The Philosophers

This is the place to shave off that long white beard and stop being philosophical; a forum for members to just talk like normal human beings.

Moderator: MagsJ

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Sun Mar 11, 2018 5:32 pm

Number 6 - Believe it or not, but value ontology actually feels like a "superpower". It places me beyond the existing human orders of power.

And I think such new, superhuman power is required to even deal with the death of god.

Meaning Im one of the very few who are actually coping with reality. Reality sans God requires superheroism.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Before the Light - Tree of Life Academy - Thought of a Rune (film by Pezer)
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7887
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Meno_ » Sun Mar 11, 2018 8:03 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:Number 6 - Believe it or not, but value ontology actually feels like a "superpower". It places me beyond the existing human orders of power.

And I think such new, superhuman power is required to even deal with the death of god.

Meaning Im one of the very few who are actually coping with reality. Reality sans God requires superheroism.



If God is dead he must be resurrected , and resurrection is merely the effect of selective - pan-psychic focus, by minimum of two participants.

1 man is merely stranded on an island of his own construction , where only a mirror of the other can be seen, which he mistakes for another. Friday may be only a wishful appearance.a phantom and a mirage.

Not that he may eventually not come around,

Say the sceptics and the doubters, and those filled with the fear of transmutation.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3777
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Number 6 » Sun Mar 11, 2018 10:15 pm

To live without the consolation of "God" and, thereby, the possibility of redemption is not for everyone, to be sure. I stand with Ivan Karamazov: If I must accept a child's tears as part of "His" divine plan, then the price of the "eternal salvation of the soul" is much too great. To play devil's advocate (no pun intended): If an infinite being such as "God" actually exists, I would assume that both "He" and, by extension, "His" divine plan are well beyond the grasp of our finite minds. Perhaps, if our minds were not so constituted, "His" plan would make perfect sense and appear perfectly logical. I am reminded of Descartes' argument: If the knowledge of God is in our finite minds, then God must have placed it there (how else could it have gotten there?) - thus, God exists. This is certainly clever, and not without a certain charm (much to Descartes credit)...but no. The study of history, or just a quick look around, tells me all I need to know. One pays a price for being an atheist. If this were not so, there would be far more them.
"There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest - whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories - comes afterward. These are games; one must first answer." - Camus
User avatar
Number 6
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2018 10:35 pm
Location: The Village

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Number 6 » Sun Mar 11, 2018 10:26 pm

Meno, my friend: God is dead, and we must nail his coffin shut. He had his chance...and he blew it.
"There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest - whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories - comes afterward. These are games; one must first answer." - Camus
User avatar
Number 6
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2018 10:35 pm
Location: The Village

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Arcturus Descending » Mon Mar 12, 2018 2:33 pm

Number 6 wrote:Meno, my friend: God is dead, and we must nail his coffin shut. He had his chance...and he blew it.


He?
You seem to be a bit skeptical about the dead part. Otherwise, why the nails in the coffin?
“How can a bird that is born for joy
Sit in a cage and sing?”
― William Blake


“Little Fly
Thy summers play,
My thoughtless hand
Has brush'd away.

Am not I
A fly like thee?
Or art not thou
A man like me?

For I dance
And drink & sing:
Till some blind hand
Shall brush my wing.

If thought is life
And strength & breath:
And the want
Of thought is death;

Then am I
A happy fly,
If I live,
Or if I die”
― William Blake, Songs of Innocence and of Experience


“No bird soars too high if he soars with his own wings.”
― William Blake
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15303
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Mon Mar 12, 2018 10:36 pm

Number 6 wrote:To live without the consolation of "God" and, thereby, the possibility of redemption is not for everyone, to be sure. I stand with Ivan Karamazov: If I must accept a child's tears as part of "His" divine plan, then the price of the "eternal salvation of the soul" is much too great.

Agreed.

To play devil's advocate (no pun intended): If an infinite being such as "God" actually exists, I would assume that both "He" and, by extension, "His" divine plan are well beyond the grasp of our finite minds. Perhaps, if our minds were not so constituted, "His" plan would make perfect sense and appear perfectly logical.

And where this is not the case, it is illogical to assume there is such a plan.
Not to say that all illogical beliefs are unjustified.
But "eternal salvation" seems a cheat, a cop-out, a disappointment, a "doozy", far from divine.

Divine is Dionysos, the very opposite of eternity; the escape from time, the revelation of the true moment. That is, the moment as violent rapture, not as blissful stretching void. I think the Buddhist void is what served as a template for the fantasy of heaven.

I am reminded of Descartes' argument: If the knowledge of God is in our finite minds, then God must have placed it there (how else could it have gotten there?) - thus, God exists. This is certainly clever, and not without a certain charm (much to Descartes credit)...but no. The study of history, or just a quick look around, tells me all I need to know. One pays a price for being an atheist. If this were not so, there would be far more them.

As many have pointed out, Descartes' quoon (a new word I just designed for this sort of thing) is also an argument for the validity of our knowledge of the Purple Wombat, the Unicorn, the 88-armed elephant, etc -
Descartes had his moments, but this wasn't one of them.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Before the Light - Tree of Life Academy - Thought of a Rune (film by Pezer)
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7887
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Number 6 » Tue Mar 13, 2018 9:54 pm

Cute, Meno. He, she, it, nails, no nails - it's all the same...a monkey could have done a better job.
Last edited by Number 6 on Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest - whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories - comes afterward. These are games; one must first answer." - Camus
User avatar
Number 6
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2018 10:35 pm
Location: The Village

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Number 6 » Tue Mar 13, 2018 9:57 pm

Cross: Don't forget Spiny Norman.
"There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest - whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories - comes afterward. These are games; one must first answer." - Camus
User avatar
Number 6
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2018 10:35 pm
Location: The Village

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Meno_ » Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:13 pm

Number 6 wrote:To live without the consolation of "God" and, thereby, the possibility of redemption is not for everyone, to be sure. I stand with Ivan Karamazov: If I must accept a child's tears as part of "His" divine plan, then the price of the "eternal salvation of the soul" is much too great. To play devil's advocate (no pun intended): If an infinite being such as "God" actually exists, I would assume that both "He" and, by extension, "His" divine plan are well beyond the grasp of our finite minds. Perhaps, if our minds were not so constituted, "His" plan would make perfect sense and appear perfectly logical. I am reminded of Descartes' argument: If the knowledge of God is in our finite minds, then God must have placed it there (how else could it have gotten there?) - thus, God exists. This is certainly clever, and not without a certain charm (much to Descartes credit)...but no. The study of history, or just a quick look around, tells me all I need to know. One pays a price for being an atheist. If this were not so, there would be far more them.



