Sauwelios is dead; long live Dionysus!

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

Sauwelios is dead; long live Dionysus!

Postby Zeroeth Nature » Tue May 19, 2020 2:01 am

Mitra-Sauwelios was a false start.

"Your symbolical, lyrical and musical world can become an absolute standard. That is to say the highest on Earth." (Fixed Cross, "Re: A letter for the King" (return email to yours truly!), my translation.)
kali maa jaap mantra {om aim hreem kleem chamundaye vichaye}
"didja read that great wall of text he wrote? i'm tellin' you, ollie is the grand master of the esoteric and eclectic. if there IS something more to life, something extramundane or divine or whatever you wanna call it, ollie will figure it out" (Zoot Allures, to phoneutria, about yours truly.)


I, Oliver, "Ollie", have figured it out. For there is something (more) to life. And now it's time to manifest as the absolute standard.

First philosophy as metaphysics or cosmology, philosophy proper.

"A Nietzschean history of philosophy recovers in Plato what is fundamental to all the greatest philosophers, what ultimately moves or motivates them. Most fundamental are two passions or loves. Philosophy is the passion to understand the whole rationally, the love of wisdom that is, Socrates indicated in the Symposium, the highest eros of a whole that can be understood as eros and nothing besides. Political philosophy, the acts of communication and legislation undertaken on behalf of that primary passion, is driven by love of the human, philanthropy, as Socrates indicated in the Phaedo where Plato has him pause at the center to state that the greatest evil facing humanity is misology, hatred of logos or reason that entails misanthropy and stems from reason's inability to prove that the world is what the heart most desires it to be. The fundamental connection between these two passions, love of wisdom and love of the human, can be demonstrated exegetically in Plato only through detailed study of the Symposium and Phaedo, the study to be undertaken in the book to follow this one. The present book concerns Plato's presentation of Socrates' philanthropy."(Laurence Lampert, How Philosophy Became Socratic, pp. 13-14.)

I wonder if Lampert's second book on Plato, which is set to come out this winter, will indeed demonstrate that fundamental connection. I have already figured it out, however. But first, ontology.

With Value Ontology, later called the self-valuing logic, and now Valuator Logic, Fixed Cross claimed to have perfected Nietzsche's doctrine of the will to power, by filling the lacuna he had found within that doctrine with what he'd come to understand as his own deepest nature. I, however, think I've found something even more fundamental.

What I always missed in Fixed Cross's logic was precisely the notion of "will to power". Fixed Cross first explained it to me as what Aleister Crowley had called "Love under Will": there is something underneath the will to power, and that is "self-valuing". Excuse me if I don't do justice to how he phrased it, but I think this is a sufficient paraphrase (for now).

My formula for Fixed Cross's logic is: "self-Valuing through other-Valuing". One will note the capitals (and the lack thereof). In this I follow David Farrell Krell, who uses similar capitalisation in his translations of Heidegger. I contend that being is self-Valuing through other-Valuing, but Being is not. Fixed Cross had claimed to have sublated this distinction—Heidegger's "ontological difference"—, but I beg to differ. I contend that Being is what I called spacelight, which I will now call light-space. (For the form, though not the content, one may want to compare the term "wave-particle duality". In my view, space and light are a duality, that is to say a unity.)

Even more fundamental than self-Valuing through other-Valuing is what I now call self-Light'ning into light-space (zelfverlichting in schijnvrijheid). First and foremost, beings aren't self-Valuings through other-Valuings, but self-Lightenings, that is to say Lightenings of those very Lightenings. The feeling of power, the feeling of—free—will, is most basically the feeling of getting lighter. At the most basic—quantum—level, all "beings" are getting lighter all the time, less all the time, meaning more and more space emerges. This is the infinite universe-equivalent of the "expansion" of the universe.

'I now think the accumulation [of forces] is secondary, whereas the discharge is primary. I can't even say the accumulation is the means whereas the discharge is the end, for this would ascribe an intentionality to the accumulation process which I don't think there need be. When power is discharged, of course it doesn't disappear into nothingness; it is discharged somewhere, which means someplace else is getting charged... At the most basic level, accumulation is simply this getting charged. And the feeling of power is not in the accumulation, but in the discharge (seine Kraft herauslassen, letting out one's force). This is why I now call the will to power a "self-Lightening": the feeling of power is the feeling of getting "lighter"; and the Lightening gets "lighter" by this very Lightening: it becomes less in one place but greater ("heavier") in another. It never comes to a standstill!'

'Discharge of force ultimately means that force (energy, "matter") becomes space... The Big Bang is the absolute maximum accumulation of force discharging itself into space (the heat death of the universe is when the universe almost entirely consists of space). This is my thesis!'

'Postulate of being as self-Lightening.—"[F]orce is the drive to discharge itself within a field of forces enacting the same necessity. [...W]ill to power has no aim but discharge of the total quanta of its force at every moment; such discharge is always an event within a relatively unstable field of such impulses to discharge, the relation among them being simply that of greater or lesser; all beings are ultimately more or less stable collections of such impulses and themselves express the fundamental quality of impulse, will to power." (Lampert, What a Philosopher Is, pp. 264 and 266n29.)'

Image

'[M]y thesis: space is the show-freedom [schijnvrijheid] of bodies. Every body is a light source (even though most light is invisible to humans: infrared, ultraviolet, etc.), and indeed I mean "show-freedom" in a dual sense: the apparent freedom to give light. In truth we give off space all the time, whether we want to or no; ever more space emerges, all bodies become relatively smaller all the time. Space is light that has not yet given light, given off energy; as soon as it's done this it's gone, no longer light but part of a body. This body "in turn" (really at the same time) gives off space, "radiation". When we see light, this means the space between us and the light source has been reduced to zero: for the space between us and the sun this takes approximately eight minutes, but in the meantime the sun also adds a (more or less) equal amount of space: it is thence that we do not scorch our eyes...'

::

On to political philosophy. Phrased in terms of the first Lampert quote above, the connection is simple: when one has come to understood the whole rationally, when one is wise, one's very understanding or wisdom impels one to love and, moreover, to will, all beings who are not wise.

'The only thing higher to be loved than even wisdom is that which wisdom loves: wisdom is itself the highest kind of love—and this is what makes wisdom lovable!'

'I just had the ultimate insight during my Holosync. I am now mad like Nietzsche.
[...]
Well, I'm also not mad, because my madness is the measure of everything. I am the mad God, Dionysus.
Everyone and everything who is not Dionysus is my Ariadne.'

I was wrong when I wrote: 'What a Dionysus will do to his Ariadne is transform her into a Dionysus[.]' Being a woman, Ariadne can never become a Dionysus; there can never be a Dionysa. What Dionysus will do, however, is present her ever more fully with His supreme manliness, His Kingliness—only to have her fly ever more deeply into her womanliness!

"[S]tronger, more evil, and more profound; also more beautiful[.]"

'The way I see it—and note that I've been coming back to Nietzsche (and Hinduism, and religion in general) from within secular Buddhism or nihilism—, creativity is literally limited by Nothing... It is the Nothing or nothingness which is what I've called zeroth nature—that which alone gives rise to "natures", "first natures", e.g. human "nature". Recall that thing I said [...] about being bounded by boundlessness. This is the only true necessity: the maddening lonesomeness of the One or the Nothing, which impels It to WILL Its Other, Its Opposite, the loveliest being It could possibly imagine... No, not It; He: God is a Man, a Real Real Man, and His One True Love is a Woman, nay a Gentlewoman, Whom He will tempt to be His Lady!'

