"Inside" Experience

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

Re: "Inside" Experience

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:05 am

Aegean - welcome.

Philosophy begins with minimizing the sort of errors you have made into a habit, no fault of your own most likely - you have been taught by inadequates.

Your beginners approach to written theory shows that valuing is precisely the unconscious part of you - your consciousness is a mere kite in the wind of your valuing;

you already know what you want to be reading before you begin, and only become conscious of those things your valuing lets through into your mind.

Sounds tricky, doesn’t it? It is. Philosophy requires that you shut off a lot of automatisms - of which you aren’t even aware you have them turned on!

So my first instruction to you, if you wish to be my pupil, is : try to finish reading a text (anything - it can be your salt-shakers ingredients label, which should be rather short, or a news-article or a page from a childrens book) and suspending your judgment of what the text means until you have read it completely.

Maybe you can even manage to double down and read it twice, before giving yourself the chance to formulate your interpretation of it.

Seeing as where you stand now, this exercise will be plenty difficult, so take your time.

When you have become acquainted with the haste of your own mind, you can begin to discipline this mind.
If you get as far as that you may begin to approach simple philosophy, like Plato, perhaps even Aristotle. We call these “deductive philosophers”.
We find ourselves in a more advanced age, but still, these ancient men were pretty smart even by comparison to the moderners who have taught you how to think!


Sound like a plan?


Let me quickly address your mistakes.


Aegean wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:Premise 1: valuing exists.
That's a declaration.

Of an observation.
Im starting with pure empiricism.

(this is cogito ergo sum stripped of the superstitions of "I" and "think" - I just know that there is willing, requiring, wanting, desiring. I am witnessing it in the first degree.)
Desiring, anting, willing...and valuing, only apply to life.
To presume that valuing, like willing, is a universal truth, applicable to the non-living, would have to also presume that because you are aware that all existence is aware.
That's a superstition.

Ah! But I only said that I experience valuing, etc.

You're running ahead - Im nowhere near close to explaining how I see valuing to apply to all being. Ive only observed, again purely by empiricism, that there is valuing, because I am witness to it by experience.

My experience is of willing (valuing), etc.

The fact that organisms evaluate existence using themselves as a standard, or they value what is part of themselves, is nothing new.

And yet, did you know that it has never been formalized into a logical method?

The Christians mystified the term 'love' just as you are attempting to do with the term 'value'...and for the same reasons.

Here, you are simply using your imagination too much.

What you fail to do is understand the underlying cause of willing, desiring, and valuing. You stop at the subjective experience...like cogito ergo sum....what is the 'I'. Valuing, judging, willing is its expression not its essence. It is what differentiate it from other life forms and form the non-living.

I will repeat what I made you aware of earlier:

Your beginners approach to written theory shows that valuing is precisely the unconscious part of you - your consciousness is a mere kite in the wind of your valuing;

you already know what you want to be reading before you begin, and only become conscious of those things your valuing lets through into your mind.

It cannot be valuing itself, for this would be circular.

Yes, valuing it its own logical cause. It has no physical cause, it is physical cause to all else.

I know the following is a very taxing text, but the whole subject is taxing! Feel free to try and see how far you get in reading this. You can keep your prejudices switched on for now, as there is no way you are ready to read as much without the salt-shaker training.

Fundamental to mans consistent being-as-himself, is his activity of valuing in terms of himself. By this he assimilates material and grows as himself. How is a consistent valuing possible? The simple answer would be: by being a consistent subject. But this only create a a circular argument, and leaves open the question of how there can be a valuing, a being. How does a subject maintain its perspectival consistency, its structural integrity, whereby it values in terms of itself? To explain this we must posit a self-valuing, which is to say, a holding-oneself-as-value, whereby this “oneself” is nothing else than this consistent holding-as-value, in engaging the outer world. This consistency of a self-holding standard-value, is what amounts to being, the accumulation of more and more material to feed and sustain a structurally consistent growing, “a becoming”.

We are faced with the problem of identifying in technical, specific terms what this self-valuing is. We may not be able to describe or define it in the terms we are used to, in which we like to acquire knowledge, the terms which are developed to describe the manifest in exact measurements. The collection of these terms and their proper logic, that of mathematics, is what we refer to as exact science.

