understanding or knowledge (aph. 231; cf. aph. 8). There is an order of rank of the natures; at the summit of the hierarchy is the complementary man. His supremacy is shown by the fact that he solves the highest, the most difficult problem. As we have observed, for Nietzsche nature has become a problem and yet he cannot do without nature. Nature, we may say, has become a problem owing to the fact that man is conquering nature and there are no assignable limits to that conquest. As a consequence, people have come to think of abolishing suffering and inequality. Yet suffering and inequality are the prerequisites of human greatness (aph. 239 and 257). Hitherto suffering and inequality have been taken for granted, as "given," as imposed on man. Henceforth, they must be willed. That is to say, the gruesome rule of nonsense and chance, nature, the fact that almost all men are fragments, cripples and gruesome accidents, the whole present and past is itself a fragment, a riddle, a gruesome accident unless it is willed as a bridge to the future (cf. Zarathustra, 'Of Redemption'). While paving the way for the complementary man, one must at the same time say unbounded Yes to the fragments and cripples. Nature, the eternity of nature, owes its being to a postulation, to an act of the will to power on the part of the highest nature.

"Reason" refers to my masculine side; "nature", to my feminine side. My feminine side has become a problem for me and yet I cannot do without it. It has become a problem owing to the fact that my masculine side is conquering my feminine side and there are no assignable limits to that conquest. As a consequence, a part of my masculine side has come to think of abolishing this side's inferiority and suffering. This inferiority and suffering were first taken for granted, then as "given", then even as imposed on it. Henceforth, they must be willed. That is to say, the fact that almost all of my masculine side is a fragment, a cripple, a gruesome accident is itself a fragment, a riddle, a gruesome accident unless it is willed as a bridge to the other side. While paving the way for the complementary part of that side, at least a small part of my masculine side must say unbounded Yes to the fragmentary and crippled parts of this side. My feminine side, the wholeness of my feminine side, owes its being to an act of self-valuing on the part of the complementary part of my masculine side.

Now I wouldn't be the thinker formerly known as Sauwelios if I didn't second-guess myself here. What if my other side is not necessarily my feminine side at all? I mean this not in the sense that my right (left-brain) side is my feminine side, but in the sense that I have two masculine sides.

::

I now realise I'm still logged in as Sauwelios. As Amasoof ("Amasopher"), I wrote the following in a chat:

Sauwelios .
I guess I haven't told you much about {the truffle trip I took two days ago}. I told you some essentials, though. Another thing is it's again quite Oedipal in a sense (not the Freudian sense, at least not literally). Did you ever listen to that Oedipal insight of mine, or at least read about it? The pierced feet and eyes?
{Sauwelios' contact .}
I did, yes.
Sauwelios .
Well, things kind of started with that. The two-in-one, I've called it. But in a way my eye(s) hadn't been opened yet. I saw the Sphinx-nature of, well, Nature, but not yet of my own nature in an important way. (The nature of the Sphinx is her being a hybrid of two natures (woman and lion).)
By solving the riddle of the Sphinx, Oedipus became king of Thebes, were he married the widow of the former king--his mother and father, respectively. But he was blind to that even when he led the investigation as to the murder of the previous king. At some point, the seer Tiresias told him in anger that he was no longer going to help him (he had been giving him more and more and stronger and stronger hints), because he simply didn't want to see the truth.
{Sauwelios'--wait, why am I called Sauwelios in Gmail chat? That's pretty weird. Anyway: Sauwelios' contact .}
[Nods],. I remember the story well.
Sauwelios .
Well, I felt like that. I mean, like I hadn't wanted to see what I was carrying around with me--in me, as me. A split between lion (masculine) and woman. Not just that I am this hybrid, but that the two have been cut off too much, so that the woman side atrophied.
Yesterday I thought, like, I don't need to do shrooms for an indefinite while. But now I think I do want to confirm the insight at some point. Anyway, tomorrow (tonight) I will vaporize again, so let's first see how that goes.
I'm thinking of it in terms of the Kaballistic Tree of Life (Severity/Mercy), left-brain/right-brain, Jung (Ego/Anima), Strauss (reason/nature), etc.
In fact, I just realized again for the first time in a while that I naturally reverse the sides of that Tree of Life. Traditionally, the higher is considered masculine and the lower feminine. I have to reconsider. I mean, there is the unconventional-sounding idea, which I found (confirmed) in Nietzsche, that women are more rational and men more passionate. Yet I also think it's true that, on average, women tend to be better at empathizing and men at systemizing (The Essential Difference--did I send you that?).
In any case, it's not as if in women, left-brain and right-brain are reversed, or most women are left-handed or anything like that. From what I've read, women just have a thicker connection between the two brains. So maybe men are more divided and women more whole?
On average, I mean.
I also associate the two sides with my mother and father (hence the "Oedipal" remark earlier). I wonder how that would be different if I'd had two moms, or two dads, and/or was gay. Not to mention even more complex possibilities.
I _had_ intended, not so long ago, to direct myself at men instead of women from then on. I associated this with the difference between Love and Esteem on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. I thought about that yesterday before I fell asleep, and it was like having two dark sides instead of a dark and a light one. At that point (I was sober) it didn't necessarily feel bad, but I wonder how my unconscious would retaliate to that.
Sauwelios .
I also think I may already be over-analysing it.