How ever:

Ok Christ was merely a man, albeit a smart one, and for him to counter with,

: Blessed are those who can believe without seeing - to say that in the time , when there was no knowledge of the difference between seeing and understanding, ergo to see ,may have been coincidental to understanding, seems incontravertible and frankly almost impossible.

May be, that too simplistic formulae, which got him into trouble in the first place.

How did Faust trick the devil ? Single handedly, unending of any advocate? This main fissure in the pan psychic tapestry of humanity , does have mysterious signs written all over it.

Karamazov's doubt ,his no repudiation in this respect, is based mainly on the very slim degree of differentiation available. Saint Ansolm is still reconsidered , and I don't know the source , and is probably equally a thoroughly drastic upward slope.
Last edited by Meno_ on Wed Mar 14, 2018 12:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3777
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Number 6 » Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:54 pm

"It's not God that I don't accept, Alyosha, only I most respectfully return Him the ticket.” Sounds like a repudiation to me. Anyway, a bold statement, nevertheless. Shows a bit of dash.
"There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest - whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories - comes afterward. These are games; one must first answer." - Camus
User avatar
Number 6
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2018 10:35 pm
Location: The Village

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Number 6 » Wed Mar 14, 2018 12:01 am

Re Christ: If he existed, he'd be utterly appalled. "The last Christian died on the cross."
"There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest - whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories - comes afterward. These are games; one must first answer." - Camus
User avatar
Number 6
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2018 10:35 pm
Location: The Village

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Arcturus Descending » Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:17 pm

Mitra-Sauwelios


Now to be sure, I took that to mean something it does not necessarily mean. Man's valuing his own valuing directly can mean his valuing (A) his valuing (B) of food directly, for instance. Or it can mean that the different men that comprise mankind value (C) each other's valuing (D) directly, even if valuing D is itself in turn the valuing (D) of other men's valuing (C) of valuing D. But I took it to mean man's valuing (E) of valuing E directly. This is what I call a direct self-valuing.


Why so many words here and what are you actually saying? I may be wrong but it seems as though nothing concrete has been said with the above. It is like a dog chasing his own tail.

Perhaps man valuing his own value directly, simply put, is having the confidence and the faith to know what is real and true to him and following that with, according to him, is right action.
“How can a bird that is born for joy
Sit in a cage and sing?”
― William Blake


“Little Fly
Thy summers play,
My thoughtless hand
Has brush'd away.

Am not I
A fly like thee?
Or art not thou
A man like me?

For I dance
And drink & sing:
Till some blind hand
Shall brush my wing.

If thought is life
And strength & breath:
And the want
Of thought is death;

Then am I
A happy fly,
If I live,
Or if I die”
― William Blake, Songs of Innocence and of Experience


“No bird soars too high if he soars with his own wings.”
― William Blake
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15303
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Mitra-Sauwelios » Thu Mar 15, 2018 3:11 am

Arcturus Descending wrote:
Now to be sure, I took that to mean something it does not necessarily mean. Man's valuing his own valuing directly can mean his valuing (A) his valuing (B) of food directly, for instance. Or it can mean that the different men that comprise mankind value (C) each other's valuing (D) directly, even if valuing D is itself in turn the valuing (D) of other men's valuing (C) of valuing D. But I took it to mean man's valuing (E) of valuing E directly. This is what I call a direct self-valuing.


Why so many words here and what are you actually saying? I may be wrong but it seems as though nothing concrete has been said with the above. It is like a dog chasing his own tail.


There aren't many words there, but precisely as many words as were needed. You are wrong: it was just too complicated for you to follow, even though I spelled it out (hence the "many words"). I'll try again, though.

Suppose I value a certain food F--for instance the mackerel I just ate. Then we can speak of "my valuing F". Now like "Saully's mackerel" (F), we can also write "Saully's valuing F" (G). My valuing F is itself something different from F, namely G. Now I can also value G, and we can give my valuing G the symbol H. Note that G = B and H = A; I just used different symbols so as not to confuse you.

Now in the previous paragraph, the only member of mankind I've spoken of is myself (I), but there are other members--Jakob, for example (J). I may value Jakob's valuing (K), even if K is itself in turn Jakob's valuing of my valuing (L) that valuing of his. Note that K = D and L = C.

Lastly, I may value M, where M is precisely my valuing of M. How? Well, VO teaches that all beings are self-valuings. I take this to mean they are other-valuings. I, for example, am a valuing of other beings. These latter beings include my mackerel (F) and Jakob (J). Now obviously, Jakob may in turn value me as well (so may my mackerel, but this is less obvious, as we're talking about mackerel the food, not mackerel the fish, to adapt a distinction made in The Cleveland Show). When, not if, this is the case, I'm among other things a Jakob-valuing, and Jakob is among other things a Saully-valuing, so I'm also a Saully-valuing-valuing. More precisely, I'm a direct Jakob-valuing, Jakob's a direct Saully-valuing, so I'm a direct Saully-valuing-valuing and thereby an indirect Saully-valuing myself, i.e., an indirect self-valuing (namely, by being a direct other-valuing).