Image

::

No, I was doubly wrong. Dionysus will transform some Ariadnai into Dionysoi (though not into Dionysai!), but only "the fewest"; by far the most he will cause to fly even more deeply into their womanliness.

"The saḿskáras [conditionings] of all individuals could be withdrawn in one moment if Parama Puruśa [the Supreme Youth] so desired. But He does not because it would stop His entire creative flow and lead to the dissolution of this world. [...] To continue the flow of His divine play, it is not desirable that all entities of the vast universe should attain the Supreme stance [wisdom, enlightenment] at one time[.]" (P.R. Sarkar, Ánanda Márga Philosophy in a Nutshell, Part 5.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q9xdzs-1eg&t=112
Last edited by Zeroeth Nature on Tue May 19, 2020 11:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Strauss did have access to the divinity of Dionysos and Plato.
But if he had access to those philosophizing gods, what he had 'no access' to would have to be divine Ariadne. Strauss is then confessing no access to the instinct that divinizes womanliness. His only gods are the philosophers. Ariadne is not a philosopher. Ariadne is not a god. That seems to be what Strauss confesses he has no access to in Nietzsche's theology. And that may very well be the nerve of Nietzsche's theology: the nerve to claim superior divinity for womanliness even over philosophizing Dionysos." (Lampert, The Enduring Importance of Leo Strauss, page 295.)
User avatar
Zeroeth Nature
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 1:31 am

Re: Sauwelios is dead; long live Dionysus!

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue May 19, 2020 2:12 pm

Hail philosophical politics.



My formula for Fixed Cross's logic is: "self-Valuing through other-Valuing".

As I phrased it in the beginning: being is self-valuing and valuing the world in terms of this self-valuing.
indeed, value ontology refers to what "can be said to exist" i.e. "objective" reality.

As I write:

"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."

https://beforethelight.forumotion.com/t ... e-ontology

I have, in the last two or three years, allowed the recognition that, beneath this Fixed form of being, there is the pure "valuing outward" which does not necessarily return, to build sustenance.
This valuing outward is indeed more like a radiating than a grasping, or willing-to.

However, for a thing to radiate outward, it must have acquired through time or, have been bestowed by a timeless nature, a degree of potential which is indeed holding itself together by following the law of self-valuing; by not breaking that law.

A point here is that a discharge as we understand the concept is a discharge of something into something.

I contend that being is self-Valuing through other-Valuing, but Being is not. Fixed Cross had claimed to have sublated this distinction—Heidegger's "ontological difference"—, but I beg to differ. I contend that Being is what I called spacelight, which I will now call light-space. (For the form, though not the content, one may want to compare the term "wave-particle duality". In my view, space and light are a duality, that is to say a unity.)

I will not directly challenge this immediately, as the point of maintaining the distinction is a valid one, even though in consequence the difference is sublated. That is, Resolved.
(Because value ontology is a "breathing theorem", not a dead one. It requires time of mind, effort, a path, to wrap itself around the conception of reality and usurp it, draw it back into one point. It usurps the mind, rather than inhabiting it.)

It now appears to me even that the electron is a function of the proton, which is an emanation of the timeless; the proton is Brahma - emitting from the source, the electron given by Shiva, to return to the source, and the atom, their interaction, is Vishnu, that which is held together, or holds itself together.

'Postulate of being as self-Lightening.—"[F]orce is the drive to discharge itself within a field of forces enacting the same necessity. [...W]ill to power has no aim but discharge of the total quanta of its force at every moment;

I find issue with the phrasing, will to power has as its aim, power. Not merely discharge. It wants to increase.
VO defines the only possible mechanism of increase
increase does happen through discharge - through "successful discharge".
There is an infinity of infinities of unsuccessful discharges.
Such discharges can not be perceived, noted, felt - they are not, in their discharge, beings.

In turn yet, in order to have a potential to be discharged, they must have accumulated or been bestowed this potential.

such discharge is always an event within a relatively unstable field of such impulses to discharge, the relation among them being simply that of greater or lesser; all beings are ultimately more or less stable collections of such impulses and themselves express the fundamental quality of impulse, will to power." (Lampert, What a Philosopher Is, pp. 264 and 266n29.)'

But the potential described here only becomes will-to-power once entangled with other potentials - and this brings us back to the self-valuing logic, which now, by the way, I have baptized again: Logick is the name.



Main issue: Any will to, and any will is a will-to, is dyadic. A monad can not refer away from itself, into something else.
A self-valuing on the other hand incorporates, includes that which it values. It contains the potential for a dyad in it, but it is itself a Monad.

Logick is the logos of the Monad, of which the Theosophists predicted that it would be discovered in such terms;

Michael D. Robbins wrote:Analysis, carried to its ultimate extreme, is the search for the smallest separate thing. Of course, we have learned that this search leads into the mysterious realm of particle physics, where things are no longer things but, rather, “events” with a “tendency” to occur. Still, the search goes on, and will lead, according to the Ageless Wisdom, to subtler and subtler planes of vibration until “anu,” (the “speck”—perhaps some kind of ultimate energy unit) is discovered.

http://makara.us/04mdr/01writing/02tg/tapestry2.pdf

I only discovered the Logick because it was required to save my life; I had before that fundamentally misunderstood my Being. Yes - my Being, not my being.
I had not subjectivized it enough, I had not charged my being with what is properly my Being. I had thus not properly identified it, not grasped it, I had no power proper to my being. I was only a conductor of power.
When I understood Valuing as my nature, I became charged with infinite powers and was free to discharge like a Sun, which Ive been doing ever since.

The "lens" of gathering power is thus inside the being. This lens is the self-valuing tendency, it is the "taste for being" which is Being.
Taste may seem passive, but all outward activity is a reflection of it. There is no discharge without it. There is no "neutral" discharge. All is valuing.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Before the Light forum - The Magical Tree of Life Academy - The Huuluguns
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10235
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Sauwelios is dead; long live Dionysus!

Postby Zeroeth Nature » Wed May 20, 2020 2:06 am

Fixed Cross wrote:
'Postulate of being as self-Lightening.—"[F]orce is the drive to discharge itself within a field of forces enacting the same necessity. [...W]ill to power has no aim but discharge of the total quanta of its force at every moment;

I find issue with the phrasing, will to power has as its aim, power.  Not merely discharge. It wants to increase.


Well, so that's where I disagree! I'm immediately reminded of WP 619:

"The victorious concept 'force', by means of which our physicists have created God and the world, still needs to be completed: an inner world must be ascribed to it, which I designate as 'will to power', i.e., as an insatiable desire to manifest power [nach Bezeigung der Macht]; or as the employment and exercise [Verwendung, Ausübung] of power, as a creative drive, etc."

And thereby, in turn, of Christoph Cox:

"On the face of it, will to power would seem to be the drive to acquire power; yet [Nietzsche asserts] that it essentially concerns the expenditure ('discharge', 'sacrifice', 'overflow and squandering') of power, 'even to the point of absurdity'. [...] If the fundamental condition of life is one of superabundance and exuberance rather than indigence and distress, power is not primarily something an organism wants or needs but something an organism is or has and must exercise." (Cox, Nietzsche: Naturalism and Interpretation, page 230.)