Observing the manifest world in scientific terms, we use principles such as quantity, causality, energy-tranferring and interacting, motion, temporality. All these are enabled and interconnected by the laws of mathematics, which is the logic of objective equalies. It relies on given and exactly determined values, which can be defined in terms of each other. It is here that the philosophy of value ontology posits a break with the method of science. The philosopher is not satisfied with positing values as if they are unquestionably given, it is his task to investigate why, or more precisely, how they are given. Mathematics can not provide an answer to this, as such would go directly against the axioms of this science, which include always the word “if”. If "A" is given, then A is given as A. It does not posit that A is given - it is as if A can be anything - which is not the case. Possibilities are limited. Deepening of logical power occurs now that we have abstract terms for the possibility of existing.

The aim is to embed language into being, to absolve it of its abstracting, detaching compulsion. The means is to embed being into grammar.

The great philosophersof the modern age have attemped such positive statements in various ways, beginning with Descartes, who posited the certainty “I think therefore I am”, or, read properly in context, “I question that anything is, therefore I am”. Nietzsche and others observed that this “I” who questions is not actually given as an exactly understandable unit. What is this “I” that is, and that questions that anything is, and that posits that he is because he questions that anything is? Descartes accomplished bringing himself the experiential certainty that there is such a thing as himself. He does not bring the certainty that anything else is, in fact he calls this somewhat into question, challenges the other to reveal itself at least to itself; he does not reveal what they are or why they can be said to exist; If the only ground for knowledge of what is is to cognate in the way Descartes was doing, then only thinkers can be known to exist, and only by themselves. Clearly this is not a useful definition of being. It is also not an exact application of logic, as it assumes the “I” both in "I think" and "I exist". The terms “I”, “exist” and “think” are not a mathematical terms: “I exist” can not mathematically be inferred from “I think”.

To draw certainty from Descartes logic, we must look at the meaning of the word “Am” in “I Am”. We must correctly observe the meaning of the verb “to be”.We must logically be satisfied with the given that what we call “being” by definition is in being (exists) - this is the only meaningful and correct way to employ the verb at all. The analytical certainty is “I am, therefore I am”. By this phrase, “I” is defined, namely, as that which, apparently, is said by itself to exist. What have we come to know by this? Nothing.

It is here that philosophy must break from science, from the pretense to be able to define the terms “I” and “exist” and “cognate” in terms of each other by exact inference. We must simply be honest, and admit that all three of these terms are simply understood by us, to mean precisely... what we understand by them! No further explication is necessary, no more exact explication is possible. The terms were called into being to describe exactly what we mean when we use the terms. They hold no deeper meaning than what they were invented to convey.

So to further philosophical understanding, that to which the terms “I” and “think” and “exist” were invented to convey must be explicated in more exacting terms. We can observe that these terms all three of them refer to the very same thing. “I”, “think” and “am” are all words indicating the same. This also includes the things to which other terms refer, such as “eat” or “walk”. As true as “I think, therefore I am” is, is also “I eat, therefore I am”. By disconnecting Descartes logic from his situation in which it emerged, we see that the “I” is posited as a condition of “think”, as much as “think” is a condition of “I”. Therefore, when I posit that “I eat”, I posit an “I” which, by common interpretation of grammar, means that I posit that (an) “I” exist(s).

We see that “I” simply means “existing” and that this existing can be expressed in the endless variety of verbs that may pertain to a posited I. That is all the I is; it allows a verb to make sense, to indicate an activity.

The I is thus always an activity.

In short, we relate activity to values, we act to express and obtain values, and these values allows us to continue acting. The values thus reflect a central value, the acting agent, the "I", who is by all acts bestowing value on himself and so creating his world, which is largely defined by the way he encounters it. If he encounters it consistently, he becomes master over it. If he encounters it according to the ways in which the world engages him, he becomes slave to it. In a normal being, there is a balance. Happiness in mastery increasing, unhappiness is responsiveness increasing. Depression is overloaded responsiveness. The only cure for depression is physical, physiological expression of anger and undergoing the consequences with a measure of of indifferent curiosity toward ones own psychology, so that one can begin discerning ones natural values and reject imposed, unnatural ones.