::

At the end of the truffle trip I referred to, I formulated the essential insight as follows [to that same contact]: "I'm half atrophied, and I think that other half is the Other half: Others."

Tonight, while high on weed, I will record--in English, for the German hope is lost, and I had a dream early this week, inspired (in part) by a combination of cooking-pears and meatballs, in which I sang my "O Zoetsa" highly theatrically, with a properly affected British accent, turning it into a farce but winning my audience over thereby (I had to outdo Vincent). By Jove, I'm Jesus!

[Fixed Cross]

Not knowing how to call you, I ll simply choose Elysian, give what you represent and have represented.

So then, Elysian... it is always good to be reminded in writing of these old days, and of that old wizard.
Interestingly his critics there, I don't know what it had bearing on, is something I have tried to tell you and others in the early days of my having attained the valuing-logic. He has taught me some things for sure.

As will never change, I simply have a different way of equating concepts. This is why I don't believe in the law of identity.
("A"="A") ≠ ("A"="A"). Its just not how the world works. If it was we'd all have agreed long ago. But we are all different, so we fundamentally disagree on what we should agree on.

::

Lets simply begin saying that the whole is greater than the parts, ven without being greater than the sum of the parts. This by itself is enough to accompany your new thing about yourself. In this way: a greater whole of which you form a key-stone gives, through your above averagely strong influence on it, the effect of a Greater Self. How the state becomes the body of the Caesar, without being greater than the sum of the parts;

it is rather that all the other parts become subservient to the one signifier-part. In this way, also with family, clan, friendships, group, wolf-pack; the group, when it is cohesive, becomes the body of the strongest part. My sister tried to become the strongest part in my family, but she was the weakest, and yet shtik she was sanctioned by the stronger parts, and thus the family disintegrated completely.

I do believe I am the strongest part of the group I also do believe really exists. I actually believe that our group, leaving open for now who is part of that now, represents a claim to "ownership" of the whole Earth. In fact I do not believe a group like this one could exist without representing that claim. One reason I believe I am the strongest is that I seem to be the only one that actually holds and has held the Nietzschean goal of Mastery of the Earth literally. Self-valuing logic, is the intellectual backbone of this claim. It is the child of the Nietzschean will.

As has always been the case, I find your developments of the ideas you set out to investigate to be pleasing and sensible. You are adept at setting your own terms and developing these into value judgments and values. I think your acceptance of me in a leadership position (lets call it that in pubic for now, before an actual crown has been obtained) is wise, as indeed as a leader I value you simply as someone who needs to set his own terms and needs to be provided with wealth to be able to set these terms most magnificently and influentially.

I don't mean or wish to intrude on your personal life and your ego, I mean only force you to enable me as pack-leader to exult your powers so as to become exemplary to our declining world, for it to sink a hook in the flesh of the monster of energy again, to use another wild metaphor, and mount it.

[Fixed Cross]

On Kill Devil Hill at the campfire, a thing was born that will persist throughout the ages. We were the first philosophical tribe out there. We tore each other to pieces like Odin his Vikings; of course some were doing more tearing and some were mainly being torn - but all of us were following Odinic protocol. I still consider this group to be a war-band and a unity that was forged because of the internal friction/heat being far greater than friction with the outside, and yet all wanting to claim the values contested in that friction. We actually exalted and carved out these values, and value ontology is a direct result of my Spartan/Viking upbringing at KDH.