However, you and I may just disagree on what we call "will to power". I say there's something even more fundamental than what you call by that name, and of course by your own Word, "self-valuing".


Fixed Cross wrote:VO defines the only possible mechanism of increase
increase does happen through discharge


I totally agree with this.


- through "successful discharge".
There is an infinity of infinities of unsuccessful discharges.
Such discharges can not be perceived, noted, felt - they are not, in their discharge, beings.


Well, I can agree that they aren't beings (in a sense). I don't think the qualification "(un)successful" is accurate here, though. Any discharge is a successful discharge, otherwise it's not a discharge... To be sure, you say they cannot be perceived, noted, felt, but I contend that they are the perception, the notion, the feeling, of discharge. They are Dissolvings into space, and space in my view is itself mind, consciousness...


Fixed Cross wrote:In turn yet, in order to have a potential to be discharged, they must have accumulated or been bestowed this potential.


Right. Thus I said: "The Big Bang is the absolute maximum accumulation of force discharging itself into space[.]" So, if it's an accumulation, how did it accumulate? Well...

"It would appear that the World Soul returns eternally only by virtue of the fact that, in each cycle, the One gives Its gift absolutely, without hope of return. Every time the cycle of becoming reaches its endpoint, there is another gift, or more precisely, the return of the same gift. And each time it is only because the gift is pure and absolute that there can be the eternal contamination that is the coming to presence of a cosmos. This pure gift takes the form of a circle, but does so only inadvertently; only by giving a gift outside of the circle of exchange is the circle achieved." (Ned Lukacher, Time-Fetishes: The Secret History of Eternal Recurrence, page 27.)


Fixed Cross wrote:
such discharge is always an event within a relatively unstable field of such impulses to discharge, the relation among them being simply that of greater or lesser; all beings are ultimately more or less stable collections of such impulses and themselves express the fundamental quality of impulse, will to power." (Lampert, What a Philosopher Is, pp. 264 and 266n29.)'

But the potential described here only becomes will-to-power once entangled with other potentials - and this brings us back to the self-valuing logic, which now, by the way, I have baptized again: Logick is the name.


Love the name!

Image

But here we see how you and I apply the term "will to power" to different things. I say the potential is already will-to-power—"potential-to-power", we may say (reminiscent, of course, of JSS's "potential-to-affect": to affect is to exercise power upon, and nothing besides).


Fixed Cross wrote:Main issue: Any will to, and any will is a will-to, is dyadic. A monad can not refer away from itself, into something else.
A self-valuing on the other hand incorporates, includes that which it values. It contains the potential for a dyad in it, but it is itself a Monad.


At this point I wish to address the beginnings of your post, which I skipped above:

Fixed Cross wrote:
My formula for Fixed Cross's logic is: "self-Valuing through other-Valuing".

As I phrased it in the beginning: being is self-valuing and valuing the world in terms of this self-valuing.
indeed, value ontology refers to what "can be said to exist" i.e. "objective" reality.

As I write:

"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."

https://beforethelight.forumotion.com/t ... e-ontology

I have, in the last two or three years, allowed the recognition that, beneath this Fixed form of being, there is the pure "valuing outward" which does not necessarily return, to build sustenance.
This valuing outward is indeed more like a radiating than a grasping, or willing-to.

However, for a thing to radiate outward, it must have acquired through time or, have been bestowed by a timeless nature, a degree of potential which is indeed holding itself together by following the law of self-valuing; by not breaking that law.

A point here is that a discharge as we understand the concept is a discharge of something into something.


Well, yes, but not necessarily into a being is what I'm saying. Or rather I think this is where the ontological difference is—transcended.

"It is interesting [...] that Heidegger did not inquire into the aporetic temporal character of khôra [in Plato's Sophist] but instead took a decidedly Parmenidean slant on its interpretation and related it to the khorismos or gap between Being and beings. In other words, instead of reading the strong indications in Plato that khôra is a material entity that lives eternally between Being and becoming, Heidegger de-realizes it as an existent being and reinvents it as a mere gap or notational spacing or interval[.]" (Lukacher, Time-Fetishes, page 21.)

Space, or the field(s) in which all beings are "kinks", I understand as what Heidegger calls Being or the meaning (sense!) of Being (according to Indian philosophy, the mind too is a sense).

"Husserl teaches that every intuition—categorial or otherwise—is the fulfillment of an empty intention. Again: the determinate empty intention is ontologically, if not temporally, prior to all intuitive fulfillments. Heidegger’s question of the meaning of Being is, therefore: what is the empty intention that is fulfilled in categorial intuition? Thomas Sheehan, in what must be one of the most important lines in the Heidegger literature, phrases the question of the meaning of Being as follows:
What is the nature of the empty intention that can be 'filled in' by Being? Or: What is the relative absence from out of which Being is disclosed as presence?
Husserl’s categorial intuition is the referent of the word 'Being'. Heidegger’s account of the empty intention fulfilled by categorial intuition is the meaning of Being." (Greg Johnson, "Heidegger's Question Beyond Being", quoting Sheehan, "Heidegger’s Philosophy of Mind".)

Perhaps I should rephrase what I said in my OP as follows: 'I contend that the sense of Being is what I called spacelight, which I will now call light-space.' For light-space is not so much Being as it is world or nothing:

"While neither Heidegger nor Nishitani makes this connection explicit, a little reflection on the two texts from 1929 makes clear that 'world' in On the Essence of Ground and 'nothing' in What is Metaphysics? are equivalent. According to the former text, a being can only make sense to us if we have already projected a horizon of intelligibility in the form of a world; we can encounter a being only insofar as we have already gone beyond ('transcended') it to an empty horizon, against which it can appear as not-nothing—that is, as something." (Nishitani Keiji, The Self-Overcoming of Nihilism, translator's note 8.25)

To be sure, though, Heidegger's saying in Being and Time that Being "is" not itself a being already makes Being logically equivalent to nothing... Still, my thesis is basically that all beings project such a horizon of intelligibility, and thereby "give space". Light-space is what gives beings their Being—the Geist which always makes beings more being wherever it rules.


Fixed Cross wrote:I only discovered the Logick because it was required to save my life; I had before that fundamentally misunderstood my Being. Yes - my Being, not my being.


Well, it's a bit odd to put it like that: after all, "my being" means so much as "my entity". It should rather be something like "the being that I am". You are a being, that is to say you have Being; you don't have a being, just as little as you are Being. I'm sorry if this seems like nitpicking, but that is the ontological difference. I'm quite captivated by what you're saying, though—go on!


Fixed Cross wrote:I had not subjectivized it enough, I had not charged my being with what is properly my Being. I had thus not properly identified it, not grasped it, I had no power proper to my being. I was only a conductor of power.
When I understood Valuing as my nature, I became charged with infinite powers and was free to discharge like a Sun, which Ive been doing ever since.


This is obviously powerful stuff. I think I've had the same kind of experience since I understood Light'ning as my being (first nature); though not as my Being (zeroth nature), which is Vajradhara.