To exist, one must be able to value consistently, which means that the standard must be consistent. I act so to obtain a value, an object, a thing-and-goal. But if I do not structurally attain my goals, my self-valuing will suffer. So establishing the appropriate values is implicit in existing. Since all that I do is predicated and justified by a specific type of valuing, and since “I” can only be explicated in terms of what I do, the I is nothing besides this establishing-value-to-myself. This is what we seek to maintain or repair - the activity of structurally setting attainable values, the attainment of which will result in a capacity to attain higher values. This is how power increases, by structural value-setting. In man, this needs to be conscious, because those that do this consciously win, defeat others. Man is conscious being so his self-valuing needs to be conscious in order for his integrality, his structural integrity, his 'soul', to survive. His intellect needs consistency.

Ontologically, in all cases the value-establishing to the I leads to a continuation of its capacity to set values for itself, this type of valuing must be understood as a constant, a type of valuing that is itself a consistency, a standard of value -- which means that its consistency must be understood as an activity.

Consistency is the fundamental activity.

We can verify this in terms of the periodic table and at the same time we so verify the logic of this categorization that nature apparently produces on her own accord, by asking what makes for a consistency of an elements. We may consider the most consistent to be those which are least influenced by other elements or energies. The are the 'noble' elements. What make as an element noble is that it does not change internally in reaction to outward stimuli. It holds no potential for internal change, is never inconsistent with itself. It is universe enclosed in itself, all of its values are perfectly attainable, for ever. Gold is this absolutely active; it holds in its structure the maximum amount activities, its many electron rings are filled, its inner tensions are all in play. Maximization of activity within a given structure amounts to a maximal consistency.

Contemplate the correspondence between consistency, activity, the noble elements, and value.


Why and how do lifeforms evaluate existence?
Yes, using themselves as a standard, but what is the underlying cause of this need to evaluate and to will, and to want and to desire?

The conscious valuing (selective response, as Ive explained) is merely an extensive form of non conscious selective response.

What is the cause?
Only the fact that nothing stands in its way.

Do you notice what Ive done here?
Why being and no rather nothing? Because nothing stands in its way.

Do you see?
That is how philosophy can, when diligently practiced, show the superstitions underneath our commonly accepted words!
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9456
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: "Inside" Experience

Postby Aegean » Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:09 am

Your master taught you about on type of this...valuing. and he flatter and promised you great things, if only you remained loyal to this one thing.
But a master that wants to remain a master is not one you should follow.
A master, like a father, liberates you from...him, first and foremost. His insights are applicable without his presence, like a good father teaches gis son to be free from his guidance.
any ideology, n matte how pleasing and sempower9ng it feels, that does not offer independence, is a religion...an Abrahamic nihilistic ideology.
A philosophy must be independent form the one that exposed you to it.
Aegean
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:36 pm

Re: "Inside" Experience

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:16 am

"A master, like a father, liberates you from...him, first and foremost. His insights are applicable without his presence, like a good father teaches gis son to be free from his guidance.
any ideology, n matte how pleasing and sempower9ng it feels, that does not offer independence, is a religion..."

Now this is true.

"A philosophy must be independent form the one that exposed you to it."

However, there is no "a philosophy." Ehem, there is "philosophy." Embarrassing as that is to have to say.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3861
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: "Inside" Experience

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:18 am

"any ideology, n matte how pleasing and sempower9ng it feels,"

Except this part. This part doesn't make a lot of sense. Also ideology doesn't offer anything. It is not a thing. That can offer.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3861
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: "Inside" Experience

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:26 am

"A philosophy must be independent form the one that exposed you to it."

ought implies can.
-Kant
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9456
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: "Inside" Experience

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:51 am

Can this philosophy be seen separate of me?
Has any philosophy ever been separate of the one who brought it?
N says no, there are no philosophies, only philosophers.

Ideology is what reads this philosophy as an ideology - ideology serves to unthinkingly dismiss. Value ontology dismisses only by reasoning through to the bitter end of non existence, if indeed the case deserves dismissal. Therefore, it is very taxing and why is that valuable? Maybe it is not. Maybe it is merely a woman who can be dismissed. Or maybe it is too valuable to pick up, implying it was available; truth, a woman before whom most men are shy because they cant dance.

This philosophy is the philosophy of power, i.e. will to power sufficient to attain independent ontic status, being. That means that this philosophy is only value-able for people who value the style in which it is presented.

This is what follows from Nietzsche.

What we are overcoming is the notion of personal liberty; what we require to combat the death-forces of technology and liberalism is an order of rank.

Now I may not be worthy as a person of being anyones Master, but my style is perhaps worthy of commanding. Thankfully it is not the only one that is - value ontology itself precludes a monolithic ontos. We are legion, as they say. But we've not yet come to know ourselves.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9456
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: "Inside" Experience

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:04 am

Aegean, you speak from experience and not from presumption.