I am profoundly honoured and encouraged by Bills appreciation of my work today, and I understand that he must be quite satisfied that he is being honoured for his work, not only his current music but for the music he made at KDH - that which was deleted, but long after it had its impact on the world-soul.

So I am quite rich in allies, also in terms of the different fields they cover. And as Capable has become initiated into the runes as well, something very majestic is unfolding. A thing that can bear no king yet - we may see it as a world-throne, and us as its forgers - or as forgers of a world-crown; our work first and foremost is allowing the heights and clean air of kingship to return on the Earth.

I must play the part of the king and I must aso play other parts. You must also play the role of a king and other parts. But we can not abide denying each other the ties to a future Earthly kingship, as this is truly out common aim. "Superman" is a title for a king untarnished by precedent of guilty and shadowy kingship. We are exploring the ways in which the Earth can host such a king.

All of us are musicians at heart.

[Fixed Cross]

No fairy harp-players though. Id be happy to kill for all of my tribesmen. I assume things won't take that shape. That only will become possibly necessary if the Left gets the upper hand, i.e. if the global human will signals a desire to be extinguished. Then all of us will suddenly appear very different from how we have been known so far - a transvaluation of being will occur.

[Fixed Cross]

Trump signals the change at the surface. The part of the human will that has been rolling around in the mud with the pigs suddenly turns out to have pride. People still mistake him for the pigs he has been fighting. Stare into the abyss for too long - stare at goats too long - roll around with pigs too long --

The change below the surface will appear when the Left attempts to remanifest its stronghold. It is then that people will become really afraid.

[Fixed Cross]

This is what a nuclear explosion is. Tear forces from each other that have been fighting each other for so long that they now only each weathered other as the terms of their own strength, and all the violence they have inflicted on one another in the past is unleashed on the outside world.

Tear a family apart and it will wreck the world around it. Tear a soul apart and it will become a horde of demons. Tear a philosophers clan apart and find yourself beng sucked into a black hole of unfathomable origins.

[Fixed Cross]

Capable who is the least susceptible to belief - his Jeraz poem and redefinition of Jezuz is going to be definitive of many feasts in the future. Yes, I use that word differently. I like to tear words apart with the gravity of surrounding word-constellations.

First over the wall
Sound the rams-horn

[Fixed Cross]

I am not sure how to rank my closet philosophic friends Capable and Parodites in all this, I know they are not part of that particular fight and yet they are part tof something into which I have also become part as a result of that fight. Meaning their fights must have had a similar style and depth. This is then corroborated by events that followed and paths I was able to forge with their means. Some philosophies are hammers, others knives, and stabbing weapons. And some are cups! Vessels... but these appear after the war-philosophies, and from different, unknown origins. Value Ontology is a common wisdom among the Vanir, which forced them to acknowledge the awesomeness of the Aesir*.

It is a violent universe no doubt for all of us. This is I suppose the constant, that none of us have ever been able to afford the illusions that were most suitable to us. We were too rich to squander it on nothing at al - we must at least squander it to some illusory purpose, which perhaps by our investments might become a real star.

Also Ill note that temples to the Superman on the moons of Jupiter would be really cool to build, and its definitely not that unfeasible if we use nuclear explosions as propulsion. Some of these moons look pretty inhabitable, and Jupiter itself contains so much gasses of all sorts that to find water wouldn't be a problem for some robots diving the atmosphere and outer layers of the god.


*which is why they appeared and became part of our universe, like VO appeared to unfold the strength of the theory of Will to Power, by giving an answer to the question: power/freedom to what end? Power sets goals, but goals still gather power - and are required for it. Not only that, but only a specific type of goal can guarantee that potential is indeed power, i.e will. Will is valuing, will-to-power is self-valuing.

[Fixed Cross]

In terms of power, the end is the origin. The origin demands the end to be real.
That is what self-valuing is: the only existent working logic that allows to at the same time posit an end and a beginning, without filling in anything in in between and yet requiring it to make empirical sense.



Sowilo
Sun arrow, when all is well