Image

"Heidegger’s [central philosophical] topic is shrouded in mystery, for that-which-gives each epoch in the history of Being is hidden by the very epoch that it makes possible. This mystery is built right into the dual meanings of Heidegger’s names for his topic.
The word 'Lichtung' [one of those names] refers both to Being (that which lights up beings) and also to the clearing that makes it possible for the light to illuminate beings—and the light attracts our attention to itself while leaving the clearing that makes it possible in darkness." (Johnson, "Heidegger on Nietzsche, Metaphysics, and Nihilism".)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18qheVgPJac
User avatar
Zeroeth Nature
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 1:31 am

Re: Sauwelios is dead; long live Dionysus!

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed May 20, 2020 5:34 pm

Zeroeth Nature wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:
'Postulate of being as self-Lightening.—"[F]orce is the drive to discharge itself within a field of forces enacting the same necessity. [...W]ill to power has no aim but discharge of the total quanta of its force at every moment;

I find issue with the phrasing, will to power has as its aim, power.  Not merely discharge. It wants to increase.


Well, so that's where I disagree! I'm immediately reminded of WP 619:

"The victorious concept 'force', by means of which our physicists have created God and the world, still needs to be completed: an inner world must be ascribed to it, which I designate as 'will to power', i.e., as an insatiable desire to manifest power [nach Bezeigung der Macht]; or as the employment and exercise [Verwendung, Ausübung] of power, as a creative drive, etc."

And thereby, in turn, of Christoph Cox:

"On the face of it, will to power would seem to be the drive to acquire power; yet [Nietzsche asserts] that it essentially concerns the expenditure ('discharge', 'sacrifice', 'overflow and squandering') of power, 'even to the point of absurdity'. [...] If the fundamental condition of life is one of superabundance and exuberance rather than indigence and distress, power is not primarily something an organism wants or needs but something an organism is or has and must exercise." (Cox, Nietzsche: Naturalism and Interpretation, page 230.)

However, you and I may just disagree on what we call "will to power". I say there's something even more fundamental than what you call by that name, and of course by your own Word, "self-valuing".

We don't actually disagree - I did not say will wo power wants to increase rather than that it wants to discharge. I said it wants not just to discharge, but also increase.
But as we agree below, increase happens by discharge.

And indeed I welcome this focus on the discharge/lighting aspect.

Fixed Cross wrote:VO defines the only possible mechanism of increase
increase does happen through discharge


I totally agree with this.


- through "successful discharge".
There is an infinity of infinities of unsuccessful discharges.
Such discharges can not be perceived, noted, felt - they are not, in their discharge, beings.


Well, I can agree that they aren't beings (in a sense). I don't think the qualification "(un)successful" is accurate here, though. Any discharge is a successful discharge, otherwise it's not a discharge... To be sure, you say they cannot be perceived, noted, felt, but I contend that they are the perception, the notion, the feeling, of discharge. They are Dissolvings into space, and space in my view is itself mind, consciousness...

The thing is, we cant verify that with the same analytical certainty that we can verify self-valuings.
This is not tot say that it isn't the case.
But Logick (glad you appreciate the name) is not an observation or statement of truth but a method of interpreting - it is itself a willing-to-power;
it is how power acquires more of itself- which is to say, how it discharges.

Let me be clear. My doctrine is:
The LIGHTNING and the EARTH.

The lightning loves the earth, the Earth is the love of the lighting - its reason for existing - its ground for discharge.

And in scientific terms, the lightning seeks out a target for its discharge that has at least the same (but opposed) value as itself.
I mean electrical value here; degree of potency, quantum of power.

However, indeed, the reason for discharge, more fundamentally than that it is enabled by a target, is the will to discharge.

Fixed Cross wrote:In turn yet, in order to have a potential to be discharged, they must have accumulated or been bestowed this potential.


Right. Thus I said: "The Big Bang is the absolute maximum accumulation of force discharging itself into space[.]" So, if it's an accumulation, how did it accumulate? Well...

"It would appear that the World Soul returns eternally only by virtue of the fact that, in each cycle, the One gives Its gift absolutely, without hope of return. Every time the cycle of becoming reaches its endpoint, there is another gift, or more precisely, the return of the same gift. And each time it is only because the gift is pure and absolute that there can be the eternal contamination that is the coming to presence of a cosmos. This pure gift takes the form of a circle, but does so only inadvertently; only by giving a gift outside of the circle of exchange is the circle achieved." (Ned Lukacher, Time-Fetishes: The Secret History of Eternal Recurrence, page 27.)

This is elegant enough.
I could go on about how I think non-being becomes Being, how self-valuing logic enables the transition from the void into the lightning-giver, but that is not relevant here.

Fixed Cross wrote:
such discharge is always an event within a relatively unstable field of such impulses to discharge, the relation among them being simply that of greater or lesser; all beings are ultimately more or less stable collections of such impulses and themselves express the fundamental quality of impulse, will to power." (Lampert, What a Philosopher Is, pp. 264 and 266n29.)'

But the potential described here only becomes will-to-power once entangled with other potentials - and this brings us back to the self-valuing logic, which now, by the way, I have baptized again: Logick is the name.


Love the name!

But here we see how you and I apply the term "will to power" to different things. I say the potential is already will-to-power—"potential-to-power", we may say (reminiscent, of course, of JSS's "potential-to-affect": to affect is to exercise power upon, and nothing besides).

I never did posit a contradiction to this. It is the upon that I stress as necessary to the equation.
Discharge into the void is not possible, not for lightning, not for power. It needs ground. Napoleon needs France.

This is what I take to mean being true to the Earth. The Earth is the lightnings proper goal, destiny.

Fixed Cross wrote:Main issue: Any will to, and any will is a will-to, is dyadic. A monad can not refer away from itself, into something else.
A self-valuing on the other hand incorporates, includes that which it values. It contains the potential for a dyad in it, but it is itself a Monad.


At this point I wish to address the beginnings of your post, which I skipped above:

Fixed Cross wrote:
My formula for Fixed Cross's logic is: "self-Valuing through other-Valuing".

As I phrased it in the beginning: being is self-valuing and valuing the world in terms of this self-valuing.
indeed, value ontology refers to what "can be said to exist" i.e. "objective" reality.

As I write:

"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."

https://beforethelight.forumotion.com/t ... e-ontology

I have, in the last two or three years, allowed the recognition that, beneath this Fixed form of being, there is the pure "valuing outward" which does not necessarily return, to build sustenance.
This valuing outward is indeed more like a radiating than a grasping, or willing-to.

However, for a thing to radiate outward, it must have acquired through time or, have been bestowed by a timeless nature, a degree of potential which is indeed holding itself together by following the law of self-valuing; by not breaking that law.

A point here is that a discharge as we understand the concept is a discharge of something into something.


Well, yes, but not necessarily into a being is what I'm saying. Or rather I think this is where the ontological difference is—transcended.

"It is interesting [...] that Heidegger did not inquire into the aporetic temporal character of khôra [in Plato's Sophist] but instead took a decidedly Parmenidean slant on its interpretation and related it to the khorismos or gap between Being and beings. In other words, instead of reading the strong indications in Plato that khôra is a material entity that lives eternally between Being and becoming, Heidegger de-realizes it as an existent being and reinvents it as a mere gap or notational spacing or interval[.]" (Lukacher, Time-Fetishes, page 21.)

