Schopenhauer says: ‘The nocturnal studies of scholars may be the reason why the owl is the bird of Athena.’
Athena was born from Zeus head, Dionysos from his thigh. Is the owl the part of the night that surveys Dionysos? Does the owl keep watch over Dionysos? It seems so.
Last winter, a village in my region was plagued by a great dark owl, who would swoop down upon innocent villagers and harm them.
Terrificient, these are owls, they do not even seem.
Ovid says: ‘Let others praise ancient times; I am glad I was born in these.’
Ovid was a man of such strong passion that he conceive the world as one all-swallowing transformation. The Heraclitus of his time, ‘everything changes, nothing perishes’ - and also a philosopher of value, knowing that ‘happy are those who dare courageously to defend what they love.’ Now he tells me, ‘take rest; a field that has rested gives a beautiful crop.’
There would have to be a third party which continues throughout the durations of change.
Qualia of mind are not that, because they are changed by way of the changes in the respective physical counterpart.
&/or
For one thing to change into another, the next thing must contain the equal part of the former. For this to be true there must be and is a third party. Two circles will always manifest a third containing circle.
Conclusion; there is no ‘it’ until there is an ‘it’. there are no individual existences, as this is impossible, there is only flux and its observers = events.
But why not? Couldn’t you say that the marble with which Michaelangelo created David still remains just under a different appearance or guise? The true essence of that marble still remains. Maybe that wasn’t a good example.
Why a third party? This is about transformation. No third party - just a process, a kind of ad continuum of sorts.
You’re talking like a lawyer here instead of a philosopher.
Maybe what we need here is a different name for “third party” but I may be wrong.
Two circles will always manifest a third containing circle.
.
I beg to differ with you. I myself am an individual it or as I prefer to be called an individual “I”.
Our brains haven’t evolved enough to see that “only flux” but our atoms spinning so quickly and crazily around do create us as individual existences as does evolution. If that made any sense. If you touch my hand, I become an “I” to you or would that be “thou”.
Well, my “I” certainly observes and experiences my flux.
Let’s not go throwing the baby down the drain …because the water flows so quickly.
If the direction of the wind changes, is it no longer the direction of the wind?
If you eat an apple, are you no longer you?
All ‘things’ are as James said consisting of change, but of change of a consistent kind. An yes it takes an owls eye to see the change and the thingness clearly in terms of each other,
Rather I’d say the two need to be merged, by an alchemy of the mind, into a third concept.
Hegel is easiest to read with a bagel with cream cheese.
For there to be change however there must be consistency as well. The change has to be in relation to something. “The changing thing” - the self-valuing.
“[“Self-valuing”] 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[ which is the logic itself, which has no other substance than tendency. All things are fundamentally uncertain except in that they must belong to some ontologo-paradigmatic center which is elusive to us except in the feeling of pure appreciation, love. Absolute commitment to thinking under this law (“love is the law, love under will”) finally leads to the “philosophers stone”, an understanding of the one solid consistency in the high pressure cloudscape of the human brain. To inhabit the thunder, to be permanently aware of a ring of lightning].”
And yet all events are accurately defined as colliding perspectives. “To make things as simple as possible but not simpler”, said the man who said never to reveal ones sources.
In this case, that means not to dismiss notions one is going to need to support the final notion. “It” is to my mind “that which interacts with other Its in such a way as to sustain, throughout the change required for interaction which is what the verb being refers to, its itness”. Words are swords, they cleave the truth so as to show the raw possibility of it. But the axe has split all trees - we need now to forge to word into a tree. The word must take root in its ground, which is its value, to us, who are for all intents and purposes its ‘self’.
So its directional then; a transforming ‘entity’, be it a kind of energy, force or quality/qualia, is directed as the ‘consistency’ of shape and form. Where e.g. If i eat an apple, one set of consistent trends - let us say [an object/me] consumes the other set [apple].
…sounds a bit Tao-like to me.
I see.
That there are only elements of change/changers, yes? There is no thingness beyond behaviour makers which change respectively and relative to one another. Observers and events must therefore be ultimately the same thing [observations changing each other]. I don’t quite understand what self-valuing means though…
Indeed. ‘Perspectives’ includes ‘observation’ or is more the direction of said observation. A direction of observation making effect upon other observers [relativistically] could be called a director, as it has a directive value in its effect. Or ‘force’, yes? A collection of which is ‘self’, and assumedly, though this is dodgy territory, the self >is< the prevailing force which has overcome all within that which constitutes you [all other observers [cells organs etc]].
Then there are questions about the world X force/s; for every Napoleon there is a Wellington, this is assumedly because for every force there is an equal and opposite. The overman is thus the one whom eventually overcomes all? Is that possible, forces being what they are?
Yes, definitely directional. Vector-math is relevant.
Brain activity does not necessarily produce what I would call proper consciousness.
Even simple daily meditation on the frontal lobes increases neural connections there by a factor 10 within a few years. It’s a very young piece of brain, relatively speaking, and not at all fully designated yet.
It is the element that makes it Real. What you phrase is correct, but it does not refer to the specific nature of existence yet. That nature is very wild, very lustful, predatorial and yet protective - it is not merely observing.
Self-valuing refers to the fact that where such lustful-protective actions result in the enhancement of the directionality (the particular ‘spirit’ or ‘tendency’) this ‘it’ will continue to exist at the cost of others.
You could say I make analytical philosophy viscerally active.
Yes but not, that self-valuing is not the valuing of a self, but the self-valuing of a valuing. The self is the result, but not the agent. It is therefore ‘illusory’, all that is real is the valuing. Not to say that all valuing is love or that value ontology is love of love, but that love is the way in which we can conceive of the sort of necessity there is embedded in ‘valuing’.
The Overman is a great tool-concept. It can be applied in many ways, One of the ways I see the Overman is as the third point adding to the Freudian dichotomy, a dichotomy which is the formula for neurosis. Eros an Thanatos, or the Reality and the Pleasure pinciple, these dichotomies resolve in the striving for the Overman. Idealy he is never attained.