Aegean wrote:Your master taught you about on type of this...valuing. and he flatter and promised you great things, if only you remained loyal to this one thing.
But a master that wants to remain a master is not one you should follow.
A master, like a father, liberates you from...him, first and foremost. His insights are applicable without his presence, like a good father teaches gis son to be free from his guidance.

This is all quite true. But to liberate from what?
I may just liberate you from the idea that philosophy is some kind of clean, objective already-there object to polish and behold. It is more like birth, there is a lot of screaming and yelling, confusion and uncertainty about the outcome but not about the general principle we're dealing with.

any ideology, n matte how pleasing and sempower9ng it feels, that does not offer independence, is a religion...an Abrahamic nihilistic ideology.
A philosophy must be independent form the one that exposed you to it.

All proper religion, not just Abrahamic religion, is empowering. No one would put faith in a god who doesn't open doors. All people subscribing to a religion but not feeling empowered are atheists living in shame and fear.

Philosophy on the other hand is simply revealing.
Where you are powerful, revelation feels good. Where you are not, not so much.
Men are mostly, myself included, powerful in some regards and weak in others; the consequences of both are magnified.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9456
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: "Inside" Experience

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:13 am

statiktech wrote:
Premise 3: valuing is an experience for me, where "me" is the very experience of valuing. Valuing thus experiences itself and this results in the idea of a "self".


Isn't this just kind of a round-a-bout way of saying that by valuing we demonstrate ourselves as valuers? Descartes covered this, so why the emphasis on valuation over thought?

Presume there is no point.

I do not believe in pre-establishing points and then reasoning toward them.

I am merely setting out to see, if I observe valuing, where I arrive.

My philosophy has made me interested in valuing as a mechanism.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9456
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: "Inside" Experience

Postby Aegean » Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:50 am

World vomit can be self-satisfying.
Aegean
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:36 pm

Re: "Inside" Experience

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:54 am

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9456
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: "Inside" Experience

Postby Aegean » Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:05 am

Fixed Cross wrote:Aegean, you speak from experience and not from presumption.
How do you know that? Have you read my star chart?

This is all quite true. But to liberate from what?
I may just liberate you from the idea that philosophy is some kind of clean, objective already-there object to polish and behold. It is more like birth, there is a lot of screaming and yelling, confusion and uncertainty about the outcome but not about the general principle we're dealing with.
I love the emotional choice of words. I'm sure it has some kind of effect on the minds you seek to exploit....but it has zero effect on me. I am outis.
I know what words are and why you choose those and not others. I know ...you.
I was balling and crying and screaming as I posted this. Emotion is your craft and your demise.

All proper religion, not just Abrahamic religion, is empowering. No one would put faith in a god who doesn't open doors. All people subscribing to a religion but not feeling empowered are atheists living in shame and fear.
True...but the specifics of each religion....or should I more accurately say, 'spirituality', exposes the minds that follow it.
Are ou a wannabe shaman?

Philosophy on the other hand is simply revealing.
And what has VO revealed, other than the already established? Life is attracted to elements that are part of itself. Brilliant.
Do you know how....no. you simply stay on the valuing part.
What is new, my friend. You just altered the terminology.
What is new and inspiring in VO?
A modernized Christianity. No....post-modern Judaism, with a bit of Spinoza.

[quote]Where you are powerful, revelation feels good. Where you are not, not so much.
Men are mostly, myself included, powerful in some regards and weak in others; the consequences of both are magnified.]So humble you've suddenly become 160+ IQ.
i never forget....not like these imbeciles.
I recall.....because it reveals patterns.
A friendly gesture today, must be juxtaposed to a slap in the past.
Oh, how out of your milieu you are.
Shall we cRap?
Perhaps tell a buddy what a brillant lyricist he is...to keep him around.
Huh?
Let me trace a rune on your arse, dear boy.
It's magic....I promise.
Aegean
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:36 pm

Re: "Inside" Experience

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:26 am

What are you doing now... it is still honest to a degree but off topic.
Im not interested in your personal affections, I have none for you, which is why I banned you from BTL. You manage to spread an actual bad odour through the internet.

So, can we get back to topic?

Ontology is not about life.

We knew life values.

We didn't know atoms value.

Valuing equates to love only in an infinitesimal percentage of cases.
Your everlasting romance with idiocy prevents you from following even the first steps I keep repeating.

Why do you think you are here?
Did I invite you ?
Would I ever even address you even in your own home, after you had invited me?
Your arguments are like turds, you shit them out and wonder why no one wants to pick them up.

You pick up my arguments with the same filthy hands which pick up your own to throw it at people who won't crouch down below you, like the Joker who I presume called you, his eternal father, to help him out because I had bullied him. I hope for your sake that thats the reason and that you didn't come in here on your own initiative to wallow in your lukewarm shit, because then you are truly lost. Ive never shown you respect. Don't pretend like you're here because you respect yourself, or philosophy, you only respect the Joker, I think, because he has a talent you like to have. But you of course make sure he doesn't capitalize on it. Dumb American basterds.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9456
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: "Inside" Experience

Postby Aegean » Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:43 am

Fixed Cross wrote:What are you doing now... it is still honest to a degree but off topic.
Im not interested in your personal affections, I have none for you, which is why I banned you from BTL. You manage to spread an actual bad odour through the internet.

So, can we get back to topic?
You know for someone who uses prose and meaningless poetics...you show a distaste for ambiguity not of your own making.

Ontology is not about life.
No?
Then why is it self-valuing?
To clouds self-value.....do mountains?
Come on...show us what you truly are.

We knew life values.
No shit....I thought it was a world alerting insight that would establish you as a thinker on the level of Nietzsche.

We didn't know atoms value.
Then how do electrons stay in a stable relationship - see the antopomorphic bullshit there- with neutrons?
Do tell.
Do they self-value?

Valuing equates to love only in an infinitesimal percentage of cases.
Your everlasting romance with idiocy prevents you from following even the first steps I keep repeating.

So, self-valuing is not self-loving?
Why not? Because you want to believe you are inventing a new otology?

Why do you think you are here?
Did I invite you ?
Such an arrogant cunt, you are.
Ha!!
Yes,, and China reads your posts, you imbecile and Peterson was affected by Vo, you moron.
I laughed and laughed...expecting someone to put you in your place...but these brain dead morons were silent before your insanity.

Would I ever even address you even in your own home, after you had invited me?
Your arguments are like turds, you shit them out and wonder why no one wants to pick them up.
I would be as polite as an eglishman….in your presence.
You would not even know it was me.

You pick up my arguments with the same filthy hands which pick up your own to throw it at people who won't crouch down below you, like the Joker who I presume called you, his eternal father, to help him out because I had bullied him. I hope for your sake that thats the reason and that you didn't come in here on your own initiative to wallow in your lukewarm shit, because then you are truly lost. Ive never shown you respect. Don't pretend like you're here because you respect yourself, or philosophy, you only respect the Joker, I think, because he has a talent you like to have. But you of course make sure he doesn't capitalize on it. Dumb American basterds.
Are you not the 160* IQ genius Messiah that will change th course of mankind?
I wanted to be in your presence...before i died....to be in proximity with such insanity.

Listen imbecilic...this crap you've ben selling may work on the type of morons like Pezer or those morons on 'Before the light' or Sauwie the delicate flower....but you a way over your head here...
That shit don't fly
May even have a nihilists like Brian giving you the benefit of the doubt, cause h's only interested in making friends in his post-prison debacle tears...you know those that were determined univerally.

VO this and VO that...you are one obsessive wannabe self-aggrandizing cunt, aren't you?
This is not the first time you've heard this. Is it?
Aegean
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:36 pm

Re: "Inside" Experience

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:49 am

Then how do electrons stay in a stable relationship - see the antopomorphic bullshit there- with neutrons?

Well, through attracting protons.

Do tell.
Do they self-value?

But it is not actually said that electrons are particles.
They don't stabilize by themselves - at best we know they are good for sending discrete signals. We can use them as causes to effects, but not as things.

I claim that we require VO to replace the standard model, because there is no physical boson that completes the formula for an atom.
An atom, I contend, is the definitive physical self-valuing.

So in terms of VO, it is possible electrons as we think we known them are merely values, not self-valuings.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9456
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: "Inside" Experience

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:54 am

Such an arrogant cunt, you are.
Ha!!
Yes,, and China reads your posts, you imbecile and Peterson was affected by Vo, you moron.
I laughed and laughed...expecting someone to put you in your place...but these brain dead morons were silent before your insanity.