Yes, that is indeed where Heideggers "magic" lies.
He refutes pure materialism, which always implies substance dualism, and clears the path for a unified understanding.

Space, or the field(s) in which all beings are "kinks", I understand as what Heidegger calls Being or the meaning (sense!) of Being (according to Indian philosophy, the mind too is a sense).

"Husserl teaches that every intuition—categorial or otherwise—is the fulfillment of an empty intention. Again: the determinate empty intention is ontologically, if not temporally, prior to all intuitive fulfillments. Heidegger’s question of the meaning of Being is, therefore: what is the empty intention that is fulfilled in categorial intuition? Thomas Sheehan, in what must be one of the most important lines in the Heidegger literature, phrases the question of the meaning of Being as follows:
What is the nature of the empty intention that can be 'filled in' by Being? Or: What is the relative absence from out of which Being is disclosed as presence?
Husserl’s categorial intuition is the referent of the word 'Being'. Heidegger’s account of the empty intention fulfilled by categorial intuition is the meaning of Being." (Greg Johnson, "Heidegger's Question Beyond Being", quoting Sheehan, "Heidegger’s Philosophy of Mind".)

Yes yes... now you will understand me even better, for if you will allow me a phrase:
Value increases in its absence. I.e. in lack of a valued value, its value is emphasized, the necessity of its being is emphasized.

This is how Logick encompasses the Gap.

Perhaps I should rephrase what I said in my OP as follows: 'I contend that the sense of Being is what I called spacelight, which I will now call light-space.' For light-space is not so much Being as it is world or nothing:

"While neither Heidegger nor Nishitani makes this connection explicit, a little reflection on the two texts from 1929 makes clear that 'world' in On the Essence of Ground and 'nothing' in What is Metaphysics? are equivalent. According to the former text, a being can only make sense to us if we have already projected a horizon of intelligibility in the form of a world; we can encounter a being only insofar as we have already gone beyond ('transcended') it to an empty horizon, against which it can appear as not-nothing—that is, as something." (Nishitani Keiji, The Self-Overcoming of Nihilism, translator's note 8.25)

To be sure, though, Heidegger's saying in Being and Time that Being "is" not itself a being already makes Being logically equivalent to nothing... Still, my thesis is basically that all beings project such a horizon of intelligibility, and thereby "give space". Light-space is what gives beings their Being—the Geist which always makes beings more being wherever it rules.

Heidegger tries to stretch it too far, I think - he has to leave it open-ended and not make definitive conclusions. His best method relies on being tentative and open-ended, like al archaeologist brushing off dirt from ancient bones.
In a phrase, nothing can be logically equivalent to nothing.

I seem to agree with this light-space idea as far as I understand it now.

Fixed Cross wrote:I only discovered the Logick because it was required to save my life; I had before that fundamentally misunderstood my Being. Yes - my Being, not my being.


Well, it's a bit odd to put it like that: after all, "my being" means so much as "my entity". It should rather be something like "the being that I am". You are a being, that is to say you have Being; you don't have a being, just as little as you are Being. I'm sorry if this seems like nitpicking, but that is the ontological difference. I'm quite captivated by what you're saying, though—go on!

But I did not say "my being".
I misunderstood Being, including my Being, therefore, I was at risk of losing Being and ceasing to be a being.

Fixed Cross wrote:I had not subjectivized it enough, I had not charged my being with what is properly my Being. I had thus not properly identified it, not grasped it, I had no power proper to my being. I was only a conductor of power.
When I understood Valuing as my nature, I became charged with infinite powers and was free to discharge like a Sun, which Ive been doing ever since.


This is obviously powerful stuff. I think I've had the same kind of experience since I understood Light'ning as my being (first nature); though not as my Being (zeroth nature), which is Vajradhara.

That sounds happy and healthy. In turn it reminds me of the Void I attained in Zen meditations, whereby "I" was dissolved, but as "I", well, I came back from it, this I was charged with a brilliant and seemingly limitless energy.

Lghtning, its potential, is born from the Void - yet, how?
That question, dismissed by me above, still has the Logick as its answer.

The path between 0 and 1 - is that not precisely the problem Heidegger represents?
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Before the Light forum - The Magical Tree of Life Academy - The Huuluguns
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10235
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Sauwelios is dead; long live Dionysus!

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed May 20, 2020 11:25 pm

Ive got something -

it doesn't want to accumulate, it merely does accumulate.

It wants to discharge. And, does. But Being is itself alike the Great Health, which human beings do not in general entirely possess, it squanders itself and can afford that as a consciousness seated at the fountainhead, able to regenerate from precisely no-thing. By its proximity to the fountainhead it is compelled to regenerate and, because its regeneration from its depths is so forceful, it overtakes in its vitality that which never drops so far. A health which breathes like Brahma.



hail the void



Yes indeed self-valuing is a description of what happens, like a diagram of an engine, rather than a description of what "is", like a speeding car.
The engine is what really happens. The speeding car is the description of what is seen, felt, experienced, what "is".

A glance at an engine does not turn on a woman, but it does excite a man who sees what is implicit.
Will to power is implicit in the self-valuing logic, but not explicit.
And that is the problem. It is not a term of invocation, as will to power is. It is no literary genius, has no philological relevance. But Logick does.
However Logick does not refer to the mechanism itself, as it does to the understanding of that mechanism.
Which allows the circle to close; Logick is deliberate practice of will to power as such -- is it then the Being of the philosophical being "will to power"...
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Before the Light forum - The Magical Tree of Life Academy - The Huuluguns
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10235
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Sauwelios is dead; long live Dionysus!

Postby Zeroeth Nature » Thu May 21, 2020 3:47 am

Fixed Cross wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:But the potential described here only becomes will-to-power once entangled with other potentials - and this brings us back to the self-valuing logic, which now, by the way, I have baptized again: Logick is the name.


Love the name!

But here we see how you and I apply the term "will to power" to different things. I say the potential is already will-to-power—"potential-to-power", we may say (reminiscent, of course, of JSS's "potential-to-affect": to affect is to exercise power upon, and nothing besides).

I never did posit a contradiction to this. It is the upon that I stress as necessary to the equation.
Discharge into the void is not possible, not for lightning, not for power. It needs ground. Napoleon needs France.

This is what I take to mean being true to the Earth. The Earth is the lightnings proper goal, destiny.


Well, yes, that "upon" was kind of a giveaway (not intended!). But "affect" was JSS's term, not mine. I say the "upon" is unnecessary:  self-Light'ning into light-space is not so much discharge into the void as it is discharge into void: the self-Light'ning becomes light-space, never completely but more and more (approximating an asymptote). The discharge creates more void, or more precisely it is a Creating of more void (empty space, vacuum). Napoleon created more France, went up in the expansion of France! The Earth itself lightens into the Expanse.




Fixed Cross wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:A point here is that a discharge as we understand the concept is a discharge of something into something.


Well, yes, but not necessarily into a being is what I'm saying. Or rather I think this is where the ontological difference is—transcended.

"It is interesting [...] that Heidegger did not inquire into the aporetic temporal character of khôra [in Plato's Sophist] but instead took a decidedly Parmenidean slant on its interpretation and related it to the khorismos or gap between Being and beings. In other words, instead of reading the strong indications in Plato that khôra is a material entity that lives eternally between Being and becoming, Heidegger de-realizes it as an existent being and reinvents it as a mere gap or notational spacing or interval[.]" (Lukacher, Time-Fetishes, page 21.)