Fixed Cross wrote:S - no, that is not actually where I start. I start with being, which I use as a criterium (power) to demonstrate why there is not nothing. That is to say, I don't perform any miracles of producing (or tracing) something from nothing.


Okay, you start with "something exists", and then ask "what's it about that something that makes it keep existing?" Right?


I see where you came from with the other thing though.

But my conception of a valuing which is valuing valuing directly actually relates not to the beginning, but to the end, the triumph of nature. In fact you were the one, a few years back, who successfully focussed on this aspect, the philosopher as the peak of natures accomplishment.

You then tied this to your esoteric understanding of Eros. That was some good stuff.


Can you be a bit more specific about that, so I may be able to dig it up?

The philosopher as the peak has to do with the eros for eros, yes, but especially with the will-to-power to will-to-power. As Strauss writes:

"The will to power takes the place which the eros--the striving for 'the good in itself'--occupies in Plato's thought. But the eros is not 'the pure mind' (der reine Geist). Whatever may be the relation between the eros and the pure mind according to Plato, in Nietzsche's thought the will to power takes the place of both eros and the pure mind. Accordingly philosophizing becomes a mode or modification of the will to power: it is the most spiritual (der geistigste) will to power; it consists in prescribing to nature what or how it ought to be (aph. 9); it is not love of the true that is independent of will or decision. Whereas according to Plato, the pure mind grasps the truth, according to Nietzsche the impure mind, or a certain kind of pure mind, is the sole source of truth." (Strauss, Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy, "Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil".)

Now I have contended that the esoteric Plato did understand that there was (most probably) no pure mind. But this may be why Plato, like Nietzsche, taught the recurrence:

"If the will of an individual human being, say of Nietzsche, is to be the origin of meaning and value, and that will manifestly has a cause, the only way out in order to save his position is to say that this will is the cause of itself: eternal return." (Strauss, lecture of May 18, 1959.)

This peak is far from being a direct self-valuing: it is the peak precisely because it values itself through ninety zillion years of other valuings:

"If Nietzsche had one teaching, it was his teaching of eternal recurrence. This was the notion that time be a circle, that all that happened had happened before and would happen again an endless amount of times. But this was precisely the teaching that Kylie found hardest to bear: Nietzsche would be born, live, and die again, then there would be ninety years of white noise, and then she herself would be born, live, and die again, followed by ninety zillion more years of white noise, after which Nietzsche would be born again... But wait, did that not give her an opportunity to communicate with him? Could she not speak to him across ninety zillion years, even as he spoke to her across ninety?" (The Cosmic Love of Kylie Springtime, Chapter 1.)
User avatar
Mitra-Sauwelios
religious philosopher
 
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:24 am
Location: Mad Master

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Jakob » Thu Mar 15, 2018 7:44 pm

Mitra-Sauwelios wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:S - no, that is not actually where I start. I start with being, which I use as a criterium (power) to demonstrate why there is not nothing. That is to say, I don't perform any miracles of producing (or tracing) something from nothing.


Okay, you start with "something exists", and then ask "what's it about that something that makes it keep existing?" Right?

No, not at all, absolutely not.

I ask how it can be that there is being in the first place. Meaning only: I ask what it is that being is precisely, that it is, that it has the power to be. But I realize I can not answer this question arguing from its hypothetical negation, but have to argue from its actual nature.
I found out that the very notion of "non-being" is only a side effect of the notion of being, thus far, having been rather porous and brittle.

With the notion of self-valuing, there is no longer a possibility to ask the question "why being and not non-being?" because being has taken on a much more comprehensive character in my mind. There is no possible "remainder". I now see the notion of non-being as a simple mirrored image of the false notion of being that existed before Nietzsche.

I see where you came from with the other thing though.

But my conception of a valuing which is valuing valuing directly actually relates not to the beginning, but to the end, the triumph of nature. In fact you were the one, a few years back, who successfully focussed on this aspect, the philosopher as the peak of natures accomplishment.

You then tied this to your esoteric understanding of Eros. That was some good stuff.


Can you be a bit more specific about that, so I may be able to dig it up?

Hmm, I had expected that this woud trigger an avalanche of references and memories in you. I think you were occupied with this in 2013 and 2014, and a lot. I think if you look back into your posts of these years you'll run into it.

The philosopher as the peak has to do with the eros for eros, yes, but especially with the will-to-power to will-to-power.

Well, exactly.

As Strauss writes:

"The will to power takes the place which the eros--the striving for 'the good in itself'--occupies in Plato's thought. But the eros is not 'the pure mind' (der reine Geist). Whatever may be the relation between the eros and the pure mind according to Plato, in Nietzsche's thought the will to power takes the place of both eros and the pure mind. Accordingly philosophizing becomes a mode or modification of the will to power: it is the most spiritual (der geistigste) will to power; it consists in prescribing to nature what or how it ought to be (aph. 9); it is not love of the true that is independent of will or decision. Whereas according to Plato, the pure mind grasps the truth, according to Nietzsche the impure mind, or a certain kind of pure mind, is the sole source of truth." (Strauss, Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy, "Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil".)

Now I have contended that the esoteric Plato did understand that there was (most probably) no pure mind. But this may be why Plato, like Nietzsche, taught the recurrence:

"If the will of an individual human being, say of Nietzsche, is to be the origin of meaning and value, and that will manifestly has a cause, the only way out in order to save his position is to say that this will is the cause of itself: eternal return." (Strauss, lecture of May 18, 1959.)

This peak is far from being a direct self-valuing: it is the peak precisely because it values itself through ninety zillion years of other valuings:

Exactly right. Moreover, all self-valuing is indirect, that is enclosed in its definition of being a circuitry. It goes through a world, time, and comes back to itself. All those talking about self-valuing as the isolating valuing of a self have simply misread. One absolute implication of self-valuing is plurality.

Self-valuing is namely a consistent outward valuing that happens to be of such a nature that the object of its valuing feeds back into the capacity to exist, i.e. to perpetuale tis specific valuing.
A philosopher who is able to value himself through valuing the entire world (all of what is known to and suspected by him), he is a pure self-valuing. And thus, the capacity to affirm the ER is indeed a criterium for purity of self-valuing.

Back to the first theme: the ground(ing) question, "why being and not rather non-being?", I have finally interpreted as meaning only and precisely: "what is being, that we can speak of it?" or; "how to speak being accurately to being, so as not to end up in its negation?"

VO speaks being in as far as speech can pertain directly to its own ground.
Now I know this is all highly esoteric and may require multiple readings. I must probably keep repeating that VO truly requires a rewiring of the mind, an abandoning of all passive premises, abandoning the idea that truth can be comprehended without embodying it in action.

And this, in turn, is why it is a majestic, a royal theory. Either it will rule, or the humanity will perish, be reduced back to ape hood.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6092
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Jakob » Thu Mar 15, 2018 10:02 pm

Ollie, lets say the logic is a way of thinking that disallows this questions emerging.
Being is so explained that it is self-evident.
Not obvious, though - evidences rarely are.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6092
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Jakob » Thu Mar 15, 2018 10:11 pm

Ok so, being as evidence of itself. That's what I'm talking about.
"A self-valuing" is self-evidencing being. Its terms are required to be consistent and predictive of its behaviour for it to categorically exist. It is what makes being predictable.

Seeking to establish the motive as the form of the crime against the path of the least resistance, the forensic work I tried to do on the mind using the WtP was gravely impeded by the doctrine not evidencing itself in categorizable terms, it did not allow comparing of one quantum WtP to another via categorical and exact paths of thought. It did not yet compute with the world of knowledge in a scientific way. It did not yet have human, only divine power. VO is, I guess, Zarathustras so manieth attempt at going down. Book Five. Makes sense, with the Pentad and all.

So the grounding question: why does being take the path of very great resistance, and not the path of least resistance, which would be not to be, so as for there to be no resistance at all?

Why does being resist its own undoing?
How was there resistance in the first place?

Because there is something more subtle, finer than the brutal fact of resistance; the possibility of the worth of a resistance, this is what Nietzsche identifies in Dionysos, who is none other than the WtP in the perfect conditions, like "c in vacuum" but at the very end of the spectrum of comprehension, in fullness rather than in void.

All this grounding to arrive finally at the building question; "How am I supposed to go about my day, armed with this knowledge?"
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6092
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Jakob » Thu Mar 15, 2018 10:37 pm

So you were at half-right, in your summary. The other half is intuitively accessible; perhaps for good reason, surely by reasonable cause.

How does a being resist not-being even before it exists? Only by its possibility, which is included in there being no forced impossibilities. Nor are there forced possibilities, nor forced possibilities, so out of all possible cases, existence is likely to be one.

Psychologically this suggests that we are being more led by the future than by the past.

Scientifically it implies that what we know is only the extent to which we are ignorant; the more science we have the less we are aware of knowing, the less we can conclude. Scientists are the most ocean-eyed persons because all they see is the vastness of what they do not know through the lens of what they perceive. Their neutral state is wonder, certainty is an exhilarating and unexpected event triggered by a collision of horizons which the soaring heart forever approaches, creating a point of focus that is equally wonderful, as wonder is neutral, but more consequential. Because the world is at heart nothing but bias, the consequence of neutrality is the greatest of all.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6092
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Serendipper » Fri Mar 16, 2018 12:08 am

Jakob wrote:So the grounding question: why does being take the path of very great resistance, and not the path of least resistance, which would be not to be, so as for there to be no resistance at all?

James once said that evolution can only work if it's resisted. I thought that was profoundly insightful.

Why does being resist its own undoing?

Maybe it doesn't.

How was there resistance in the first place?

Maybe there was no first place.

How does a being resist not-being even before it exists?

Not-being is the opposite state of being and therefore one implies the other. Not-being is not nothing, but is similar to "off" on a light switch. "Off" implies the potential to be "on", so it's not simply a state of nothingness, but a state of potential. There never could have been a state of nothing because there is nothing in nothing to make something.

The conundrum is this: there must be an All because clearly we can categorize all things as All, but there cannot be an All because there is nothing outside of the All to be what the All is not since the All contains all things; therefore the All is a container that has an inside, but no outside, which seems very much impossible.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The Philosophers

Postby URUZ » Fri Mar 16, 2018 3:54 am

Jakob wrote:
Mitra-Sauwelios wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:S - no, that is not actually where I start. I start with being, which I use as a criterium (power) to demonstrate why there is not nothing. That is to say, I don't perform any miracles of producing (or tracing) something from nothing.


Okay, you start with "something exists", and then ask "what's it about that something that makes it keep existing?" Right?

No, not at all, absolutely not.

I ask how it can be that there is being in the first place. Meaning only: I ask what it is that being is precisely, that it is, that it has the power to be. But I realize I can not answer this question arguing from its hypothetical negation, but have to argue from its actual nature.
I found out that the very notion of "non-being" is only a side effect of the notion of being, thus far, having been rather porous and brittle.

With the notion of self-valuing, there is no longer a possibility to ask the question "why being and not non-being?" because being has taken on a much more comprehensive character in my mind. There is no possible "remainder". I now see the notion of non-being as a simple mirrored image of the false notion of being that existed before Nietzsche.

I see where you came from with the other thing though.

But my conception of a valuing which is valuing valuing directly actually relates not to the beginning, but to the end, the triumph of nature. In fact you were the one, a few years back, who successfully focussed on this aspect, the philosopher as the peak of natures accomplishment.

You then tied this to your esoteric understanding of Eros. That was some good stuff.


Can you be a bit more specific about that, so I may be able to dig it up?

Hmm, I had expected that this woud trigger an avalanche of references and memories in you. I think you were occupied with this in 2013 and 2014, and a lot. I think if you look back into your posts of these years you'll run into it.

The philosopher as the peak has to do with the eros for eros, yes, but especially with the will-to-power to will-to-power.

Well, exactly.

As Strauss writes:

"The will to power takes the place which the eros--the striving for 'the good in itself'--occupies in Plato's thought. But the eros is not 'the pure mind' (der reine Geist). Whatever may be the relation between the eros and the pure mind according to Plato, in Nietzsche's thought the will to power takes the place of both eros and the pure mind. Accordingly philosophizing becomes a mode or modification of the will to power: it is the most spiritual (der geistigste) will to power; it consists in prescribing to nature what or how it ought to be (aph. 9); it is not love of the true that is independent of will or decision. Whereas according to Plato, the pure mind grasps the truth, according to Nietzsche the impure mind, or a certain kind of pure mind, is the sole source of truth." (Strauss, Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy, "Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil".)

Now I have contended that the esoteric Plato did understand that there was (most probably) no pure mind. But this may be why Plato, like Nietzsche, taught the recurrence:

"If the will of an individual human being, say of Nietzsche, is to be the origin of meaning and value, and that will manifestly has a cause, the only way out in order to save his position is to say that this will is the cause of itself: eternal return." (Strauss, lecture of May 18, 1959.)

This peak is far from being a direct self-valuing: it is the peak precisely because it values itself through ninety zillion years of other valuings:

Exactly right. Moreover, all self-valuing is indirect, that is enclosed in its definition of being a circuitry. It goes through a world, time, and comes back to itself. All those talking about self-valuing as the isolating valuing of a self have simply misread. One absolute implication of self-valuing is plurality.

Self-valuing is namely a consistent outward valuing that happens to be of such a nature that the object of its valuing feeds back into the capacity to exist, i.e. to perpetuale tis specific valuing.
A philosopher who is able to value himself through valuing the entire world (all of what is known to and suspected by him), he is a pure self-valuing. And thus, the capacity to affirm the ER is indeed a criterium for purity of self-valuing.

Back to the first theme: the ground(ing) question, "why being and not rather non-being?", I have finally interpreted as meaning only and precisely: "what is being, that we can speak of it?" or; "how to speak being accurately to being, so as not to end up in its negation?"

VO speaks being in as far as speech can pertain directly to its own ground.
Now I know this is all highly esoteric and may require multiple readings. I must probably keep repeating that VO truly requires a rewiring of the mind, an abandoning of all passive premises, abandoning the idea that truth can be comprehended without embodying it in action.

And this, in turn, is why it is a majestic, a royal theory. Either it will rule, or the humanity will perish, be reduced back to ape hood.



Exactly, absolutely. yes.

Wonderful.

The world gently opens herself now.
EIHWAZ PERTHO NAUTHIZ

ANSUZ
User avatar
URUZ
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2051
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: The topoi

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Arcturus Descending » Sat Mar 17, 2018 4:52 pm

Mitra-Sauwelios

Now to be sure, I took that to mean something it does not necessarily mean. Man's valuing his own valuing directly can mean his valuing (A) his valuing (B) of food directly, for instance. Or it can mean that the different men that comprise mankind value (C) each other's valuing (D) directly, even if valuing D is itself in turn the valuing (D) of other men's valuing (C) of valuing D. But I took it to mean man's valuing (E) of valuing E directly. This is what I call a direct self-valuing.


Why so many words here and what are you actually saying? I may be wrong but it seems as though nothing concrete has been said with the above. It is like a dog chasing his own tail.

There aren't many words there, but precisely as many words as were needed. You are wrong: it was just too complicated for you to follow, even though I spelled it out (hence the "many words"). I'll try again, though.


Actually, it was not complicated for me to follow except in one area. I did, for the most part understand what you were saying. Perhaps I did speak too soon when I said "it seems as though nothing concrete has been said with the above." Logic dictates that since I did understand most of it it had to be concrete enough.

The below is where the waters kind of became muddy for me. The words were, at least for me, convoluted and not clear. :chores-chopwood:

"even if valuing D is itself in turn the valuing (D) of other men's valuing (C) of valuing D. But I took it to mean man's valuing (E) of valuing E directly. This is what I call a direct self-valuing."

You have your perception and I have mine. That is why I said "I may be wrong". I like to remind myself that I am not infallible. That does not necessarily mean that one or the other of us is wrong.

I might suggest and of course you do not need to listen but sometimes listing things as a nice cascade...
A
B
C
D
E

works better than the way in which you did it but it is just my perception. It is more conducive to structure and clarity of thought especially when particular words (like "valuing" 13 times) are not over-emphasized and redundant.



Suppose I value a certain food F--for instance the mackerel I just ate. Then we can speak of "my valuing F". Now like "Saully's mackerel" (F), we can also write "Saully's valuing F" (G). My valuing F is itself something different from F, namely G. Now I can also value G, and we can give my valuing G the symbol H. Note that G = B and H = A; I just used different symbols so as not to confuse you.

Now in the previous paragraph, the only member of mankind I've spoken of is myself (I), but there are other members--Jakob, for example (J). I may value Jakob's valuing (K), even if K is itself in turn Jakob's valuing of my valuing (L) that valuing of his. Note that K = D and L = C.

Lastly, I may value M, where M is precisely my valuing of M. How? Well, V,O teaches that all beings are self-valuings. I take this to mean they are other-valuings. I, for example, am a valuing of other beings. These latter beings include my mackerel (F) and Jakob (J). Now obviously, Jakob may in turn value me as well (so may my mackerel, but this is less obvious, as we're talking about mackerel the food, not mackerel the fish, to adapt a distinction made in The Cleveland Show). When, not if, this is the case, I'm among other things a Jakob-valuing, and Jakob is among other things a Saully-valuing, so I'm also a Saully-valuing-valuing. More precisely, I'm a direct Jakob-valuing, Jakob's a direct Saully-valuing, so I'm a direct Saully-valuing-valuing and thereby an indirect Saully-valuing myself, i.e., an indirect self-valuing (namely, by being a direct other-valuing).


The thought occurred to me that you might have been being facetious when you wrote the above.

It reminded me of this and please forgive me for saying it. I just imagined something like this as I read on and on... Of course, I realize that there is value within your words but...
the dribbling...


Would you actually say that there were also precisely as many words needed with the above as were needed in your original quote?
“How can a bird that is born for joy
Sit in a cage and sing?”
― William Blake


“Little Fly
Thy summers play,
My thoughtless hand
Has brush'd away.

Am not I
A fly like thee?
Or art not thou
A man like me?

For I dance
And drink & sing:
Till some blind hand
Shall brush my wing.

If thought is life
And strength & breath:
And the want
Of thought is death;

Then am I
A happy fly,
If I live,
Or if I die”
― William Blake, Songs of Innocence and of Experience


“No bird soars too high if he soars with his own wings.”
― William Blake
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15303
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: The Philosophers

Postby URUZ » Mon Mar 19, 2018 10:48 am

von Rivers wrote:Petition to bring Pezer back to ILP

Signatures:

Mo


UrGod
EIHWAZ PERTHO NAUTHIZ

ANSUZ
User avatar
URUZ
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2051
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: The topoi

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Jakob » Tue Mar 20, 2018 1:27 am

Yeah sure he is invaluable. But I disappointed him. I wasn't even able to take over Venezuela. To my defence, I figured I had more time.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6092
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Jakob » Thu Mar 22, 2018 8:00 pm

Some writing from BTL on Europe and the Netherlands.

Fixed Cross wrote:
he Eighty Years' War (Dutch: Tachtigjarige Oorlog; Spanish: Guerra de los Ochenta Años) or Dutch War of Independence (1568–1648)[2] was a revolt of the Seventeen Provinces of what are today the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg, as well as the French region of Hauts-de-France against the political and religious hegemony of Philip II of Spain, the sovereign of the Habsburg Netherlands. After the initial stages, Philip II deployed his armies and regained control over most of the rebelling provinces. Under the leadership of the exiled William the Silent, the northern provinces continued their resistance. They eventually were able to oust the Habsburg armies, and in 1581 they established the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands. The war continued in other areas, although the heartland of the republic was no longer threatened; this included the beginnings of the Dutch Colonial Empire, which at the time were conceived as carrying overseas the war with Spain. After a 12-year truce in which the Dutch Republic achieved de facto recognition, hostilities broke out again around 1619, which can be said to coincide with the Thirty Years' War. An end was reached in 1648 with the Peace of Münster (a treaty part of the Peace of Westphalia), when the Dutch Republic was definitively recognised as an independent country. The Republic had already been recognized by Spain and the major European powers at the occasion of the Twelve Years' Truce of 1609. The Peace of Münster was also the start of the Dutch Golden Age.


Fixed Cross wrote:The Praise of Folly

Early freedom of speech.

::

Italy is responsible for the Renaissance, the Netherlands for the Enlightenment.
Greece, of course, for the beginning.

Fixed Cross wrote:As for US freedom of speech, a whole host of over a hundred witnesses of 9/11have been assassinated to prevent them speaking freely. The Bill of Rights may say that there is freedom of speech but where the State is being compromised people are silenced - either by a simply bullet or train crash or by anonymous courts that put them in prison camps - I don't think the US has been a shining example of freedom of speech either the past years. Like our Constitution, the Bill of right guarantees the right to free speech, but who guarantees the the Bill of Right stands? Trump seems to be the first president in history to care about it at all. Which is why I love Trump, and why Trump has regained my love for America. Under Obolko America was just another Belgium.

Fixed Cross wrote:[youtube]PCFDHBlbXKI[/youtube]

More of my work for tv.

Pure freedom.

Fixed Cross wrote:To be honest I was always assuming the reputation of my country is known, that it is known that all modern freedoms originate with our struggles against the various tyrannies around us. That assumption is the sole reason that I ever spoke ill of my nation. My ill-speaking comes to the background of a self-evident respect for Willem van Oranje and his knights, and all those that preceded and followed him.

My land is the land of the Ingvaeones, to which the Ingwaz rune is dedicated.

Image

This is Viking land, through and through.

Fixed Cross wrote:
De Engelse Pilgrim Fathers, vervolgd vanwege hun geloof, streken in 1609 neer in Leiden. Hier kwamen ze in contact met een andere cultuur en vernieuwende ideeën. Na een elfjarig verblijf gingen de Pilgrims weer op weg. Ze voeren naar Amerika en stichtten de eerste vaste kolonie. Hun Nederlandse periode is nog steeds van invloed op de Amerikaanse samenleving. Bijvoorbeeld met de feestdag Thanksgiving.


https://www.nemokennislink.nl/publicati ... e-erfenis/

"The English Pilgrim Fathers, persecuted for their faith, settled in Leiden [A Duch city, where my father has lived as a boy] in 1609. Here the came into contact with another culture and innovative ideas. After a stay of eleven years the Pilgrims set sail again. They set course to America and founded the first fixed settlement. Their Dutch period is still of influence on the American society. For example with the holiday Thanksgiving."

England doesn't even have a claim to the US. Its the Netherlands that shaped the ideas of liberty carried by the Pilgrim Fathers against the grim background of the sad island.

Thrasymachus wrote:So we have Sweden, Germany, Belgium, France, UK, Britain, and Scotland... this list is starting to get decently large. And the article on Geert and what I read of it elsewhere, including what happened to Le Pen, seems to be saying the police showed up at his house, and he was charged in court. I am not going to dismiss such things merely because he was ultimately acquitted or did not have to pay a fine. Once you allow this sort of thing it can easily spiral out of control.

Can you provide an English translation of the text you posted, Fixed?

I am not meaning to paint all of Europe, obviously. I am sure there are some great places in Europe that are resisting thoughtcrime. And I know many European people support freedom, but it seems to me that perhaps more Europeans support thoughtcrimes legislation and totalitarian leftist governments than support the idea of minimal government and maximal individual freedom.

That is what it comes down to, for me. There are two options here to choose from, because even if a state is somewhere in the middle between the extremes it will always be trending toward one side or the other:

1) maximum government and minimal individual freedom
2) minimal government and maximal individual freedom

Originally the US chose the latter, and is now slowing changing over to the former. To me it seems most of Europe, and especially with the EU, has already given into the former.

I am only concerned with the latter, and I say fuck all to the former option.

Again, I do not mean to offend, and yeah I should not have said "fuck Europe" since you are right, Europe is not homogeneous like that.

Instead, I will say: Fuck Sweden, Germany, Belgium, France, UK, Britain, and Scotland. And any other countries that engage in Orwellian Big Brother tactics of placing the people subservient to the state.

The state derives its power and justification from the people, and from the consent of the people. This is basic. This is why the US central government is limited by the Constitution, and all other powers not explicitly granted to it are reserved to the individual states or the individual people. It's why we have gun rights, and why we have freedom of speech which trumps any supposed hate speech laws. It's why I can say I do not want more Muslim immigrants and not get arrested for saying that, unlike in certain European nations.

But granted, the EU is certainly a major part of the problem. And to the degree that the EU has these hate speech laws and enforces them, normalizes them, that is going to be a huge problem for even decent European nations to deal with.

"The First Amendment is What We Need in Europe", by Wilders,

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3042 ... -amendment

Thrasymachus wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:As for US freedom of speech, a whole host of over a hundred witnesses of 9/11have been assassinated to prevent them speaking freely. The Bill of Rights may say that there is freedom of speech but where the State is being compromised people are silenced - either by a simply bullet or train crash or by anonymous courts that put them in prison camps - I don't think the US has been a shining example of freedom of speech either the past years. Like our Constitution, the Bill of right guarantees the right to free speech, but who guarantees the the Bill of Right stands? Trump seems to be the first president in history to care about it at all. Which is why I love Trump, and why Trump has regained my love for America. Under Obolko America was just another Belgium.


Oh yeah, the US is overrun with totalitarian globalist thugs and crime bosses who indeed assassinate people who get too close to the truth. We all know this. But I was never talking about any of that, I was talking about the philosophy behind the nation and which still governs it despite all this bullshit

We voted in Trump to stop this kind of insanity from growing, we want the swamp drained. Whether or not he will do it is another question, but certainly positive steps are being made.

Fixed Cross wrote:Dude, I didn't know Americans weren't educated about the philosophical roots that come out of the Netherlands. That's foolish, dangerous.

In turn, the America Revolution inspired the Netherlands after it had been oppressed again by France.

The US and the Netherlands are literally family.
We were called The United Republic of Nether-lands.

Italy and Greece are the only other countries that matter.

Of course, Fuck the EU. The EU is, and this is fact, The Third Reich. It is German in nature and was helped about by the fascist postWWII American regimes, which were just slaves of the Germans as I now see it.

Thrasymachus wrote:I mean if we can already write off half a dozen major European countries from being supportive of the basic philosophical concept of individual freedoms and the ontological primacy of the individual, then I can say for sure the EU is doomed.

Fixed Cross wrote:
Thrasymachus wrote:I was educated literally zero on anything to do with The Netherlands. From preschool trough university nothing is said about it. That seems like a great tragedy.


Holy crap. Thats seriously fucked up.
On the other hand I am beginning to realize there is a great work for me to be done.

The Netherlands actually invented this whole Political Freedom concept.
As they invented Venture Capitalism and founded New York.

Too weird that this is censored. Fucking English claim everything, I bet.
If the US would become aware that it is spiritually rather Dutch than English in origin, maybe it can begin to make more sense to itself and kick out the globalists.

Fixed Cross wrote:Wallstreet is a Dutch street in a Dutch town originally called New Amsterdam, running the Dutch-invented business of stock trading.

Damn, but if the Brits seriously try to claim this, Ill put in some counterweight. Perfidious cunts.

I hate the word "Dutch", but the way, another cunty Brit-invention. No one knows why we are called that. But there it is, this is how we are known.

Fixed Cross wrote:
Thrasymachus wrote:To the extent America doesn’t claim it as its own invention, minor credit is given only to France and England.


What. The. Fuck.

That is sickening.

Yes, New York was New Amsterdam.
Further, Harlem is named after a Dutch town, so is Brooklyn.

Thrasymachus wrote:Dude no one is taught this here.

Madness.

Fixed Cross wrote:Ive of course been unfair the English, as they need to be seen in a different context, namely as people who always worked to gather with the Netherlands, who taught them and everyone in the north in the art of shipbuilding and other magics. I am also just waking up to this, the fact that this power is simply required to keep Europe afloat.  The English without their parents in crime are, as it seems, a bit adrift. We aren't used to assert ourselves nationally though.

The captain that first laid eyes on the island is of course Hudson, an Englishman working for the Dutch. He came back empty handed but the shape of the island peaked the interest of the company, who saw the potential for a harbour. This VOC company is important. They're the cause to the stock market. Verenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie, United East-Indies Company, who had to divide its risks and assets across a the basis of free men only determined by their capacity and fortune. This mentality is most definitively Ingvaeonic, above-the Rhine boatbuilder-conquerors.

The beauty is the Wilders is half Indonesian. This speaks to the truth of self-valuing in many nice ways. It is always been deemed reprehensible, the colonizations, but now that we have been colonized ourselves, it is beginning to feel like an issue of health to recognize the incredible humanity required to discover the world and own it.

Holland and the other Nether-provinces never had the impulse to "civilize" another people to their ways. So their possession of the land was just economical and formal, and less cultural. I am sure Indonesia has had more effect on us than we on it. After us came the Japanese, and then, well.

The bottom line is that a continent that once owned the whole world can not now be "United" within its own borders. Bullshit. We need to expand. This time we'll do it by humanitarian standards, just build cities, economies and prosperity whee currently it is not. Resources are almost always abundant where order reigns.

Because of the UN and its laws we can never do good in a country anymore, only sneaky subversion. We should be bold and proud and just assert standards, and just get out and strike deals with crazy African regimes to build cities with giant jungle-malls and desert-sauna cities, all sorts of hyper consumerist applications of fertile circumstances. I don't get why this hasn't happened.

Serendipper wrote:
Thrasymachus wrote:We voted in Trump to stop this kind of insanity from growing, we want the swamp drained. Whether or not he will do it is another question, but certainly positive steps are being made.

I honestly think Trump made it worse, not by his action, but the reaction to him.  Brexit may have played a role as well.  Before these things, nobody cared who said what, but now they're freaking out over seemingly nothing.

Europe has too many women leaders which I think is causing this fear of speech.  If a person cannot kill a spider, or even better: leave the spider alone, they have no business participating in a leadership role.  People who fear spiders probably value security over liberty.

Fixed Cross wrote:Yes, Europe has turned from a continent of proud nations into a household.
Which is managed.

Fixed Cross wrote:Nothing wrong with a household but only until we all live like god in Paris is that ever  Europe.

Fixed Cross wrote:Speaking of Paris...

Sarko is in jail. For taking funding from Ghadaffi setting up the Lybia war to not have to pay is debt. That is bad new for Clinton as well, not to speak of NATO who tried out the operation. Macron is no joke, he is taking the reigns from Merkel. He has also said that French may become the worlds leading language, so this is not something I can look down on. I said earlier that the EU can only survive if it is seated in Paris and Rome. Now I add Amsterdam to this list. I assume England will manage to remain intact and come to its senses without the illusion of controlling all of us. If it can it will be able to be the old empire through its language and commonwealth, which holds the deep geological future, the Hudson Bay. As for Europe none of us can be controlled by another. But we can definitely facilitate each others self-control.

Germans are good at life. It will be good in Germany if it isn't strained. German humour is simply observing life and remarking it. They're good at what they undertake. I think they need to maybe look a few thousand miles to the southeast, to where Styrkjar noted they tried to reach before. If anyone could keep a sane mind and do some structuring in a crisis it is our neighbours to the East.


Fixed Cross wrote:"We" will have to change that.
A culture that doesn't know its father is adrift.
A culture that doesn't know its children is a vagabond.
We're no longer that, the world has gotten too small to roam.

Thanksgiving could be taken as the self-valuing festival to self-valuing of the enterprising wold. Festivals are required, the right kind. They start with the feeling of home, inevitable facts. The hearth, it is time to kindle it.

Thrasymachus wrote:Agreed 100%


Thanksgiving has always been my favorite holiday. It just makes sense, somehow.

Thanks-giving is a very direct and effective consecration of valuing

Image
In early autumn of 1621, the 53 surviving Pilgrims of the Mayflower celebrated their successful harvest and that moment is remembered as the First Thanksgiving in Plymouth.

This Thanksgiving was modeled after celebrations that were commonplace in contemporary Europe. One of the influences on that First Thanksgiving, according to professor J.W. Schulte Nordholt, were the celebrations for Leiden's Ontzet that some of the Pilgrims had seen during their stay in Leiden, the Netherlands.

The Philosophers must quite simply adopt Thanksgiving as a festival of philosophy. We'll do like the Romans, make use of what ha already been built and become part of life.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6092
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Jakob » Sat Mar 24, 2018 7:56 pm

Mitra-Sauwelios wrote:Is my task indeed to be Knight Sauwelios?

"Nietzsche distinguishes our Vornehmheit from Greek Vornehmheit: modern, post-Christian virtue is superior to ancient Greek virtue, Nietzsche argues, precisely of what our particular 'extraction, origin, birth' bequeathed to us, namely what our religion, the tyranny and discipline of our religion, bred into us." (op.cit., page 113.)

This goes for our Machiavellian religion as well as for our Platonic religion.

"Knowing the inevitability of masks, Nietzsche chose to weave his own, the mask of a rash truth teller whose unguarded speech would make him seem an immoralist, a devil, the mask of a super-Machiavelli. That mask, and the vehemence with which its terrible contours would be traced by those who took it to be more than a mask, inevitably assigned a task to his friends, advocates bound by the beauty and rigor of his writings to see eventually that the mask masked its opposite, a new teaching on good and bad by something approaching a god." (Lampert, Nietzsche's task, pp. 301-02.)

Nietzsche, Machiavelli, Plato and Homer were all such noblemen. But I suppose the question, in this context, shall be: is Fixed Cross?

Perhaps it is mere pride, but I take it for aesthetics and the will to resolve; whatever the case I come back here for a moment to say that my friend told me he had been satisfied that the answer here is positive. And I think that this honouring of my 7 years of teaching value ontology finally allows me to weave my work here on ILP into an ending. As I lean back to be stroked by the leaves of a plant of the ayahuasca compound in the shadow of an enormous dragonfly, and as the sun is beginning to cast deeper shadows and a chillness comes into the air amid the incessant but mild sounds of the rainforest, I know I have succeeded.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6092
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Philosophers

Postby iambiguous » Sat Mar 24, 2018 8:18 pm

Jakob wrote:...I know I have succeeded.


And the beauty of philosophy for so many here [on this thread] revolves precisely around the fact that if they know they have succeeded in accomplishing their task then the task is accomplished.

Not only that, but the demonstration of this lies in the knowledge of it itself.

Go ahead, see if you can take this knowledge they impart and make it applicable to the lives that you live from day to day.

Come back here and tell us how that is working out for you.

And, for folks like me, especially when the knowledge that you claim to know comes into conflict with the knowledge that others claim to know. And then this becomes all entangled in value judgments that are equally out of whack.

How was this resolved?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27713
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

PreviousNext

Return to Non-Philosophical Chat



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users