Fact is you come here to read my shitt and talk about it too - you're so much dumber than Peterson? I sent Peterson a link on fb once, not soon after he became all crazy and red eared and just seemed to have lost it and started attacking monadic theories of ontology.

China reads everything you dummy. What do you think AI is for?
It wouldnt even surprise me if "America First" is based on VO.
The world has become small and almost empty. VO is the only thing that works for us in the west, as our power over others is our capacity to self-value in elaborate ways. Luxury, being that is justified to itself.
Thats what we seek, not some buddhist or christian reduction; even if there can only be one man who truly exists, this is worth the sacrifice of the whole universe. That is Nietzsche, VO, all the flows from it.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9456
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: "Inside" Experience

Postby Aegean » Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:04 am

Fixed Cross wrote:But it is not actually said that electrons are particles..
Excellent.
Do they value one another?

They don't stabilize by themselves - at best we know they are good for sending discrete signals. We can use them as causes to effects, but not as things.
How do they stabilize?
they send, signal?
They are conscious and intentional?
Ha!!
They communicate?
I claim that we require VO to replace the standard model, because there is no physical boson that completes the formula for an atom.
An atom, I contend, is the definitive physical self-valuing.
So, you claim that an atom is a product of intent?
You cannot think of any other circumstance that does not require an allusion to judgment?
'I think a therefore I am' means all existence is so?
You, 160+ IQ cannot think of a single alternative that does not require judgment ot any allusion to intent?

So in terms of VO, it is possible electrons as we think we known them are merely values, not self-valuings
They are values in relation to an observer, a consciousness....not in and of themselves.
Value is a misleading term....one who intentionally chose, eh moron?
You wanted to be so much like Nietzsche that you found the word that would connect you to his .....psychological brilliance.
He said nothing of importance....his entire opus was about human psychology in a nihilistic world.
most of it is derivative...from Schopenhauer and the pre-Socratics....he modernized them.
Was he your ideal man, Iakob?

I know why Freud invented the Oedipus Complex, but you and this Value centred ontology?
I can only speculate.
Why value and not love or pleasure...or another positive term?
Huh?
You ain't saying anything different, so why the change in terminology?
Te need to make a name for yourself?
To stand out, to prove the world wrong? To be...valued?..Appreciated?
Aegean
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:36 pm

Re: "Inside" Experience

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:07 am

"an observer,"

yes, but this is the kit. After Descartes, how blatantly off he was, it became clear: what is it that observes?
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3861
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: "Inside" Experience

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:08 am

Well I guess it was already clear to smarter men. But Descartes became an institution for pointing it out.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3861
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: "Inside" Experience

Postby Aegean » Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:11 am

Fixed Cross wrote:
Such an arrogant cunt, you are.
Ha!!
Yes,, and China reads your posts, you imbecile and Peterson was affected by Vo, you moron.
I laughed and laughed...expecting someone to put you in your place...but these brain dead morons were silent before your insanity.

Fact is you come here to read my shitt and talk about it too - you're so much dumber than Peterson? I sent Peterson a link on fb once, not soon after he became all crazy and red eared and just seemed to have lost it and started attacking monadic theories of ontology.

China reads everything you dummy. What do you think AI is for?
It wouldnt even surprise me if "America First" is based on VO.
The world has become small and almost empty. VO is the only thing that works for us in the west, as our power over others is our capacity to self-value in elaborate ways. Luxury, being that is justified to itself.
Thats what we seek, not some buddhist or christian reduction; even if there can only be one man who truly exists, this is worth the sacrifice of the whole universe. That is Nietzsche, VO, all the flows from it.

By the gods,. you are simple.


Tell us more about how the world is reading Iakob and adjusting its strategies. I want them to all see the depths of your insanity.
was Perterson reading you and adjusting his speeches?
What a fucking douche-bag you are!!!
Ha!!!
A world changer....who is living like a bum.
How many lost men-children, like yourself, will you take advantage of before you begin feeling shamed?
But I forget...guilt and shame has become a tool for your people.

The depths of desperate depravity one must fall to believe that the Chinse Politburo, and American chiefs of staff are reading him....and caring...
You have issues.
This entire forum is full of individuals with psychological issues, but you, especially, have issues.
I'm not going to tell you what they are. I want to watch them unfold after I am gone.
Aegean
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:36 pm

Re: "Inside" Experience

Postby promethean75 » Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:13 am

May even have a nihilists like Brian giving you the benefit of the doubt, cause h's only interested in making friends


Now hold your horses there buddy. I've always thought the whole lot of you were cornballs. But I'm still allowed a little cajolery and shit-shootin with the flakes once in a while.

And slow down man with the posting. The typos are out of control. You're gonna give yourself a stroke.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2163
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: "Inside" Experience

Postby Aegean » Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:15 am

Pedro I Rengel wrote:"an observer,"

yes, but this is the kit. After Descartes, how blatantly off he was, it became clear: what is it that observes?
Are you smoking something right now?
You sound discombobulated...and that shit will not do with someone like me.
It may work on simpletons like those found on ILP,....but not me.
If you cannot put together a cohesive sentence, then do not bother to post.
That word- prose crap you've been throwing around is not effective on me.
Get your self together, breath and then post.
Aegean
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:36 pm

Re: "Inside" Experience

Postby Aegean » Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:17 am

promethean75 wrote:
Now hold your horses there buddy. I've always thought the whole lot of you were cornballs. But I'm still allowed a little cajolery and shit-shootin with the flakes once in a while.

And slow down man with the posting. The typos are out of control. You're gonna give yourself a stroke.
Yeah...but it's all part of a plan....it's been determined.
Stop complaining for what has been preordained.

I'm hoping to get to eat some ice-cream, if the universal forces have determined it to be so.
Last edited by Aegean on Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
Aegean
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:36 pm

Re: "Inside" Experience

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:20 am

Don't worry, it's fair enough.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3861
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: "Inside" Experience

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:21 am

Aegean wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:But it is not actually said that electrons are particles..
Excellent.
Do they value one another?

No. They only relate to each other through the actual ontos, atoms.

They are consequences and parts, not self-valuings, except of course the notion of them.
They are values.

They don't stabilize by themselves - at best we know they are good for sending discrete signals. We can use them as causes to effects, but not as things.
How do they stabilize?
they send, signal?
They are conscious and intentional?
Ha!!
They communicate?

Yes, they signal.
electromagnetism.
Thats not something Ill win the Nobel prize for thought - someone else already discovered that. You know what - you're on a machine made of...

anyway.

I claim that we require VO to replace the standard model, because there is no physical boson that completes the formula for an atom.
An atom, I contend, is the definitive physical self-valuing.
So, you claim that an atom is a product of intent?
You cannot think of any other circumstance that does not require an allusion to judgment?
'I think a therefore I am' means all existence is so?
You, 160+ IQ cannot think of a single alternative that does not require judgment ot any allusion to intent?

No, I clam that "intent" is a weaker version of what is called atomic strong force.
I claim that it is more sensible to reduce ourselves to the atom than the other way around.

So that the utmost we can actually know as beings, not in theory but in the singularity of experience, is the only thing that literally applies to ontology.

What I see is the experience I most singular at the moments crucial values are withdrawn.

So in terms of VO, it is possible electrons as we think we known them are merely values, not self-valuings
They are values in relation to an observer, a consciousness....not in and of themselves.

Value is a misleading term....one who intentionally chose, eh moron?

Nietzsche worked with it, I took over.
Its the only one that works across the board.

You wanted to be so much like Nietzsche that you found the word that would connect you to his .....psychological brilliance.

Pathetic. If you dont understand the value philosophy for its own sake has, what, are you in it for the social networking?

He said nothing of importance....his entire opus was about human psychology in a nihilistic world.
most of it is derivative...from Schopenhauer and the pre-Socratics....he modernized them.
Was he your ideal man, Iakob?

Obviously I am my ideal man.

I know why Freud invented the Oedipus Complex, but you and this Value centred ontology?
I can only speculate.
Why value and not love or pleasure...or another positive term?

Because electrons have value (-1e) and not pleasure.

Huh?
You ain't saying anything different, so why the change in terminology?
Te need to make a name for yourself?
To stand out, to prove the world wrong? To be...valued?..Appreciated?

Ibid. I use value and not love or pleasure because value applies to mathematics and every other field and these two only in the animal realm.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9456
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: "Inside" Experience

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:31 am

Well, Aegean, it seems you have certain love for philosophical concepts. You can not think, which means you will never know what thinking is. I mean that. But you have a strong dislike of yourself and urge for philosophical concepts to compensate for that, so you have a certain ... erm, substance.

Curious...
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9456
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users