Yes, that is indeed where Heideggers "magic" lies.  
He refutes pure materialism, which always implies substance dualism, and clears the path for a unified understanding.


I don't think Lukacher meant to say something positive about Heidegger here. My point, in any case, was that light-space is like Plato's khōra, although I'd say it is and is not a material entity/an existent being. This is suggested to me by what Lukacher writes and cites a page or two earlier:

"The loosening of the Parmenidean knot began at least as early as Plato's The Sophist with its idea of a hybrid kind of Being, the Being of nonbeing / the nonbeing of Being, a triton genos or third modality of Being that Plato calls an 'intertwining' or symplöke (Sophist 240c). Such anomalous states of Being mark the limits of knowledge and keep a space open for the unthought. [...] This is what Plato says about the khôra touton, the receptacle of all becoming (49b): 'A third kind [triton genos] is ever-existing Place [khôras] which admits not of destruction, and provides room for all things that have birth, itself being apprehensible by a kind of bastard reasoning by the aid of non-sensation, barely an object of belief'(52b); 'of a kind that is invisible and unshaped [amorphon], all-receptive, and in some most perplexing and most baffling way [aporétatá] partaking of the intelligible' (51b). [...] The khôra, as an eternally existing possibility of coming-to-presence, lies at the limits of philosophy as a kind of experimental speculation. [...] Plato's khôra seems to imply that the meterá kai hypodoche (mother and receptacle) of all that comes to presence is very much like a living being, who somehow survives the great year." (op.cit., pp. 19-20.)

Aristotle's "prime mover" as "thought thinking itself" (noesis noeseos), I now understand esoterically as the receptivity of receptivity (and indeed, Heidegger translates noein as vernehmen).

"That we must speak of two accounts of reason, the ancient and the modern, can be seen in the fact that for the ancients thought was at its height, not an action, but what they called a passion [i.e., passive]. Whatever the differences in what came to us from Jerusalem and from Athens, on this central point there was a commonness. The height for man was a passion. In modern language we might weakly describe this by saying that thought was finally a receptivity. We can see that this is not true of modern thought because its very form is the making of hypotheses and the testing by experiment, something intimately connected with the acts of our wills, the controlling of the world, the making of history." (George Grant, "Time as History".)

I first arrived at my insight into light-space by applying Strauss's formula of willing the return of the world as will to power:

"We start again from the premise that reality is will to power, and there is no essential difference between men and brutes; there is no nature of man strictly speaking. Given this premise, the doctrine of eternal return, which means, subjectively, transformation of the will into acceptance, is the only way there can be knowledge, as acknowledging of what is, and it is the only way in which there can be nature; that is to say, that which is by itself and not by being willed or posited. But precisely because acceptance is transformed will, will survives in the acceptance, in the contemplation. Contemplation is creative." (Strauss, lecture transcript of May 18th, 1959.)

And recently, I put it like this:

'Let your Will say: the world SHALL BE the will to power, and Nothing besides!'

This formulation marks the beginning of my conscious self-Light'ning.


Fixed Cross wrote:
Space, or the field(s) in which all beings are "kinks", I understand as what Heidegger calls Being or the meaning (sense!) of Being (according to Indian philosophy, the mind too is a sense).

"Husserl teaches that every intuition—categorial or otherwise—is the fulfillment of an empty intention. Again: the determinate empty intention is ontologically, if not temporally, prior to all intuitive fulfillments. Heidegger’s question of the meaning of Being is, therefore: what is the empty intention that is fulfilled in categorial intuition? Thomas Sheehan, in what must be one of the most important lines in the Heidegger literature, phrases the question of the meaning of Being as follows:
What is the nature of the empty intention that can be 'filled in' by Being? Or: What is the relative absence from out of which Being is disclosed as presence?
Husserl’s categorial intuition is the referent of the word 'Being'. Heidegger’s account of the empty intention fulfilled by categorial intuition is the meaning of Being." (Greg Johnson, "Heidegger's Question Beyond Being", quoting Sheehan, "Heidegger’s Philosophy of Mind".)

Yes yes... now you will understand me even better, for if you will allow me a phrase:
Value increases in its absence. I.e. in lack of a valued value, its value is emphasized, the necessity of its being is emphasized.

This is how Logick encompasses the Gap.

Perhaps I should rephrase what I said in my OP as follows: 'I contend that the sense of Being is what I called spacelight, which I will now call light-space.' For light-space is not so much Being as it is world or nothing:

"While neither Heidegger nor Nishitani makes this connection explicit, a little reflection on the two texts from 1929 makes clear that 'world' in On the Essence of Ground and 'nothing' in What is Metaphysics? are equivalent. According to the former text, a being can only make sense to us if we have already projected a horizon of intelligibility in the form of a world; we can encounter a being only insofar as we have already gone beyond ('transcended') it to an empty horizon, against which it can appear as not-nothing—that is, as something." (Nishitani Keiji, The Self-Overcoming of Nihilism, translator's note 8.25)

To be sure, though, Heidegger's saying in Being and Time that Being "is" not itself a being already makes Being logically equivalent to nothing... Still, my thesis is basically that all beings project such a horizon of intelligibility, and thereby "give space". Light-space is what gives beings their Being—the Geist which always makes beings more being wherever it rules.

Heidegger tries to stretch it too far, I think - he has to leave it open-ended and not make definitive conclusions. His best method relies on being tentative and open-ended, like al archaeologist brushing off dirt from ancient bones.
In a phrase, nothing can be logically equivalent to nothing.

I seem to agree with this light-space idea as far as I understand it now.


All beings, all self-Valuings, project a horizon of lack in which their other-Valuings (that is to say those among the other self-Valuings between whom and themselves there is (to be) a relationship of—mutual—Valuing) can alone be disclosed as present! And those self-Light'nings whose Lightening is not reciprocated by other self-Lightenings (whom they make heavier and who in turn make them heavier) become space, i.e., light before it "lights"—upon!




Fixed Cross wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:I only discovered the Logick because it was required to save my life; I had before that fundamentally misunderstood my Being. Yes - my Being, not my being.


Well, it's a bit odd to put it like that: after all, "my being" means so much as "my entity". It should rather be something like "the being that I am". You are a being, that is to say you have Being; you don't have a being, just as little as you are Being. I'm sorry if this seems like nitpicking, but that is the ontological difference. I'm quite captivated by what you're saying, though—go on!

But I did not say "my being".
 I misunderstood Being, including my Being, therefore, I was at risk of losing Being and ceasing to be a being.


I think I misunderstood you here, then. I thought you'd meant to italicise "Being", not "my". Now I suppose you gave "Being" a capital because it was yours, which is a different reason from mine (and Krell's). My Bad...


Fixed Cross wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:I had not subjectivized it enough, I had not charged my being with what is properly my Being. I had thus not properly identified it, not grasped it, I had no power proper to my being. I was only a conductor of power.
When I understood Valuing as my nature, I became charged with infinite powers and was free to discharge like a Sun, which Ive been doing ever since.


This is obviously powerful stuff. I think I've had the same kind of experience since I understood Light'ning as my being (first nature); though not as my Being (zeroth nature), which is Vajradhara.

That sounds happy and healthy. In turn it reminds me of the Void I attained in Zen meditations, whereby "I" was dissolved, but as "I", well, I came back from it, this I was charged with a brilliant and seemingly limitless energy.


Yes, that sounds quite similar. Zeroth nature, Buddha-nature, śūnyatā, however, was quite the opposite of happy for me, and quite the opposite of mentally healthy—until I could from there value all saṅkhāras (I could imagine).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Kc9co0psCs&t=448
User avatar
Zeroeth Nature
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 1:31 am

Re: Sauwelios is dead; long live Dionysus!

Postby Fixed Cross » Thu May 21, 2020 2:03 pm

Now I suppose you gave "Being" a capital because it was yours,

No, I capitalized it as Being in general, rather than a particular being.
As in the Being of a being.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Before the Light forum - The Magical Tree of Life Academy - The Huuluguns
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10235
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Sauwelios is dead; long live Dionysus!

Postby Fixed Cross » Thu May 21, 2020 2:06 pm

Zeroeth Nature wrote:Yes, that sounds quite similar. Zeroth nature, Buddha-nature, śūnyatā, however, was quite the opposite of happy for me, and quite the opposite of mentally healthy—until I could from there value all saṅkhāras (I could imagine).

Why did you care?


As you know Plato is meaningless to me, and I consider Aristotle to be very weak as a thinker. I am not more interested in them than I was a year ago, rather, less.
Ive been reading Francis Bacon, by the way - he trashes Aristotelean philosophy very harshly (though politely and discretely), which was satisfying to read.

It occurs to me now, reading of your experience - the ER has always been ugly to me, and reading Zarathustra's Seven Seals in German made me nauseous, I could clearly feel the inanity being imposed there -
now I think, was there still too much Plato in Nietzsche? Was the ER N's way of trying to Idealize, to turn the world into an Idol? Did he perhaps not truly know himself to be lightning (even though he was), beyond debt to history, beyond time?

I do not value the wretched.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Before the Light forum - The Magical Tree of Life Academy - The Huuluguns
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10235
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Sauwelios is dead; long live Dionysus!

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri May 22, 2020 12:22 am

Clouds by analogy are history and what the lightning is beholden to if to anything -it is recommended to crack the lightning before the clouds get too dense -
Hail Nietzsche, son of the cloudgatherer Zeus, lord of fate.

Sokrates forsook the thundergod and replaced him with a god of doubt. An act so enormous that it is silly to look down on it. But it is not an act which can be heeded by one who worships the thunder. It can be understood as fateful, as genius, as evolution of the spirit, but it can not be loved as Zeus can be loved.

And love is the law. 93/93
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Before the Light forum - The Magical Tree of Life Academy - The Huuluguns
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10235
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Sauwelios is dead; long live Dionysus!

Postby Zeroeth Nature » Fri May 22, 2020 12:53 am

Fixed Cross wrote:
Now I suppose you gave "Being" a capital because it was yours,
No, I capitalized it as Being in general, rather than a particular being.As in the Being of a being.


But then you said you did not say "my being". Anyway, I will put it this way now: Being is not Valuing; beings are Valuings (namely, self-Valuings through other-Valuings), but even more fundamentally they are Lightenings, and in fact Being itself is Lightening. (That is to say, existence, not persistence; persistence is only possible in Valuing.) Here's how I put that thing about discharge leading to accumulation in terms of individuals recently (though it probably hardly applies to individuals; that was just the context in which I wrote it):

'I think what came first was the impulse to give oneself up completely ("to not exist at all"), but often this inadvertently led to our getting something back in return, which in turn sustained us, so we could keep giving parts of us away, and as long as we got stuff back we remained in existence.'
User avatar
Zeroeth Nature
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 1:31 am

Re: Sauwelios is dead; long live Dionysus!

Postby Zeroeth Nature » Fri May 22, 2020 12:54 am

Fixed Cross wrote:
Zeroeth Nature wrote:Yes, that sounds quite similar. Zeroth nature, Buddha-nature, śūnyatā, however, was quite the opposite of happy for me, and quite the opposite of mentally healthy—until I could from there value all saṅkhāras (I could imagine).

Why did you care?


As you know Plato is meaningless to me, and I consider Aristotle to be very weak as a thinker. I am not more interested in them than I was a year ago, rather, less.
Ive been reading Francis Bacon, by the way - he trashes Aristotelean philosophy very harshly (though politely and discretely), which was satisfying to read.

It occurs to me now, reading of your experience - the ER has always been ugly to me, and reading Zarathustra's Seven Seals in German made me nauseous, I could clearly feel the inanity being imposed there -
now I think, was there still too much Plato in Nietzsche? Was the ER N's way of trying to Idealize, to turn the world into an Idol? Did he perhaps not truly know himself to be lightning (even though he was), beyond debt to history, beyond time?

I do not value the wretched.


You're wrong about Plato and Aristotle—and about Bacon as well, whom surely you didn't read esoterically, either. The reason why he bashed Aristotelianism is in my "Tutorial in Platonic Political Philosophy":

"[...I]n the Middle Ages, Christian theology got almost inextricably tangled up with Aristotelian natural science. And when, after the high point of the Renaissance, philosophy was acutely endangered by religious zeal—religious wars, the Inquisition, the persecution of Galilei, the burning of Giordano Bruno—, then Machiavelli got the brilliant idea to use that entanglement against the Church. Yet the unworkability of Aristotelian natural science was only an assumption on the part of Machiavelli, and it wasn't until Descartes that that science was vanquished by the scientific revolution made possible by the latter's mathematised natural science. Enter Francis Bacon."

Though I've recently come to call my tutorial a tutorial in esoteric political philosophy instead, there's certainly a sense in which Nietzsche, Homer and Machiavelli etc. are Platonic (and Plato is Homeric, Nietzschean, and Machiavellian, etc.).

"As philosophy's advocate Nietzsche 'platonizes'; he practices an art of writing that beautifies his subject, enticing others to take it up as their own and discover in their turn the beauty of the seemingly ugly. And as philosophy's advocate, Nietzsche relapses into Platonism, the teaching that the whole is lovable in itself." (Lampert, Leo Strauss and Nietzsche, page 117.)

According to Lampert, the ideal of eternal return is the beautification of the whole. Yet he also teaches that Nietzsche didn't really believe in it! And indeed, where (in The Seven Seals) does Zarathustra impose it? All he says is this:

"Oh, how could I not be ardent for Eternity and for the marriage-ring of rings—the ring of the return?
Never yet have I found the woman by whom I should like to have children, unless it be this woman whom I love: for I love thee, O Eternity!
For I love thee, O Eternity!"

I must say, what you write sounds quite unworthy to me: beyond debt to history, beyond time? As if it weren't thanks to one's history, memetic and genetic, that one is able to truly know oneself to be—but wait, Neumann does say:

"There is nothing inherently rigorous or mathematical in scientific method which, rightly understood as it rarely is, means nothing more than nihilist experience, any way (or method) of experiencing—whether it be that of a tiger, an infant or an Einstein. Science is the realization that reality is nothing but mere experience, methods of perceiving or thinking." (Harry Neumann, Liberalism, page 3.)

And he says elsewhere that a caveman who had that realization knew all there is to know. But could a caveman, an infant, or even a tiger really sustain that realization? I doubt whether Neumann believed that, and I certainly don't believe that.

"The pain par excellence is the pain that accompanies the cognition of the fearful truth, of the tornness of everything of which we say: it is, in the absolute negativity of the eternal flux and the mental penetration of the illusory character of the world. That is the genuinely human pain, for only man is capable of tearing apart the veil of Maya and mentally penetrating the illusory character of all existence. In the cognition of the tornness of existence, which forces him to rise above himself, does he become human. He brings himself to the pessimism of strength, he learns the Dionysian Yes-saying to the tragic fundamental character of existence." (Picht, Nietzsche, page 299.)

I've cared because the saṅkhāras or saḿskáras are the opposite of śūnyatā and thereby happy and mentally healthy for me.
User avatar
Zeroeth Nature
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 1:31 am

Re: Sauwelios is dead; long live Dionysus!

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri May 22, 2020 2:12 pm

Agree to disagree!
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Before the Light forum - The Magical Tree of Life Academy - The Huuluguns
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10235
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Sauwelios is dead; long live Dionysus!

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri May 22, 2020 2:59 pm

Well that's letting you off easy, boy.

For someone who has managed to misread one sentence of mine several times you are mighty haughty about your reading capabilities.
It seems that you see as 'esoteric reading' means nothing more than 'reading what you want to read'.

Bacon writes off Aristotle and all Aristotelean thought, between the lines and without mentioning names, as the eunuch of the European spirit. I'm sure you didn't even notice the passage. But it is there indisputably, not just 'esoterically'.

My philosophic writing is denser than what you have learned to anticipate. If you do not understand a passage or think I am wrong, reread, reread, pause, drink some water, re-read.

Apparently my points largely overwhelm you. Fine. But don't be cocky to me when you duck and dodge.

Im not stooping for Platonic frivolities ever again. I wondered if it should be better just brushing you off, but where's the value in that.
Whatever there is of your own thought hidden deep between the riff-raff of quotations of so called philosophers, tends to be worthy of taking note of. Actually inspiring even from time to time.

But you and your goddamn fetish for quoting bad writers.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Before the Light forum - The Magical Tree of Life Academy - The Huuluguns
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10235
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Sauwelios is dead; long live Dionysus!

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri May 22, 2020 3:57 pm

So, cloud-gathering is required for lightning release.

That, and Earth.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Before the Light forum - The Magical Tree of Life Academy - The Huuluguns
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10235
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Sauwelios is dead; long live Dionysus!

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri May 22, 2020 5:45 pm

If it weren't me, it wouldn't be this important. If the truest accomplishment of philosophy was not the subject of such misunderstanding - such _LACK OF DISCIPLINE_ in fact, then it would be absurd for me to make such a spectacle.

You bring two things back here;
a historical conception of philosophy and a deep rooted, extreme arrogance.
Both are valuable to me but I had to find the value. The value is not your understanding but your profound misunderstanding.

Youre deep enough to reach level reading that is actually wrong enough for me to want to attack it. This will to destroy your misconceptions and to punish the arrogance behind them has been motive for me since 2001 probably. I admit I have shaped my philosophy while battling you. But not your ideas - rather, your method.
Your dead are either beautiful or not, but your methods are always infuriating. As long as you know that, you can come very far.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Before the Light forum - The Magical Tree of Life Academy - The Huuluguns
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10235
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Sauwelios is dead; long live Dionysus!

Postby Zeroeth Nature » Fri May 22, 2020 5:46 pm

Everyone can see you said "my being" and then said you didn't say "my being". Reminds me of a certain president...

Fact is you're not just a bad reader but also a bad writer. I never claimed all the people I quoted were philosophers.
"Strauss did have access to the divinity of Dionysos and Plato.
But if he had access to those philosophizing gods, what he had 'no access' to would have to be divine Ariadne. Strauss is then confessing no access to the instinct that divinizes womanliness. His only gods are the philosophers. Ariadne is not a philosopher. Ariadne is not a god. That seems to be what Strauss confesses he has no access to in Nietzsche's theology. And that may very well be the nerve of Nietzsche's theology: the nerve to claim superior divinity for womanliness even over philosophizing Dionysos." (Lampert, The Enduring Importance of Leo Strauss, page 295.)
User avatar
Zeroeth Nature
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 1:31 am

Re: Sauwelios is dead; long live Dionysus!

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri May 22, 2020 5:51 pm

Try to at least convince yourself.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Before the Light forum - The Magical Tree of Life Academy - The Huuluguns
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10235
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Sauwelios is dead; long live Dionysus!

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri May 22, 2020 5:58 pm

Back to your subject, from which you keep distracting -
you deny that lightning requires clouds and earth. In order to serve this denial you conjure a term, spacelight. You do not care to prove its existence either logically or empirically, but are content to believe in it so as not to believe that lighting requires earth.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration wrote:Cloud-to-ground lightning comes from the sky down, but the part you see comes from the ground up. A typical cloud-to-ground flash lowers a path of negative electricity (that we cannot see) towards the ground in a series of spurts. Objects on the ground generally have a positive charge under a typical thunderstorm. (The charge that builds up in a small area of the Earth’s surface and the objects on it is determined by the net charge above it since the Earth’s surface is relatively conductive and can move charge in response to the thunderstorm.) Since opposites attract, an upward streamer is sent out from the object about to be struck. When these two paths meet, a return stroke zips back up to the sky. It is the return stroke that produces the visible flash
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Before the Light forum - The Magical Tree of Life Academy - The Huuluguns
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10235
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Sauwelios is dead; long live Dionysus!

Postby Zeroeth Nature » Fri May 22, 2020 9:21 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:If it weren't me, it wouldn't be this important. If the truest accomplishment of philosophy was not the subject of such misunderstanding - such _LACK OF DISCIPLINE_ in fact, then it would be absurd for me to make such a spectacle.


Are you sure that you are to accuse me of lack of discipline? :lol:

The truth is that you refuse to take philosophy's exotericism seriously because that would require an effort your usual lazy, drugged-out self simply couldn't muster.


You bring two things back here;
a historical conception of philosophy and a deep rooted, extreme arrogance.


Again, :lol:

Back to your subject, from which you keep distracting -


:icon-rolleyes:

I haven't used the word "lightning" in this thread at all...
User avatar
Zeroeth Nature
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 1:31 am

Re: Sauwelios is dead; long live Dionysus!

Postby Zeroeth Nature » Sat May 23, 2020 6:19 am

Fucked Crotch wrote:the truest accomplishment of philosophy


The truest accomplishment of philosophy can never revolve around an "anu". Thus self-Light'ning in light-space is not even a particle('s) becoming a quantum of space, but the relative un-Kinking of a wave of space. The whole is infinite, but its "parts" can never be infinitesimal. Unlike you, I'm not a jealous god; we Gods are legion, but you don't belong to us. You are a Black Brother.
User avatar
Zeroeth Nature
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 1:31 am

Re: Sauwelios is dead; long live Dionysus!

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat May 23, 2020 7:59 pm

I see, it was just a little world-play!
No relevance to this world. As usual.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Before the Light forum - The Magical Tree of Life Academy - The Huuluguns
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10235
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships


Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot]