## 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

Working Through The Logic View previous topic View next topic Go down
Go to page : 1, 2 Next
Author Message
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

PostSubject: Working Through The Logic Thu Jun 23, 2016 9:40 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Does logic make assumptions? If so, what are they and are they justifiable? Let the investigation begin.

Okay Capable, add your best definition of logic so I have something to work with that we can both agree on.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Working Through The Logic Fri Jun 24, 2016 10:23 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Logic is simply the conceptual recognition of necessity as such. Logical systems and languages (formal logic, math, linguistic grammar) unfold from this.

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Working Through The Logic Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:23 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I would add that logic requires an artificial discontinuity; the idea that there is an existential interval between observed situations.
This discontinuity is directly related to the law of identity, which posits an artificial homogeneity between observed situations.

These two somewhat opposite 'symptoms' arises from not knowing what we mean with 'is' or '=' or 'being'.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

PostSubject: Re: Working Through The Logic Sat Jun 25, 2016 9:18 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
CP,

Sorry, but the animosity I feel towards that definition you keep reiterating (ILP all over again) makes me combustible. There she blows!

I'll retrieve a few online definitions to get me going.

FC,

How can "not knowing what we mean with 'is' or '=' or 'being'" but cause tremendous issues/miscalculations?

So logic accounts for the positives(perceptions), but what about the negatives? How are "unknowns" regimented into logic's framework? To me, that is a big question. If identifiable in the definitions, then that is the first assumption I'll be checking in to. If logic leaves no room for possibilities, they do not exist, which leads to not knowing a plethora on down the line. Hopefully this does not involve maths. Did I mention that I hated school after the 4th grade? Oh, and this place feels like a tomb. Just saying.

Need those definitions first to get the proverbial ball rolling.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

PostSubject: Re: Working Through The Logic Mon Jun 27, 2016 4:01 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Definitions of LOGIC:

log·ic
ˈläjik/Submit
noun
noun: logic
1.
reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
"experience is a better guide to this than deductive logic"
synonyms: reasoning, line of reasoning, rationale, argument, argumentation
"the logic of their argument"
a particular system or codification of the principles of proof and inference.
"Aristotelian logic"
the systematic use of symbolic and mathematical techniques to determine the forms of valid deductive argument.
plural noun: logics
the quality of being justifiable by reason.
"there's no logic in telling her not to hit people when that's what you're doing"
synonyms: reason, judgment, logical thought, rationality, wisdom, sense, good sense, common sense, sanity; informalhorse sense
"this case appears to defy all logic"
the course of action or line of reasoning suggested or made necessary by.
"if the logic of capital is allowed to determine events"
2.
a system or set of principles underlying the arrangements of elements in a computer or electronic device so as to perform a specified task.
logical operations collectively.

Mirriam-Webster Definition
Full Definition of logic
1
a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2) : a branch or variety of logic <modal logic> <Boolean logic> (3) : a branch of semiotics; especially : syntactics (4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge
b (1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty (2) : relevance, propriety
c : interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable
d : the arrangement of circuit elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also : the circuits themselves
2
: something that forces a decision apart from or in opposition to reason <the logic of war>
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

PostSubject: Re: Working Through The Logic Mon Jun 27, 2016 4:04 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Wiki

Rival conceptions of logic
In the periodic of scholastic philosophy, logic was predominantly Aristotelian. Following the decline of scholasticism, logic was thought of as an affair of ideas by early modern philosophers such as Locke and Hume . Immanuel Kant took this one step further. He begins with the assumption of the empiricist philosophers, that all knowledge whatsoever is internal to the mind, and that we have no genuine knowledge of 'things in themselves'. Furthermore, (an idea he seemed to have got from Hume) the material of knowledge is a succession of separate ideas which have no intrinsic connection and thus no real unity. In order that these disparate sensations be brought into some sort of order and coherence, there must be an internal mechanism in the mind which provides the forms by which we think, perceive and reason.
Kant calls these forms Categories (in a somewhat different sense than employed by the Aristotelian logicians), of which he claims there are twelve:
Quantity (Singular, Particular, Universal)
Quality (Affirmative, Negative, Infinite)
Relation (Categorical, Hypothetical, Disjunctive)
Modality (Problematic, Assertoric, Apodictic)
However, this seems to be an arbitrary arrangement, driven by the desire to present a harmonious appearance than from any underlying method or system. For example, the triple nature of each division forced him to add artificial categories such as the infinite judgment.
This conception of logic eventually developed into an extreme form of psychologism espoused in the nineteenth by Benno Erdmann and others. The view of historians of logic is that Kant's influence was negative.
Another view of logic espoused by Hegel and others of his school (such as Lotze, Bradley, Bosanquet and others), was the 'Logic of the Pure Idea'. The central feature of this view is the identification of Logic and Metaphysics. The Universe has its origin in the categories of thought. Thought in its fullest development becomes the Absolute Idea, a divine mind evolving itself in the development of the Universe.
In the modern period, W. V. Quine (1940, pp. 2–3) defined logic in terms of a logical vocabulary, which in turn is identified by an argument that the many particular vocabularies —Quine mentions geological vocabulary— are used in their particular discourses together with a common, topic-independent kernel of terms.[1] These terms, then, constitute the logical vocabulary, and the logical truths are those truths common to all particular topics.
Hofweber (2004) lists several definitions of logic, and goes on to claim that all definitions of logic are of one of four sorts. These are that logic is the study of: (i) artificial formal structures, (ii) sound inference (e.g., Poinsot), (iii) tautologies (e.g., Watts), or (iv) general features of thought (e.g., Frege). He argues then that these definitions are related to each other, but do not exhaust each other, and that an examination of formal ontology shows that these mismatches between rival definitions are due to tricky issues in ontology.
Informal and colloquial definitions
Arranged in approximate chronological order.
The tool for distinguishing between the true and the false (Averroes).[2]
The science of reasoning, teaching the way of investigating unknown truth in connection with a thesis (Robert Kilwardby).
The art whose function is to direct the reason lest it err in the manner of inferring or knowing (John Poinsot).
The art of conducting reason well in knowing things (Antoine Arnauld).
The right use of reason in the inquiry after truth (Isaac Watts).
The Science, as well as the Art, of reasoning (Richard Whately).
The science of the operations of the understanding which are subservient to the estimation of evidence (John Stuart Mill).
The science of the laws of discursive thought (James McCosh).
The science of the most general laws of truth (Gottlob Frege).
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Working Through The Logic Fri Jul 01, 2016 6:27 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Quote :
1.
reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
"experience is a better guide to this than deductive logic"

This is already perfectly sufficient to point to value ontology.

1) Its validity is derived directly from the very root of the concept valid. (From value - from Latin valere, 'to be worth', 'to be well', 'to be strong')

2) It pertains only to experience and never deduces away from it. A value can not be interpreted in other terms than experience. This is to say: "value" is the one term of language by which man is not able to escape consciousness of himself. All other terms provide means for delusion, value does not. Why it's so god damned scary to the superficial, and repulsive to the repulsive.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

PostSubject: Re: Working Through The Logic Fri Jul 01, 2016 10:47 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster

If I've helped your VO cause before I've even begun my investigation of logic, then I work miracles. Happy that you're happy.

Made some revisions to my ontology over at SickSadWorld forum, wherein VO may find a perspective foundation. It's imperative to conquer "What is consciousness?" Processes are what's occurring, but in what order? Consisting of what? JSS didn't like my explanation of motion/movement being "it." While I wouldn't say process is synonymous with motion/movement or change even, they are similar enough for general relations.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Working Through The Logic Fri Jul 01, 2016 11:07 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
" MM's Ontology

To me, reality simplified is made entirely of varying types of energy at varying speeds producing all objects.

What is the essence of existence? Movement

What is the essence of sentience? Emotional Energy (or GLUE...I'll add clever later)

Emotional Energy= Intentional Movement towards Experience

Intentional Movement is creative force.

Experience is intersection or interaction.

Creative Force consists of patterned synergies of will and coherency.

The infinitely active impetus for creative force is the patterned synergies of will and coherency towards infinite intersections/interactions which is what all reality shares.

Actually, will and expansion were the terms I had chosen; I dropped the expansion albeit it makes sense in terms of pure object oriented reality, but I can do better to define creative force. I'm trying to define sentience, not physical reality as an observable.

I can't stay stuck on the physical aspects of reality. To stay there, is to stay there. Possibilities are needed, not probability based scientific theories.

I've already scrapped expansion. Anentropy? Stability? I don't buy it. Let's say for arguments sake we're "in" infinity; we're an eternal part of it's system. What is it that keeps us going (concepts that keep us going, not physical necessities)? We are entities of process, of processing who need data input (thoughts in an emotional context). When we literally shed our skin, what is left?

Type 1: Physical "static" reality (rock, dirt, water, planet)--->Type 2: Physical "non-static" reality (life-forms)--->Type 3: non-physical "static" reality (transcendental "forms"?)---> Type 4: Non-physical "non-static" reality(energy of pure consciousness?)--->Physical "static" reality--->yada, yada, yada, loop indefinitely in any direction.

Static is patterned motion type 1.<---Needs modifications/defining

Everything consists of energy. It's all in motion. Forget particles. There is no thingness; that's illusion.

Being is redundant. Everything is in that state already whether we can "see/identify" it or not. Perhaps my terms sound traditional in terms of physical associations you are already familiar with, but I've defined them differently in the MM ontology.

Motion is "it". "

My gut reaction is positive.

My question is "what moves?" but this is not to mean "you are wrong", at all.The strongest part of your formulation of your ontology so far is, to my mind, the part about emotional energy.
I would like to see this expanded. You are good at this. It is a value-paradigm where you are powerful.

By advising you this I mean to say: I concur that this is useful to me, too - especially in that particular sense.
We need to get to a new way of navigating reality.

When I say value you might as well say emote - and when I say self-value you might say emote creatively and intelligently.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

PostSubject: Re: Working Through The Logic Fri Jul 01, 2016 1:21 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
"Creative Force consists of patterned synergies of will and coherency."

Edit above:curiosity rather than coherency.

Without an emotional baseline such as 'curiosity' covering raw thinking processes which can develop into the values of other emotions, there is no change occurring. It's like will without reasoning; emotions form the basis of our reasoning. How to prove that emotions form the basis of our reasoning? The seed emotion would have to be curiosity.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Working Through The Logic Fri Jul 01, 2016 2:01 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Correct.
Curiosity is an openness to valuing -
the outside world might - is expected to - contain values.

Curiosity is necessary for organic self-valuing.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Working Through The Logic Fri Jul 01, 2016 2:38 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Hi-D wrote:
"Creative Force consists of patterned synergies of will and coherency."

Edit above:curiosity rather than coherency.

Without an emotional baseline such as 'curiosity' covering raw thinking processes which can develop into the values of other emotions, there is no change occurring. It's like will without reasoning; emotions form the basis of our reasoning. How to prove that emotions form the basis of our reasoning? The seed emotion would have to be curiosity.

It helps to understand what emotions are: pure value. I mean value itself, not the object of value. This is very hard to put into words.

Technically we have no words to describe what value is itself. We can only speak in approximations. Our languages are superfluities to value itself. But this is not God; these "before-words" commune with each other, there is an entire world inside this: emotions are the entry-gates into that world, a world without speech. This is why emotions are pure qualities and belie description.

If you want to talk of "an emotion" you can use many words and concepts, but those are not the emotion itself. A pure value defies all gods and all wills, because gods and wills are made of values; and the most pure wills and gods are made of ONLY values, and absolutely nothing besides.

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

PostSubject: Re: Working Through The Logic Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:02 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Funny thing about a pure emotion (For example: Peace) from my experience is that primary emotions are combinations of lesser value emotions (Joy and Love). The feel of a primary emotion such as Peace, feels pure in its simplicity (like an a-ha moment) but extraordinary in power, in it's presence as an energy in it's own right. There is a hierarchy of emotions, many of which I have not experienced yet.

I cannot wrap my head around an emotion being pure value, but give me time. While I marinade, why don't you guys wrap your head around the idea of movement manifesting reality. If Will is a type of moving energy and the hierarchy of emotions are other forms of energy which coalesce into different patterns that then interact/intersect to form form.

I'm rambling.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Working Through The Logic Sat Jul 02, 2016 2:24 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Philosophy needs to break down the emotions by phenomenological-existential method to really get in them and understand what they are, but this isn't easy because of how emotions aren't made of words (the reason that emotions are not made of words is because words are made of emotions); it's something I've been trying for a while now, this detailed psycho-ontological-existential-phenomenological analysis and breakdown of emotions on their own terms (not any kind of materialistic reductive positivistic analysis, of course), but with only limited success so far.

I agree there are hierarchies of emotions but I also think that emotions are pure qualities in their own right, and therefore belie hierarchy because each emotion had something of its own true essence and inexpressible self-quality. So the hierarchy of emotions is actually two hierarchies, or one hierarchy operating on two principles or standards: 1) that some emotions are built from other emotions or that some emotions are more pure or intense expressions of other emotions (such as maybe anger --> rage), and 2) that non-emotional standards and consequences can act as the means by which emotions are organized and arranged into hierarchy (for example using will, or power, or creative achievement, or existential authenticity, or courage... These things can act as separate non-emotional grounds on the basis of which emotions are organized into hierarchies and relations based on the degree to which an emotion achieves and assists that other standard).

This also changes from situation to situation, for example in some instances certain emotions might be most effective at achieving a given goal, while in other situations different emotions may be called for to achieve that same goal; or, in the same situation, different goals will require different emotions.

In terms of expeiencing different and new emotions, this is something Parodites has written about and something that his own philosophy can explain and account for, and predict. I'm not an expert on this aspect of his thought though, although I know it is connected to the psychic-ontological structure of the Self as "real and ideal ego" and how the line dividing real from ideal (unconscious from conscious, as I understand it) can move and change, forcing different patterns and organizations of the excess behind all consciousness which, in turn, leads to the production of different and new emotions. But again, you would have to ask him about it to get a clearer answer.

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

PostSubject: Re: Working Through The Logic Sat Jul 02, 2016 7:57 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Parodites,

Capable has referred me to you and your work regarding emotions. May I study your work? If so, where?

CP,

Just wish to be clear that emotions are forms of energy that are subtle/muted in the physical arena but pure/undiluted elsewhere.

View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

PostSubject: Re: Working Through The Logic Tue Aug 23, 2016 1:30 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
So much for slacking. Logic is all that exists. Nothing escapes a logic, just an understanding. So logic is misconstrued, but how and where. I know why, we're morons.

View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

PostSubject: Re: Working Through The Logic Sun Oct 23, 2016 4:33 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
At ILP, jerkey introduced me to the Mobius Strip concept. With all the stupid deja vus and precog dreams, THE LOGIC at play is not our own and that alien logic has been throwing me into loops that I'm tired of frankly.

In the ILP thread http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=190801, I have indirectly voiced my opinion on the hidden hardware, which is the soul (not to be confused with Spirit), that needs a reckoning into existence for if this "tidbit" is what is holding us back or looped, it's going to have to be dealt with by somebody who isn't bedazzled by scientific contraptions.

FC, awhile ago I asked you for information as to the nature of what was happening to which I named specific individuals at that hub which was also named. I never received a reply. Something one way or the other, any honest answer would have been adequate. You failed me and perhaps the next trip around you will face what my questions concern.

JSS may have to expand his horizons or play your game of ducking the issue at hand.

Just realize that with every loop, I'm less pleasant.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Working Through The Logic Sun Oct 23, 2016 10:37 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Hi-D wrote:
So much for slacking. Logic is all that exists. Nothing escapes a logic, just an understanding. So logic is misconstrued, but how and where. I know why, we're morons.

Well, not all of us are. Hehehe.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Working Through The Logic Sun Oct 23, 2016 10:41 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Hi-D wrote:

FC, awhile ago I asked you for information as to the nature of what was happening to which I named specific individuals at that hub which was also named. I never received a reply. Something one way or the other, any honest answer would have been adequate. You failed me and perhaps the next trip around you will face what my questions concern.

I guess that just goes to show that we can't always get what we want.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Working Through The Logic Tue Oct 25, 2016 4:29 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Hi-D wrote:
At ILP, jerkey introduced me to the Mobius Strip concept. With all the stupid deja vus and precog dreams, THE LOGIC at play is not our own and that alien logic has been throwing me into loops that I'm tired of frankly.

In the ILP thread http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=190801, I have indirectly voiced my opinion on the hidden hardware, which is the soul (not to be confused with Spirit), that needs a reckoning into existence for if this "tidbit" is what is holding us back or looped, it's going to have to be dealt with by somebody who isn't bedazzled by scientific contraptions.

FC, awhile ago I asked you for information as to the nature of what was happening to which I named specific individuals at that hub which was also named. I never received a reply. Something one way or the other, any honest answer would have been adequate. You failed me and perhaps the next trip around you will face what my questions concern.

JSS may have to expand his horizons or play your game of ducking the issue at hand.

Just realize that with every loop, I'm less pleasant.

Suck my dick a few times then we'll see.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
anirban.metal

avatar

Posts : 2
Join date : 2016-10-25
Age : 26
Location : Bengal, India

PostSubject: Logic Wed Oct 26, 2016 12:08 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I'll share whatever I know about logic.

We've got classical logic and intuitionistic logic, which varies in that in intuitionistic logic the law of excluded middle and the principle of double negation are not tautologies, and reductio ad absurdum fails to remain a valid approach to construct proofs as a consequence. All proofs are required to be constructive as in if one is arguing the existence of something, then an algorithm for it's construction should be implicit in the proof.

Logic unfortunately, like the rest of mathematics, is based on the same Hilbert like axiomatic system. We have to take certain propositions for granted, as an example, modus ponens ({Px →Qx, Px} ⊢ Qx). Or the formula

∀ x : (Px → Qx) → (∀ x : Px → ∀ x : Qx)

has to be treated as a logical axiom. One could argue about their validity in a metalanguage, but I have never attempted it.

The axiomatization of a logical system can be done in multiple ways (as in one could ad libitum choose different sets of axioms but end up with the same logic).

A good property which we desire of any logic to have is completeness and soundness, which establish that one can syntactically derive a proof of a proposition if and only if it's a semantically valid sentence.

After sufficient amount of bootstrapping, we get fancy meta theorems like the deduction theorem, reductio ad absurdum etc.

___________
Yours Sincerely,
Anirban Mondal
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail yog_sothoth_the_lloigor https://www.facebook.com/anirban-metal
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Working Through The Logic Wed Oct 26, 2016 12:39 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
anirban.metal wrote:

A good property which we desire of any logic to have is completeness and soundness, which establish that one can syntactically derive a proof of a proposition if and only if it's a semantically valid sentence.

And we don't need to know much math for that.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

PostSubject: Re: Working Through The Logic Wed Oct 26, 2016 9:36 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sisyphus wrote:
Well, not all of us are. Hehehe.

Well, that's it, the nature of consciousness found above in "Hehehe."

Sisyphus wrote:
I guess that just goes to show that we can't always get what we want.

Destiny is a want? Why not frame that in the brilliant logic of "Hehehe" hall of fame?

View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Working Through The Logic Wed Oct 26, 2016 10:28 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Hi-D wrote:
Sisyphus wrote:
Well, not all of us are. Hehehe.

Well, that's it, the nature of consciousness found above in "Hehehe."

Well, if a person can't laugh then I would suggest that they have a very negative and boring life.

Sisyphus wrote:
I guess that just goes to show that we can't always get what we want.

Destiny is a want? Why not frame that in the brilliant logic of "Hehehe" hall of fame?

There is no such thing as destiny. It's a man made concept without any support. And hind-sight doesn't count. That's called history and it's written in stone.

View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

PostSubject: Re: Working Through The Logic Sat Oct 29, 2016 9:53 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
We are for all intents and purposes up against an alien logic that has locked us in its box and its time for a reckoning to break out of its box. This will be figured out with or without any of your contributions.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Before the Light - Tree of Life Academy - Thought of a Rune (film by Pezer)

Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper

Posts: 7887
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

### Re: The Philosophers

r Message
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Working Through The Logic Sat Oct 29, 2016 11:55 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Enjoy.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Working Through The Logic Sun Oct 30, 2016 3:44 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
anirban.metal wrote:
I'll share whatever I know about logic.

Hello Anirban, great post.

I'm going to go into one aspect of what you bring up here - I'll be able to give some indications of what I wish to do with logic.

Quote :
We've got classical logic and intuitionistic logic, which varies in that in intuitionistic logic the law of excluded middle and the principle of double negation are not tautologies, and reductio ad absurdum fails to remain a valid approach to construct proofs as a consequence. All proofs are required to be constructive as in if one is arguing the existence of something, then an algorithm for it's construction should be implicit in the proof.

Logic unfortunately, like the rest of mathematics, is based on the same Hilbert like axiomatic system. We have to take certain propositions for granted, as an example, modus ponens ({Px →Qx, Px} ⊢ Qx). Or the formula

∀ x : (Px → Qx) → (∀ x : Px → ∀ x : Qx)

has to be treated as a logical axiom. One could argue about their validity in a metalanguage, but I have never attempted it.

The axiomatization of a logical system can be done in multiple ways (as in one could ad libitum choose different sets of axioms but end up with the same logic).

A good property which we desire of any logic to have is completeness and soundness, which establish that one can syntactically derive a proof of a proposition if and only if it's a semantically valid sentence.

After sufficient amount of bootstrapping, we get fancy meta theorems like the deduction theorem, reductio ad absurdum etc.

Value Ontology as we use it here has use of intuitionistic logic, that is to say that the notion of Truth is shifted from the outcome of the formula, to the mechanism of the formula itself.

The process, the way by which data is gathered into coherence, into a logical 'object', is that very 'object', prior to its specific content. The object, or 'logical inevitability' is thus presumed, or postulated empty and a priori as a necessary outcome, before the relevant data sets are led into that outcome.

We do this because in all cases of representation of knowledge, the 'object' is brought into being arbitrarily, haphazardly, and 'accidentally' almost - simply because there is no other way of representing.

But VO replaces 'object' and 'truth' and 'result' and 'fixed value' and 'Constant' and more with 'self-valuing', meaning an active agent, that enters into our logical faculties and processes as an active element, to which we respond - the formula is the axiomatic but truth to which the mind gives further substance.

The work of constructing a formal logic is predominantly problematized by the fact that 'self-valuing' is the only 'empty' value - there aren't any variables except direct derivatives such as 'valency' - thus the process is changed and the concept 'variable' has taken on an entirely different meaning - after all, being itself is now a variable, whereas only Being as Logically Soundly Spoken is axiomatic, fixed, and operative.

I am not schooled in the terms of formal logic but all the more in its application, due to an early background in theoretical astrophysics, which is a field that posits, simply by observing reality, a lot of logical conundrums that, within themselves, contain proper logical propositions, that have not been yet derived, or made. Reality gives birth to logic, and value ontology is a logic without any presumptions of values, or constants, except the entirely unavoidable epistemic axiom that a statement of fact is itself a phenomenon, which' ground does not need have anything to do with the ground to the fact it states.

It is a logic to contextualize logical formula and logically arrived-at truths within a logic about logic, or a logic about statements. It thus potentiates logical processes, as the very mechanism of its logic assembles all other types of logics and semantic substances its own context.

Obviously this method is entirely unconventional and 'rogue' -
it does not give a shit about line around concepts or languages.

Welcome to Before the Light, anyway,
a bit belated but certainly meant.

FC
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Before the Light - Tree of Life Academy - Thought of a Rune (film by Pezer)

Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper

Posts: 7887
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

### Re: The Philosophers

Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Proof of self-valuing Mon Nov 14, 2016 4:43 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Humans respond more to their beliefs about reality than they do to reality itself.

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing Mon Nov 14, 2016 5:15 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Exactly right.... hence why their belief is as real as the reality they are ignorant of - after all, their belief causes them to act, and these actions amount to reality.

Weirdly thus, beliefs are entirely real, even if their content may be total bullshit. Same with Gods - they drive people, and are thus totally real.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing Mon Nov 14, 2016 11:00 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills

PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing Wed Nov 16, 2016 4:17 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Exactly right.... hence why their belief is as real as the reality they are ignorant of - after all, their belief causes them to act, and these actions amount to reality.

Weirdly thus, beliefs are entirely real, even if their content may be total bullshit. Same with Gods - they drive people, and are thus totally real.

cCh
scratch But are beliefs, in actuality,real? People believe in a Judaic/Christian God. But can you say that one really exists?
Does a belief make it so?

Perhaps beliefs are real in the same sense that an auditory or visual hallucination is but if examined further, it becomes something entirely different.

Quote :
their belief causes them to act, and these actions amount to reality.

Unfortunately this is true. But it doesn't make the belief that was acted on as having any basis in reality except as perception and interpretation, wrongly conceived of.

I suppose that the question: "What can be considered as 'real' enters in here.

___________
Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself.

Philosophy is the childhood of the intellect, and a culture that tries to skip it will never grow up."

"If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped."

Thomas Nagel
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing Wed Nov 16, 2016 6:13 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Arcturus Descending wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:
Exactly right.... hence why their belief is as real as the reality they are ignorant of - after all, their belief causes them to act, and these actions amount to reality.

Weirdly thus, beliefs are entirely real, even if their content may be total bullshit. Same with Gods - they drive people, and are thus totally real.

cCh
scratch But are beliefs, in actuality,real? People believe in a Judaic/Christian God. But can you say that one really exists?

I said that the belief is real. Not the content of the belief. Read my post again please. Its not long and very clear. Belief causes people to act n a certain way. Thus, that belief exists.

Furthermore, I dont believe in "true belief" vs "false belief". A belief is per definition a not knowing.

Quote :
Quote :
their belief causes them to act, and these actions amount to reality.

Unfortunately this is true. But it doesn't make the belief that was acted on as having any basis in reality except as perception and interpretation, wrongly conceived of.

I suppose that the question: "What can be considered as 'real' enters in here.

Or rather "what do you believe can be considered as 'real'". And why you believe that.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing Wed Nov 16, 2016 12:36 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:

I said that the belief is real. Not the content of the belief. Read my post again please. Its not long and very clear. Belief causes people to act n a certain way. Thus, that belief exists.

I had a hard time with this when I first started interacting on internet forums. My problem was that I couldn't establish in word what my understanding was regarding "beliefs".

Yes, beliefs are real in the individual's mind. But what is believed may be nothing more that illusion and/or delusion. But the belief still remains real.

View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing Wed Nov 16, 2016 3:56 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Cause and effect: a person believes he can fly, but he cant. So he runs out of the window and dies. The belief has killed him. Id say that belief was pretty real. He was just wrong, but people being wrong is a pretty fucking real thing.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing Wed Nov 16, 2016 4:01 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
And by the way yes that really does happen. A fellow tried it above the garden next to my room when I was 20. So I have learned that idiotic beliefs are realer than brilliant insights sometimes. Because an insight doesnt necessarily lead to action. What's even worse, often a brilliant insight is too comprehensive to be implemented in any other than a stupid way.

This is why Islam keeps winning, it's just easy to believe all that and then die soon and gladly. Its just a path of little resistance, that has as its main generator a lust for the feeling of partaking in omnipotence. I can assure you it is a powerful drug Christianity in all its passion cant attain to the comprehensiveness of an Allahic release. To pour ones entire soul out, a heroin like relief.

Precisely like todays liberals: they feel entitled to the entire world and to the death of all those who feel differently, and this coincides in both cases with an absolute shutdown of thought.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing Wed Nov 16, 2016 11:10 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yeah, points well made. I'm not much of a "belief" kind of guy. I prefer proof gathered from experience. So, from your above, we have experience that man cannot fly. So don't try it.

And really, if our belief defies the natural processes of nature/man then we should discard that belief. Religions are based in faith and beliefs without proof. And yes, Islam is worse than Christianity.

Self-valuing includes valuing the processes of nature. If we ignore the nature of the universe we are in fact placing false value on our self.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing Thu Nov 17, 2016 2:47 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes, but remember that believing isn't only about the obvious content of the belief, it is also about the act itself of believing, what this means and why it is possible at all, and even the belief-contents are more complex than simply a direct relation to reality/nature or not. Human subjectivity comes before human belief; by this I mean that beliefs are symptoms, not fundamental. This is why judging people for their religious or politically beliefs is just a kind of pathological madness and not compatible with philosophy. Beliefs are secondary expressions of more primary processes, subjective process and historical process and existential process for example.

Many beliefs are justified only in how they A) link feelings together and justify/express feelings in certain ways, and B) form shared common connections and grounds between people. Beliefs regulate self-psychological and social phenomena, and this is often the more primary function of the belief than simply to render a decision about "what is real". This is something that I notice atheists often miss, and why atheists are often so dull and non-philosophical; atheists often think of belief only as a kind of scientific fact-content expressing, the atheist will say "well if a belief doesn't match with reality/nature then it must be rejected"---- not so. The at least equal function of belief to this are the deeper psycho-subjective and social implications of beliefs, namely the atheist is disregarding an entire scope of the value of beliefs.

And remember too that we often know things which we haven't formulated clearly into "a belief", and we also often act on knowledge that isn't "a belief" but another kind of knowledge, such as pre-conceptual or instinctive or feeling-based action. What we call a belief is a very very small part of the overall process by which human beings act, have knowledge, and subjectively function and grow further into existence. What is meant by philosophical honesty and "soul" is far larger than what I said meant by "belief". And in fact, under philosophy we see beliefs are transformed into a totally different quality, because the "belief" and its associated contents are paired more and more with those other subjective and knowledge ranges, and also with other equally deepening beliefs, thus filling out the inner mental universe as linking idea to idea and feeling to feeling, and idea to feeling and feeling to idea, until the old ideological method of believing that is common for most people just falls away and is replaced with authenticity of being.

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing Thu Nov 17, 2016 2:54 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
If the atheist has his way and removes all beliefs that are "not true", this would remove far more than just a bunch of untrue belief-contents. Also you have to remember that most people aren't in a position to need to make 100% accurate true or false determinations all the time, our beliefs are simply not needed to be that computer-like and scientific most of the time. Atheistic despise for untrue beliefs, usually religious beliefs, is actually a form of analytic thinking that is deeply pathological and anti-philosophical when taken to this extreme, namely when applied out of context and beyond its mandate. We aren't computers, and life isn't a series of empirical tests performed in a lab. The scientific-atheistic, analytic mindset just isn't required beyond a limited role it plays, and certainly should not be allowed to replace the deeper soul-regions of the human, most of which are still beyond the possibility to even speak about or "believe or disbelieve" in.

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills

PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing Thu Nov 17, 2016 4:24 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Arcturus Descending wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:
Exactly right.... hence why their belief is as real as the reality they are ignorant of - after all, their belief causes them to act, and these actions amount to reality.

Weirdly thus, beliefs are entirely real, even if their content may be total bullshit. Same with Gods - they drive people, and are thus totally real.

cCh
scratch But are beliefs, in actuality,real? People believe in a Judaic/Christian God. But can you say that one really exists?

I said that the belief is real. Not the content of the belief. Read my post again please. Its not long and very clear. Belief causes people to act n a certain way. Thus, that belief exists.

Furthermore, I dont believe in "true belief" vs "false belief". A belief is per definition a not knowing.

Quote :
Quote :
their belief causes them to act, and these actions amount to reality.

Unfortunately this is true. But it doesn't make the belief that was acted on as having any basis in reality except as perception and interpretation, wrongly conceived of.

I suppose that the question: "What can be considered as 'real' enters in here.

Or rather "what do you believe can be considered as 'real'". And why you believe that.

No, FC, I didn't misread it. A belief is only "real" to the individual but not necessarily real. This is why I asked "what is real" or what can be determined to be real?
If one's belief does not turn out to be true, fact, than it isn't real. Just so much fluff.

How is the belief any different than the content? Aren't they one and the same thing? If I'm wrong, explain. I can't see the distinction between the belief and its content.

False belief is what turns out to not be based in fact.
What I meant b y true belief is belief which becomes real, in other words knowledge, by accident. One didn't believe because they "knew", that's knowledge, one only believed because they chose to believe, to have faith in something they could not know.
Thjere is belief and then there is knowledge.

Perhaps we need Wittgenstein to explain this.
I know what you're trying to say though that a belief is real. But on the other hand, if someone believes in elves, can it be said that that belief has any bearing in "reality"?

___________
Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself.

Philosophy is the childhood of the intellect, and a culture that tries to skip it will never grow up."

"If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped."

Thomas Nagel
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing Thu Nov 17, 2016 5:18 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Arc, youve failed.

Bye.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing Thu Nov 17, 2016 11:21 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Arc is pointing out the already stipulated to distinction between content of belief and believing itself, perhaps without realizing it. There isn't disagreement here, just lack of precision to define.

Believing: the act of having belief.
Content of belief: what is believed.
Reality in terms of believing: what consequences or results follow from a believing.
Reality in terms of content of belief: the degree to which a belief's contents are true without regard to the reality in terms of believing. (So called objective reslity of the belief)

Let's say I believe I can fly by diving from a building. It is objectively untrue that I can fly by leaping from a building, therefore the content of the idea is untrue. We might say the reality of the content of the belief is lacking. However, when I jump and fall and die, those are actions and consequences in reality, therefore the believing itself was real in so far as its effects were real, regardless of the reality of the belief's contents.

To the point about belief versus knowing: A) yes a belief can be defined as an absence of knowing ergo what is not known must instead be merely "believed", but also B) what we call "believing" can alternately be defined as simply a strong affirmative stance toward something already known, in which case I can know that when I drop my cup it will fall; but the sheer force or affirmation of this knowledge of mine, based on induction and on understanding some physics, causes me to *believe* that if I drop a cup it will fall. The "belief" here is only an indication of the force or affirmation behind a given known thing and before the fact of the thing's occurring (namely tied to a future-predicting), and C) saying "I believe the cup will fall" is just habit of language, which really means "I know the cup will fall".

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing Thu Nov 17, 2016 2:11 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
Yes, but remember that believing isn't only about the obvious content of the belief, ...

No disagreement with what you said here. I didn't express myself well in that post above. Next time I'll do better.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing Thu Nov 17, 2016 2:18 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
If the atheist has his way and removes all beliefs that are "not true", this would remove far more than just a bunch of untrue belief-contents. Also you have to remember that most people aren't in a position to need to make 100% accurate true or false determinations all the time, our beliefs are simply not needed to be that computer-like and scientific most of the time. Atheistic despise for untrue beliefs, usually religious beliefs, is actually a form of analytic thinking that is deeply pathological and anti-philosophical when taken to this extreme, namely when applied out of context and beyond its mandate. We aren't computers, and life isn't a series of empirical tests performed in a lab. The scientific-atheistic, analytic mindset just isn't required beyond a limited role it plays, and certainly should not be allowed to replace the deeper soul-regions of the human, most of which are still beyond the possibility to even speak about or "believe or disbelieve" in.

No argument. But I will point out that I'm not an angry Atheist. I just don't hold to beliefs that I find serve no useful purpose for me. Useful/useless is an important concept for me. It is an attempt to reduce the amount of judging of things and people.

I've not mentioned it here yet but I prefer to live spontaneously as often as I can. Just do what feels natural. No, I don't want to have a computer brain.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills

PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing Fri Nov 18, 2016 3:23 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Arc, youve failed.

Bye.

Ouch.
But you're correct. I will concede to your argument.
It's always a good thing when I come to realize that I am NOT thinking out of the box and that I have a blind spot.

___________
Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself.

Philosophy is the childhood of the intellect, and a culture that tries to skip it will never grow up."

"If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped."

Thomas Nagel
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills

PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing Fri Nov 18, 2016 3:49 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable,

Quote :
Arc is pointing out the already stipulated to distinction between content of belief and believing itself, perhaps without realizing it. There isn't disagreement here, just lack of precision to define.

True but what I failed to do is to realize that there is not only physical reality but also immaterial or ethereal reality (if I'm using the correct words). That is the nature of belief's reality - it is immaterial though it stems from the material brain to the mind to thought.
If I am to "see" my thoughts as having "existence" on some other level of reality, then I must also realize that belief is "real" too - is some kind of thing.
I see the flower - it is a material thing so it is real but so is the scent of that flower a reality.

I was so focused on "false" belief, that I equated that with belief itself having no true reality. I was blind-sided.

Quote :
Believing: the act of having belief.
Content of belief: what is believed.
Reality in terms of believing: what consequences or results follow from a believing.
Reality in terms of content of belief: the degree to which a belief's contents are true without regard to the reality in terms of believing. (So called objective reslity of the belief)

True. That all points to belief as being part of reality.
What is the saying - "Something cannot come from Nothing".
As FC and yourself pointed out - belief has "existence" because of cause and effect consequences, et cetera.
The material world and its influence brings it into existence.
I had to remember, to realize tat "reality" itself is not always physically tangible.

Quote :
Let's say I believe I can fly by diving from a building. It is objectively untrue that I can fly by leaping from a building, therefore the content of the idea is untrue. We might say the reality of the content of the belief is lacking. However, when I jump and fall and die, those are actions and consequences in reality, therefore the believing itself was real in so far as its effects were real, regardless of the reality of the belief's contents
.

Yes, I get that now. Again, I was more focused on the content of belief as cancelling out the reality of belief.
I can hardly believe that I've been in a philosophy forum all of this time, 8 years, and thought that way. Absurd.

Quote :
To the point about belief versus knowing: A) yes a belief can be defined as an absence of knowing ergo what is not known must instead be merely "believed",

...taken on faith.

Quote :
but also B) what we call "believing" can alternately be defined as simply a strong affirmative stance toward something already known, in which case I can know that when I drop my cup it will fall;

But wouldn't that still be called "knowing"?

Quote :
but the sheer force or affirmation of this knowledge of mine, based on induction and on understanding some physics, causes me to *believe* that if I drop a cup it will fall. The "belief" here is only an indication of the force or affirmation behind a given known thing and before the fact of the thing's occurring (namely tied to a future-predicting), and C) saying "I believe the cup will fall" is just habit of language, which really means "I know the cup will fall".

C) But would you really say "I believe" in this instance? The only time you might I believe in this situation would depend on perhaps how precariously slow to the edge of something the cup was, no? I'm not quibbling here - sometimes we can only believe and times we can know.

There is always two sides to the coin, at least figuratively speaking. I'm glad that this happened. It's a reminder to me of how I often think.

___________
Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself.

Philosophy is the childhood of the intellect, and a culture that tries to skip it will never grow up."

"If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped."

Thomas Nagel
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing Tue Nov 29, 2016 5:17 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Arcturus Descending wrote:
Capable,

Quote :
Arc is pointing out the already stipulated to distinction between content of belief and believing itself, perhaps without realizing it. There isn't disagreement here, just lack of precision to define.

True but what I failed to do is to realize that there is not only physical reality but also immaterial or ethereal reality (if I'm using the correct words). That is the nature of belief's reality - it is immaterial though it stems from the material brain to the mind to thought.
If I am to "see" my thoughts as having "existence" on some other level of reality, then I must also realize that belief is "real" too - is some kind of thing.
I see the flower - it is a material thing so it is real but so is the scent of that flower a reality.

I was so focused on "false" belief, that I equated that with belief itself having no true reality. I was blind-sided.

I see you've understood now Arc. So Im going to make it slightly more complex.

The term "false belief" actually never had any meaning for me because to me, all belief is "false" - i.e. "Belief" implies the absence of knowledge... which, in a certain way, makes it 'false' to believe, period. So belief is basically false to begin with. But that doesnt make the action fo believing less of a reality, as it grounds your actions, and these are real.

An action cant be "false".

This is not a value judgment- the falsity of belief, i.e. of not-knowledge experienced as certainty, can lead to good things. We can believe a situation is better than it is and based on that belief, act with good spirits, and actually improve the situation.
Based on illusion, we can change reality for the better.

This is the great paradox of knowledge versus wisdom.

Quote :
Quote :
Believing: the act of having belief.
Content of belief: what is believed.
Reality in terms of believing: what consequences or results follow from a believing.
Reality in terms of content of belief: the degree to which a belief's contents are true without regard to the reality in terms of believing. (So called objective reslity of the belief)

True. That all points to belief as being part of reality.
What is the saying - "Something cannot come from Nothing".
As FC and yourself pointed out - belief has "existence" because of cause and effect consequences, et cetera.
The material world and its influence brings it into existence.
I had to remember, to realize tat "reality" itself is not always physically tangible.

Quote :
Let's say I believe I can fly by diving from a building. It is objectively untrue that I can fly by leaping from a building, therefore the content of the idea is untrue. We might say the reality of the content of the belief is lacking. However, when I jump and fall and die, those are actions and consequences in reality, therefore the believing itself was real in so far as its effects were real, regardless of the reality of the belief's contents
.

Yes, I get that now. Again, I was more focused on the content of belief as cancelling out the reality of belief.
I can hardly believe that I've been in a philosophy forum all of this time, 8 years, and thought that way. Absurd.

These are all relatively new insights.
In fact Ive not ever seen them formulated as straightforwardly as I do - often this comes across my path as my task, to rigorously formulate ideas that have been half-born by good, but soft minds.

Quote :
Quote :
To the point about belief versus knowing: A) yes a belief can be defined as an absence of knowing ergo what is not known must instead be merely "believed",

...taken on faith.

Faith, or in the childs or artists case, imagination.

Schopenhauers idea of "will and imagination" might be interesting for you to look into.

Quote :
Quote :
but also B) what we call "believing" can alternately be defined as simply a strong affirmative stance toward something already known, in which case I can know that when I drop my cup it will fall;

But wouldn't that still be called "knowing"?

A scientist will often say "I believe" when he means "I know". It's a way of covering the theoretical possibility of things going the other way by some yet undiscovered law, of which a true scientist is always aware.

A true scientist will, when he knows that he really knows something, be quite marveled. He knows how rare true knowledge is, how few things are truly certain.

Hume has explored this domain of almost-certainty, or what, with a stretch, we may perhaps term "true belief"; i.e. belief that has been verified, over and over again, so for it to become knowledge, even if the cause is not understood.

"True certainty" vs "false certainty": in the former, the cause of the thing that is certainly the case is understood; i.e. it is understood why the thing is certainly the case. A false certainty can occur when it appears a thing is simply always the case, but one does not know why.

Quote :
Quote :
but the sheer force or affirmation of this knowledge of mine, based on induction and on understanding some physics, causes me to *believe* that if I drop a cup it will fall. The "belief" here is only an indication of the force or affirmation behind a given known thing and before the fact of the thing's occurring (namely tied to a future-predicting), and C) saying "I believe the cup will fall" is just habit of language, which really means "I know the cup will fall".

C) But would you really say "I believe" in this instance? The only time you might I believe in this situation would depend on perhaps how precariously slow to the edge of something the cup was, no? I'm not quibbling here - sometimes we can only believe and times we can know.

There is always two sides to the coin, at least figuratively speaking. I'm glad that this happened. It's a reminder to me of how I often think.

These moments of change in the machinery of ones thought, that is what philosophy is made of. Be proud of your capacity to make such changes. It's rare.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Before the Light - Tree of Life Academy - Thought of a Rune (film by Pezer)

Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper

Posts: 7887
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

### Re: The Philosophers

Author Message
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Meaning Wed Nov 30, 2016 12:58 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I am working on the hypothesis that meaning is a literal, tangible, "physical" substance. This is per tectonics, of course. The brain is little more than a very sensitive recording instrument -- it records meanings, and by virtue of how the rest of the body is also connected into the hub of the brain, the body becomes activate directly by meaning---namely, as "humanity".

This is Logic 101 of the future philosophy.

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Meaning Wed Nov 30, 2016 1:48 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Time for truth to surface.

"The Deceived"

Disintegration constituents to decompose of the parts
A malformation utopia systematic unity can't be achieved

Be numb to all the things
That force you to frame

[We are the deceived
Lost in the foreseen]

To wait for aforementioned dreams time will only tell
Tell that the promised have been failed

Behold your fellow man through centuries of control
Adhering to the decrees of a manufactured god

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Meaning Wed Nov 30, 2016 3:34 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It's sort of funny to be 100-200 years ahead of the curve. Oh well.

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Meaning Wed Nov 30, 2016 3:40 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster

To staying ahead of the curve.

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Meaning Wed Nov 30, 2016 11:48 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
I am working on the hypothesis that meaning is a literal, tangible, "physical" substance. This is per tectonics, of course. The brain is little more than a very sensitive recording instrument -- it records meanings, and by virtue of how the rest of the body is also connected into the hub of the brain, the body becomes activate directly by meaning---namely, as "humanity".

This is Logic 101 of the future philosophy.

While this may be true I suggest that it is only at the individual level and can never be used as a generalized statement. Just like dreams, they are real for the dreamer only.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Meaning Thu Dec 01, 2016 2:38 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It is true at the level of individual brains, and since we all have those it is therefore true for all of us.

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Meaning Thu Dec 01, 2016 3:13 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
It is true at the level of individual brains, and since we all have those it is therefore true for all of us.

I think you just cheated but I'm not going to say anything.

View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills

PostSubject: Re: Meaning Thu Dec 01, 2016 3:51 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable

Quote :
I am working on the hypothesis that meaning is a literal, tangible, "physical" substance.

I think that meaning can be equated with "belief" - in the sense that it is also "real" but still intangible.
How do you see meaning as a physical substance? One can say that meaning issues from the mind and the emotions - they are "real" but are they physical? Do they have actual form (well perhaps yes) but real substance?

Quote :
The brain is little more than a very sensitive recording instrument -- it records meanings, and by virtue of how the rest of the body is also connected into the hub of the brain, the body becomes activate directly by meaning---namely, as "humanity".

Little more than? After millions of years, it is "little more than"? Mad Yes, they are recording instruments also... but little more than? Nothing complex about it? This physical reality which many call "the final frontier"?
Is it the brain which records meaning or is it the mind by way of the human experience/memories/patterns, et cetera, which does that?

Quote :
This is Logic 101 of the future philosophy.
Philosophy of the Mind?

I can though greatly appreciate those who have their own hypotheses which they are working on.

___________
Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself.

Philosophy is the childhood of the intellect, and a culture that tries to skip it will never grow up."

"If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped."

Thomas Nagel

Last edited by Arcturus Descending on Thu Dec 01, 2016 3:57 am; edited 1 time in total
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Meaning Thu Dec 01, 2016 3:56 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sisyphus wrote:
Capable wrote:
It is true at the level of individual brains, and since we all have those it is therefore true for all of us.

I think you just cheated but I'm not going to say anything.

It's not cheating, it's true. The brain is just a very sensitive organic computer, it responds to and records meaning. At first it does this "unconsciously" as creating hardwired instincts that solidify genetically via natural selection, basically just so the organism can survive long enough to procreate; but later in humans the brain becomes so sensitive and with the help of an externalized brain-surrogate model (language) starts to respond to meaning directly, which means to facts directly and to the significance of things. This allows us access to knowledge and ultimately to what is called consciousness.

The brain doesn't create meaning, and meaning is not "in the brain", rather the brain is simply a device capable of registering and reorganizing itself (neural structures) in terms of meaning (facts, larger significances). Ultimately this is all that consciousness really is.

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Meaning Thu Dec 01, 2016 7:21 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Okay. My mind is at peace regarding this thread once again. I started thinking you were making inferences that I totally disagree with (universal consciousness). I had thought that you were too scientifically minded to be doing anything like that.

But then, I will add that some instincts are common within nearly all of the members of a species. But we each will attach individual meaning to our experiences just as we do regarding our dreams.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

PostSubject: Re: Meaning Thu Dec 01, 2016 11:32 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
The brain doesn't create meaning, and meaning is not "in the brain", rather the brain is simply a device capable of registering and reorganizing itself (neural structures) in terms of meaning (facts, larger significances). Ultimately this is all that consciousness really is.

Consciousness is more than what occurs solely in the brain of experience gathering intel.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Meaning Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:50 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Thrasymachus wrote:
I am working on the hypothesis that meaning is a literal, tangible, "physical" substance. This is per tectonics, of course. The brain is little more than a very sensitive recording instrument -- it records meanings, and by virtue of how the rest of the body is also connected into the hub of the brain, the body becomes activate directly by meaning---namely, as "humanity".

This is Logic 101 of the future philosophy.

In as far as we speak of things this is meaning itself, and what we chase in life is meaning. But is breath meaning?
The Chinese live it as such. The breath of life - in Latin, breath is "spiritus".

The Holy Breath.

There is no such thing as "spirit" in Latin -
the holy spirit is literally the holy breath.

What is the holy breath?

This?

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/73 ... fea265.jpg

“That for which they seek is that which searches.”

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Meaning Wed Feb 01, 2017 1:00 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Because holiness is the meaning of meaning itself.

We give things meaning so that ultimately they can be hallowed, and we will hallow ourselves and be made holy thereby, and what is holy is everlasting.

I call this "standard" and "consistency" and "gold" and it comes about through heavy, elemental collisions.
From such heavy elements that don't corrupt, the electrical currents are liberated into beauty.

The Soul is not made out of gold but woven between it.
Silver, therefore, is more substantial to the soul - the mother metal..
But Gold, trace from one owner to the next, and you shall find one of two things; loyalty or betrayal.

There is no middle path with gold and heed all ye who wear it the demons inside, for they will be magnified.

This is not artificial.
Last edited by Fixed Cross on Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Before the Light - Tree of Life Academy - Thought of a Rune (film by Pezer)

Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper

Posts: 7887
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

### Re: The Philosophers

Illogic of retaliatory beliefs View previous topic View next topic Go down
Author Message
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Illogic of retaliatory beliefs Tue Mar 14, 2017 1:36 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Islam and liberalism share in common the fact that if you disagree with these beliefs, then those who hold them will retaliate against you, often in open violence; and even if not in physical violence then certainly in words, attitude, and with an intent to discredit you and/or cause you harm.

If you are a conservative you must hide this fact from your employer, for example, because in many cases you will lose your job if they find out. This is a well known fact in America, and while there are exceptions they are just that, exceptions. Liberal-leftism has taken cultural hold here, in entertainment and media, in politics and jobs, in the social stratosphere of norms, and a conservative is far less likely to state outright his beliefs than is a liberal, because the liberal's beliefs are socially-sanctioned and protected by the politically correct policing (thought police) that has become common here. Get this: Trump just won the presidency, the Republicans just won the House and Senate, and yet if many Americans were to show up to their jobs with Trump stickers on their car they would face severe retaliation from their employer and fellow employees, certainly being openly insulted and verbally attacked and ostracized, and in some cases including being fired.

The "silent majority" has been made to be silent. We live in 1984.

The same goes, obviously, for Islam. Muslims get upset whenever someone states that Islam is a violent religion -- and the Muslim then immediately puts out a death sentence upon such an individual, proving that individual was correct. Why do you think anti-Islam politicians need such heavy security, and sometimes they still get killed anyway? Or they need to live in hiding for the rest of their lives, and yet we are forbidden from announcing this fact publicly, we must always say how tolerance and peaceful Islam is. lol.

I am claiming now that any belief or belief system that sanctions violence, force, intimidation or retaliation against someone else who disagrees with that belief system, to be total and complete shit. Liberalism is a form of fascism, I see this almost every day out in public, it literally controls people's speech and actions. Islam is also a form of fascism, despite the fact that half of all Muslims can co-exist peacefully and moderate to some degree. The ideology itself is fascist, in a way that Christianity is not.

From now on I will oppose any belief, in religion or philosophy or politics, or otherwise, that sanctions the use of force/violence either directly or indirectly against anyone simply because the other person does not adhere to that belief. These sort of retaliatory belief-fascisms must be opposed. Fuck Islam and fuck the left. And fuck conservatism too if it becomes fascist in this same manner.

If they can't win in the war of ideas and logic, then they don't deserve to win -- and they know this, which is why they get all emotionally bent out of shape and resort to violence when they can't complete on the philosophical level.

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Illogic of retaliatory beliefs Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:26 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I'm glad that most time I get to totally agree with you. This is one of those times. For me, a threat of violence against me allows me to consider the one making the threat fair game for a killing. Self defense.

I do not accept the actions of the present liberals or the actions of the militant Islamist. Change by force is unacceptable. I will resist to the maximum of my abilities.

And I will speak out against it whenever I have the opportunity.

View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Illogic of retaliatory beliefs Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:25 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes. I also take extreme joy in seeing the demise and death of anyone who is motivated by such violent retaliatory beliefs. It is the natural reward for their stupidity.

I essentially Trump their beliefs with a greater deathforce, afforded by a greater lifeforce: if you wish death upon someone that hasnt warranted this by my code, I say you will perish like the soulless hound you are.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Before the Light - Tree of Life Academy - Thought of a Rune (film by Pezer)

Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper

Posts: 7887
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

### Re: The Philosophers

Message
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Self-value categories Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:49 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I am wondering if we need to create a new category, for things/entities/beings that exist only because they are valued by something other than themselves.

Could it be the case that something could exist and persist merely and only because another thing values it, and by valuing it so intensely or consistently basically gives existence to it? Or would this 'something' still need to actively self-value?

Or perhaps we might say that the fact that this 'something' has another thing that values it so intensely-consistently, and therefore gives existence to it, is precisely the fact of the 'something's' own self-valuing already, namely that it values itself solely in terms of the fact that something else values it. Namely, that it self-values precisely, primarily and perhaps even only in the way that it has managed to get something else to value it so intensely-consistently.

Does this make sense?

We can already create two basic categories, more or less: simple and complex self-valuings. Obviously not a perfect categorization, but I would say something like a rock is a simple self-valuing, whereas something like a human is a complex self-valuing. Of course there are plenty more categories, and ways to parse them. And of course it can be argued that even rocks are fairly complex. But admitting that in a vague sense such categories do exist basically, we might try to find a necessary logical differentiation between them; namely, this one self-values like this, and another self-values like that.

Or is all self-valuing universally the same? Indeed by the very meaning of self-valuing, it is the case that all self-valuing is universally the same, namely is (a) self-valuing. Self is understood in terms of self-valuing, value is understood as self-valuing. Two sides of one coin.

Sauwelios said that will = power. Perhaps we might say that self = valuing? I am not too comfortable with these equations.

Basic certainty: self-valuing is a "metaphysical" (logical) postulate and principle that holds for anything and everything, necessarily, since it has already been defined/determined that if it did not hold for something then that something could not be. This approaches a truth-standard, but is not synonymous with truth itself, at least not in how I understand the meaning of truth. And yet this one truth is indeed certainly the case. Yes-- I see now that in answer to my first question here, if a thing existed that did not self-value but were valued highly by something else, this might theoretically-speaking grant existence to that thing, but in a practical or real sense it is not possible for this situation to arise, quite simply because there is no way that something could exist already in order to become valued like that by something else, nor could a self-valuing create something else that has no self-valuing of its own in order to then value-add it back to itself, attaching it to own value-sphere.

And even furthermore, it would not be possible for a self-valuing to value something else that, itself, had no self-valuing to speak of. This is indeed a matter of taste, and also of necessary ontology.

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Self-value categories Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:28 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Thrasymachus wrote:
I am wondering if we need to create a new category, for things/entities/beings that exist only because they are valued by something other than themselves.

Could it be the case that something could exist and persist merely and only because another thing values it, and by valuing it so intensely or consistently basically gives existence to it? Or would this 'something' still need to actively self-value?

Yes, I think there is a lot that operates like this - it selfvalues passively. It absorbs enough that it can continue its function, but it has no power to influence its environment, except to die or malfunction. From alfunction some new active selfvaluings could occur, as chaos allows for both types. And I would say the active type requires chaos to emerge. Dancing stars.

Quote :
Or perhaps we might say that the fact that this 'something' has another thing that values it so intensely-consistently, and therefore gives existence to it,

Yes = but this would be an active selfvaluing. Value-creating, meaning allowing for coherence and 'the universe' - such value-creations must always involve other selfvaluing particles. It is inadvertently interaction, any creation Nietzsches conception of master morality is what Ive takento mean active self-valuing, value creating.

A table is such a value creation.
It is also a passive self-valuing. It allows people to use it in its capacity more than in another capacity, thus it values its users in its terms. But it exists not because users are ofv alue to it, but because it has use-value.

Quote :
is precisely the fact of the 'something's' own self-valuing already, namely that it values itself solely in terms of the fact that something else values it. Namely, that it self-values precisely, primarily and perhaps even only in the way that it has managed to get something else to value it so intensely-consistently.

Does this make sense?

Yes, exactly, Interestingly, this relates to Darwins peacocks tail paradox, where reproduction evidently involves a making-passive-to, anexpense of energy in order to be valued - as an object, essentially.

Quote :
We can already create two basic categories, more or less: simple and complex self-valuings. Obviously not a perfect categorization, but I would say something like a rock is a simple self-valuing, whereas something like a human is a complex self-valuing.

I would disagree to that - simplicity and integrity relate stronger than simplicity and weakness - a rock is not essentially a selfvaluing, as it can break into two and is then two rocks - nothing has changed. A human or a atom can not break into two anwithout release of gigantic turmoil and remain structurally the same despite having split mass. In that sense a worm is not really a self valuing.

Lets use strong and weak integrity. We can categorize at least 3 levels of this and remain exact and precise.

Quote :
Of course there are plenty more categories, and ways to parse them. And of course it can be argued that even rocks are fairly complex. But admitting that in a vague sense such categories do exist basically, we might try to find a necessary logical differentiation between them; namely, this one self-values like this, and another self-values like that.

Or is all self-valuing universally the same? Indeed by the very meaning of self-valuing, it is the case that all self-valuing is universally the same, namely is (a) self-valuing. Self is understood in terms of self-valuing, value is understood as self-valuing. Two sides of one coin.

The logic becomes more apparent when you reverse it: what is not entirely selfvaluing does not entirely exist.

Gold is perfect self valuing.
Its history of creation points to why that is. It has taken the maximal process that this universe has to offer, and is elite-outcome of that.

There are many levels of structural integrity systems, gold is the atomic level.
Humans tried to transform their consciousness to gold for ages. Religions are their posthumous dreams.

Quote :

Sauwelios said that will = power. Perhaps we might say that self = valuing? I am not too comfortable with these equations.

It is quite accurate in as far as there is a self-
selfvaluing is not itself a self that values, it is the valuing that is so consistent and 'lucky' that it refers back to itself.
A self would definitely relate most to itself through its valuing.
I do not see an atom as having a self - it is a self-valuing, it has some inner mechanism that we may compare to a self, but a self is a quite human and strange concept- is it the life, the moment, the experience, the actions, the values? Whatever it is, when it is active, and noticeable, thus when we can say that it exists
[onto-epistemic entity], it is in the process of strongly valuing. It 'appears out of nothing', it becomes 'part of the equation' when it is stirred to value. Ultimately it overcomes its 'self' which is a static image and becomes - power. Dionysos or rogue variable. Its actions cause the truth that its inner image represented and willed. (Only it looks different from the outside, like an animal)

Quote :
Basic certainty: self-valuing is a "metaphysical" (logical) postulate and principle that holds for anything and everything, necessarily, since it has already been defined/determined that if it did not hold for something then that something could not be.

The degrees of integrity determine the structures of the interactions: the golden rule - he who has the gold, rules - or simply, gold rules --
that is the most simple form of understanding how selfvaluing integrity reverberates rankingly throughout the entire tectonic cosmos. It is integirty that binds paradigms - all lack of integrity is stuck in and suspended between paradigms, all great integrity has several paradigms revolving around it, trying to synthesize themselves to each other in the central stars terms and thus explicating it into a general selfvaluing paradigm.

difference in:
1/ integrity
2/ content
3/ size

1: principle of logic, valuing-recurrence, consistency.
2: value, quality
3: significance, quantity.

Quote :
This approaches a truth-standard, but is not synonymous with truth itself, at least not in how I understand the meaning of truth. And yet this one truth is indeed certainly the case. Yes-- I see now that in answer to my first question here, if a thing existed that did not self-value but were valued highly by something else, this might theoretically-speaking grant existence to that thing, but in a practical or real sense it is not possible for this situation to arise, quite simply because there is no way that something could exist already in order to become valued like that by something else, nor could a self-valuing create something else that has no self-valuing of its own in order to then value-add it back to itself, attaching it to own value-sphere.

This is indeed how much of the universe would have come into being. Much that is not merely atomic, and much that is in weaker atoms as well. In the human realm, perhaps almost all content, cultural identity has come about this way. This is what Ive meant when I said that when I looked outside of my window in Amsterdam and saw people passing by, I had the distinct impression that they were not in the process of existing, but being-existed. In Montreal most people appear to have the innocence of existence about them- meaning men are more animal than cultural, and thus mostly withdrawn.

It is a big challenge for something as vulnerable as a living organism to be a pure self-valuing - and yet precisely because of this vulnerability, it is also highly necessary.
The problem of the Greeks.

Quote :
And even furthermore, it would not be possible for a self-valuing to value something else that, itself, had no self-valuing to speak of. This is indeed a matter of taste, and also of necessary ontology.

No, every thing that is valued must have the basics of self-valuing, it must be able to respond consistently, exist.
So what accounts for weakness and strength of integrity is whether the entity forces its valuer to value it as a whole, or for its parts.... !

Ill be damned
that's formula
We're trying to look at the parts - but the whole observed paradigms structural integrity dissolves before us because of it.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Self-value categories Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:46 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Incredible, that post just blew my mind three times over. I'll offer comments in a while.

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Self-value categories Sat Mar 18, 2017 7:04 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Your inquiry couldn't have been sharper.
Truth, as I understand your notion of it now, is probably the same as (the elemental value to) masculine self-valuing pure, in the human form.

A womans truth is her dream-man or man-dream, her ideal, around which her emotions revolve. Later it is her child, if she manages to have a worthy one, by being chosen right and by valuing that child so as for it to develop enough chaos within the order of nurture.

Chaos grounds
Order nurtures

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Self-value categories Sat Mar 18, 2017 7:26 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
A table values people in terms of itself qua table-- fuck. Yes of course. A table is a creation with a specific purpose, a value; thus what the table is is a value-being-a-"table" and exists in so far as it 1) keeps fulfilling that function and 2) maintains its adequate structural integrity. The material constituents of the table (wood, nails etc.) have their own requirements to continue existing, and the sum total of those requirements in tandem and in agreement with one another maintains the structural existence of the table; but the table is only a table in so far as it has a value-purpose, otherwise it would not be a table but something else.

The tectonic implications of this are endless.

Rocks broken become more rocks, yes; a human without an arm is still a human, but not the same human, literally his "human-value-being" has changed at least a little bit, his future is different, his entire being may be fundamentally altered. He will self-value differently. There is a primary logic here that distinguishes kinds of beings as regards self-valuing, but I can't quite articulate it perfectly yet.

But it's basically what you said at the bottom, about valuing parts versus a whole. I can value a whole rock and if broken the rock is not valuable to me anymore. But it is no less a rock now that it is broken; value-making confers being by creating purpose as wholeness-functioning-valuing. A rock is only "less than a rock" when broken if another being is around to include that rock qua "whole rock" into that other being's values-sphere, otherwise it is just a rock that becomes two rocks.

Lack of integrity-to-value is basically lack of consciousness or reason maybe, or what we call consciousness is already an integrity-being-making. Integrity integrates, rises; lack of integrity is equivocation. And equivocation lends itself to being valued actively by others and only passively by oneself.

What you say about people as lacking active valuing being more like animals. Not committed to anything, reminds me of something Peterson said, that men tend to polarize in IQ to either greatness or banality, high or low intelligence, you have men as either Michelangelo or men who fill the prisons, whereas women tend to cluster around the mean IQ. Let's not underestimate the significance of this insight. But there are subtler tectonic layers too, and passive equivocation indeee gives rise to ordered power and valuing-activity, as you alluded to with your comments on chaos. Active self-valuing benefits from a passive more equivocating dimension of itself, if only to avoid the trap of overspecialization. 'A system' is thus formed between personality types, also between genders-sexes. Indeed, gender is only an expression of this system-forming that occurs at the deeper organic-psychosocial levels.

Yes, we are most vulnerable and therefore it is most necessary that we address our vulnerability. And this fact is encoded fundamentally in our own self-valuing, and as our self-valuing.

To your last point: Marxism is valuing as parts, capitalism is valuing as wholes. Ironically this leads to a reversal wherein Marxist entities require to develop a deceptive image of "the whole", to compensate for the lack of it, while 'capitalist' entities (living beings, etc.) require to develop a deceptive multiplicity as catharsis-exporting of the already-whole (of "soul"). Namely Marxists value in terms of groups/class, capitalists value in terms of individuals/"resources"/"utilities-to". This latter is because a whole is already logically a "final" thing, and even the Marxists with the perversion of the whole into a mere image of deception-compensation cannot shake their valuing-being from that truth.

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Self-value categories Mon Mar 20, 2017 12:10 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Something just dawned on me.
Selfvaluing-pure is the unfulfilled potential to value. *
As soon as valuing is attached to a specific value, the purity is no more.
Thus, there are no pure organic self-valuings. An atom is, as far as I can tell, a pure-selfvaluing, as it requires, once it has come into being, no external circumstance. Please correct me if I'm wrong, in that case a pure-selfvaluing might only be pre-existent, a hiatus in the world, a space of pure chaos, from which an autonomous possibility emerges, that can sink its hooks of potentiating into this or that selfvaluing beyond the chaos.

Philosophic skepsis in combination with creative powers is, that I understand, how a human can relate to self-valuing pure, to lack of attachment, to the full potential to value without any outstanding investments.

Fools try through askesis to also do away with the physical valuing, but they would have to do with air pressure and gravity and heat, and yet it does work to exalt ones self experience momentarily, if one abstains from certain values considered more or less essential, such as in a fast - or in the extreme some asphyxiatic methods - and yet all of this is ultimately nonsense, as it is a arched, not a reified state of detachement.

Philosophic skepsis is a a reified lack of need for definitive truths. It opens up the self-valuing to the thing called sometimes mind, sometimes, freedom, sometimes even god, but the thing in any case from which effortless power, vision and joy issues, waters that touch but never attack to the worlds already-existing values. And wherever valuing has run scarce in the world, the mere potentiating gaze of the self-valuing acts like water on dry clay.

A table has very little potential to reach such a state, as it exists by virtue of being attached to this value of it, the person who wants to have a table.

This allows us to distinguish active from passive self-valuing by means of principle -
we can trace what remains of the being if it has withdrawn all of its investments.
Organic life is always part of an ecosystem. This system regulates the integrities with respect to each other in time, life.
Abstract thought can attain to a sphere analogous to pure integrity.

The perfect mathematics only relates to itself.
The perfect logic relates everything to itself, and allows for no investments in anything that eludes it.

*
minumum: selfvaluing pure (dancing star)
maximum: selfvaluing complete (gold)
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Before the Light - Tree of Life Academy - Thought of a Rune (film by Pezer)

Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper

Posts: 7887
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

### Re: The Philosophers

the equation of god and money View previous topic View next topic Go down
Go to page : 1, 2 Next
Author Message
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: the equation of god and money Fri Feb 17, 2017 9:25 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The faith in gods of fate such as Zeus or "God" is the manipulation of thehuman mind in adequate terms of the possibility principle.
Now the uncertainty principle refers only to the possibility of not-nothing that will never be completely filled in, for it to not negate itself.
It is toward this principle that all consciousness is directed. The skygods represent this upward gaze into uncertainty as a positive, as a drive.

So the name and word of god is a vessel for an orientation on an uncertain future which by that name is pre emotively turned into a victory. In turn, the human is oriented on such victory and senses at once the overwhelming power of being aware of the game of odds, and the law of the supremacy of consistency.

In this day and age gods arent needed for many people oriented on what once god allowed. But for others, they still represent the powervacumm behind the uncertainty principle/ratio.

God faked his own death more than once. Same with Wall Street.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat Feb 18, 2017 2:44 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
So what are you saying here? God runs Wall Street? There are no gods, remember? They are nothing but the imaginations of the human mind. The dinosaurs didn't need any gods.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat Feb 18, 2017 3:05 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
They didnt need any money either. So money doesn't exist. Right? Your logic.
You need training.

Or maybe just the patience to read my posts all the way through.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat Feb 18, 2017 3:42 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Im no longer going to go along with what people of relative intelligence often do and waste their minds with nowadays, which is to stop thinking, reading, applying logic and making an effort once they have read the trigger-world "god" in a text. I have always felt "oh, I used to hate the idea of god as a child when I was still only into astronomy and nuclear physics, so I can sympathize." But it is unproductive to sympathize with habits that disrespect the mind.

I now ask of my readers that they keep their brain operational even upon gazing upon the magical-spell "god" which normally disables them.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:08 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
They didnt need any money either. So money doesn't exist. Right? Your logic.
You need training.

Or maybe just the patience to read my posts all the way through.

Even if gods exist in your mind but don't exist in mine it only means that you are being delusional.

If money exist in your mind and the same piece of paper has the same value to me then money does exist.

It is your logic that is in error, not mine. You might want to go back to school. Just because it seems logical in your mind doesn't mean it will seem logical to anyone else.

I do my best to read and understand you posts. Sometimes you say thing which you believe to be true but I have no proof of it being so.

Tell time is for grade school. Real life requires show time.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:20 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sisyphus wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:
They didnt need any money either. So money doesn't exist. Right? Your logic.
You need training.

Or maybe just the patience to read my posts all the way through.

Even if gods exist in your mind but don't exist in mine it only means that you are being delusional.

I recommend you stop your dogmatic ranting. I am getting nauseous by the lack of discipline in your posts, so I'll ignore you for a while, I need to eat my breakfast. You debase yourself.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:21 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Anyone who wants to know what money is, just check out my Econ 101 topic. Money is very easy to understand once we get past the false ideas about it (false ideas like "money isn't real" or "money is evil" for example).

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:22 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
And the ideas that money is God, or that money is inherently valuable or the most valuable thing, which many people intuitively believe, are just more false ideas about what is money.

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:43 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Sisyphus wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:
They didnt need any money either. So money doesn't exist. Right? Your logic.
You need training.

Or maybe just the patience to read my posts all the way through.

Even if gods exist in your mind but don't exist in mine it only means that you are being delusional.

I recommend you stop your dogmatic ranting. I am getting nauseous by the lack of discipline in your posts, so I'll ignore you for a while, I need to eat my breakfast. You debase yourself.

My dogmatism? You should be ashamed.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:46 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Thrasymachus wrote:
Anyone who wants to know what money is, just check out my Econ 101 topic. Money is very easy to understand once we get past the false ideas about it (false ideas like "money isn't real" or "money is evil" for example).

I will stay with you in that discussion as long as I can. Hey, we might even find agreement now and then.

No, money isn't evil.

View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:48 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
The faith in gods of fate such as Zeus or "God" is the manipulation of thehuman mind in adequate terms of the possibility principle.
Now the uncertainty principle refers only to the possibility of not-nothing that will never be completely filled in, for it to not negate itself.
It is toward this principle that all consciousness is directed. The skygods represent this upward gaze into uncertainty as a positive, as a drive.

So the name and word of god is a vessel for an orientation on an uncertain future which by that name is pre emotively turned into a victory. In turn, the human is oriented on such victory and senses at once the overwhelming power of being aware of the game of odds, and the law of the supremacy of consistency.

In this day and age gods arent needed for many people oriented on what once god allowed. But for others, they still represent the powervacumm behind the uncertainty principle/ratio.

God faked his own death more than once. Same with Wall Street.

To clarify, are you saying that money has now taken the place of the function of the skygods? Namely allowing humans to orient themselves upward to future in such a way that converts uncertainty into possibility and positive drive? If so, that's a really interesting idea. I would agree, based on what I have discovered to far regarding the ontology and function of money.

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:50 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
At first the god-concept allowed the ontological sphere (values and self-valuing) to expand exponentially due to expansion of the existentia (humanity)-- now money can achieve this same end. The alchemical conversion of religious state-ism into secular economics. Thus a very philosophical progression, now at present culminating most recently in capitalism.

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:52 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Christianity therefore having laid the possibility for capitalism due to how Christianity divorced state-ism (religion) from the existentia, reorienting existentia back to the individual, to coherent self-valuing qua logical fundamental principle.

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:59 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Christianity has always been a capital based institution. It is very easy to replace god with money.

However, this does not imply an upward movement of the humane state of the human animal.

View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat Feb 18, 2017 5:06 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sisyphus wrote:
Christianity has always been a capital based institution. It is very easy to replace god with money.

However, this does not imply an upward movement of the humane state of the human animal.

Why not?

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat Feb 18, 2017 5:24 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
T - yes, such is my logic.

Note that I do not consider the skygod perished or castrated by his successor / child, money. They exist in parallel and enhance each other.

(skygod-orders are invariably monetary orders, theyve evolved along)

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat Feb 18, 2017 5:32 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Thrasymachus wrote:
Sisyphus wrote:
Christianity has always been a capital based institution. It is very easy to replace god with money.

However, this does not imply an upward movement of the humane state of the human animal.

Why not?

I wasn't suggesting that it cannot, only that it may or may not.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat Feb 18, 2017 5:41 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sisyphus wrote:
Thrasymachus wrote:
Sisyphus wrote:
Christianity has always been a capital based institution. It is very easy to replace god with money.

However, this does not imply an upward movement of the humane state of the human animal.

Why not?

I wasn't suggesting that it cannot, only that it may or may not.

I know, and my question to you had that in mind.

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat Feb 18, 2017 11:25 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
So, is there no answer for the question that needed not be asked?

BTW, I like having the little bit of money I have. It leads to a better life than living on the streets. But I don't worship it. If I lose it there is always more to be had.

View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Drops_Of_Jupiter
bowstring
bowstring

Posts : 32
Join date : 2017-02-03
Age : 57
Location : Columbus, Ohio USA

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Fri May 05, 2017 6:16 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yeah - there is more money to be had. But... do we at some point get "too old" to earn it?
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail https://www.facebook.com/debbie.styers
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat May 06, 2017 12:56 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Drops_Of_Jupiter wrote:
Yeah - there is more money to be had. But... do we at some point get "too old" to earn it?

Sure. There are few companies willing to hire an old person who requires a two-hour mid-day nap and must use a walker to go to the restroom.

But we could always just stand on a corner in a town somewhere and pan handle.

Maybe sell the secrets of our old age.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Drops_Of_Jupiter
bowstring
bowstring

Posts : 32
Join date : 2017-02-03
Age : 57
Location : Columbus, Ohio USA

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat May 06, 2017 2:43 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Lol!!! Who would buy secrets from the wise ( mostly older people)? Believe it or not, I'm finally at a stage in my life where I cherish advice from older people. It took me a long time to get here.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail https://www.facebook.com/debbie.styers
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat May 06, 2017 3:14 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The few times one of my grandparents have given me a direct advice, I was filled with gratitude and went on to apply it, and always with wonderful outcomes. Nothing beats experience.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat May 06, 2017 7:22 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yeah, older people might not be fast any more but once they do get a round off it normally hits the mark.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat May 06, 2017 9:19 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Before the Light - Tree of Life Academy - Thought of a Rune (film by Pezer)

Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper

Posts: 7887
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

### Re: The Philosophers

Go to page : Previous 1, 2
Author Message
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat May 06, 2017 11:28 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:

Yeah, just like that.

I don't know if I mentioned this short story here but here goes:

A Martial Arts teacher had a favorite student with hopes that the student would carry on the lineage.
The student trained hard and learned everything the Master taught him.

One day the student was feeling a little cocky and challenged the Master.

The exchange began as within one minute the student was flat on his back totally defenseless.

The Master bent down and said quietly, "I taught you everything you know. I have not yet taught you everything I know."

View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat May 06, 2017 2:56 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Have you ever heard of the Tai Chi master who was so good that he could only get excitement out of fighting himself in his mind? I think he said he fought a dragon - he had no equal in this world, and he only got better and better. All good arts and ethics teach a man not to resit his own strength.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat May 06, 2017 11:37 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Have you ever heard of the Tai Chi master who was so good that he could only get excitement out of fighting himself in his mind? I think he said he fought a dragon - he had no equal in this world, and he only got better and better. All good arts and ethics teach a man not to resit his own strength.

No, hadn't heard that one. But yes, I can see the logic in that. To fight one's self is a challenge because you know your own weaknesses. You would naturally go after those weaknesses and then you would have to create defenses for those weaknesses.

I'm not sure about fighting the dragon though; Chinese dragons are pretty much peace-loving dragons, bringers of the rains and other good things.

But generally speaking, one must learn from someone who is better than we are. If we have no challenges we become complacent.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Before the Light - Tree of Life Academy - Thought of a Rune (film by Pezer)

Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper

Posts: 7887
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

### Re: The Philosophers

End of the era of a common truth View previous topic View next topic Go down
Author Message
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: End of the era of a common truth Fri Jun 09, 2017 9:35 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I've not yet seen this idea before, but it occurred to me that this current situation where the left and right have formed separate and competing world views to the point that neither agrees with the other on even the most basic issues, like facts, is actually a very good thing. Both the right and the left are deploring the "post-truth" now that half the country believes one set of facts and the other believes a different set of facts, because of course both side thinks its own facts are the correct ones.

But really what has happened is that no one simply believes what they are told anymore. Long gone are the days when NBC and CNN and NYT can print something and virtually everybody takes it as gospel. The left and right have split and each has their own news and sources they trust. I think this is really great, as it allows for a cutthroat competition of ideas and world-interpretations. Both sides reject the 'facts' that the other side espouses, and the "war" is simply which side will end up winning the most people and the most positions of influence in society. A kind of super language game, a contest with two discrete sides, and with reality as the final arbiter in the long run.

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: End of the era of a common truth Fri Jun 09, 2017 12:21 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Perhaps in the long run it may be a good thing but in the short run we have to wonder how many people are going to make grave mistakes based on the lies they read from their favored media?

If both sides continue to present their altered truth then who is going to be the objective truth sayer?

View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: End of the era of a common truth Fri Jun 09, 2017 12:28 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Only reality can be that standard. Humans and ideas will ultimately rise or fall depending on the degree to which they adhere to reality or fail to do so. And yes many mistakes of grave proportions are inevitable, but I'm quite happy that the "universal" standard of facts/truth has broken down into two opposing groups.

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: End of the era of a common truth Fri Jun 09, 2017 1:04 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
"And the word became flesh"

yes, I think you're right.

Curvature comes to the formerly flat pages. Some words take prominence; words that can easily be used, abused, and pre-emtively used to avert abuse, and others that are capable of initiating great changes.

A politician always has some heavy ammo words in his back pocket. A rhetoric master is someone who knows not just the meaning of words but also the impact they tend to have, and the sort of meaning systems they activate.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Before the Light - Tree of Life Academy - Thought of a Rune (film by Pezer)

Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper

Posts: 7887
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

### Re: The Philosophers

Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Glimpses into the reason and madness of the US Supreme Court Sun Jun 11, 2017 5:37 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I will be offering some of the arguments and logic of some key decisions. To start I'll look at the decision from two years ago that legalized gay marriage, looking at Scalia's dissent, since the majority opinion isn't even a legal text at all but reads more like the flowery poem of a teenage girl. Don't believe me, go check for yourself. Link below to all decisions on this case.

Scalia's dissent is not only far more rational and responsible, and true, than the majority opinion in this case but is also quite badass. Unfortunately the copy/paste won't show any italics, but again you can read his dissent at the link below which will include italics.

=====

JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins, dissenting.
I join THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.

The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance.

Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most im- portant liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

I

Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best. Individuals on both sides of the issue passionately, but respectfully, attempted to persuade their fellow citizens to accept their views. Americans considered the arguments and put the question to a vote. The electorates of 11 States, either directly or through their representatives, chose to expand the traditional definition of mar- riage. Many more decided not to.1 Win or lose, advocates for both sides continued pressing their cases, secure in the knowledge that an electoral loss can be negated by a later electoral win. That is exactly how our system of government is supposed to work.2 The Constitution places some constraints on self-rule— constraints adopted by the People themselves when they ratified the Constitution and its Amendments. Forbidden are laws “impairing the Obligation of Contracts,”3 denying “Full Faith and Credit” to the “public Acts” of other States,4 prohibiting the free exercise of religion,5 abridging the freedom of speech,6 infringing the right to keep and bear arms,7 authorizing unreasonable searches and seizures,8 and so forth. Aside from these limitations, those powers “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”9 can be exercised as the States or the People desire. These cases ask us to decide whether the Fourteenth Amendment contains a limitation that requires the States to license and recognize marriages between two people of the same sex. Does it remove that issue from the political process?
Of course not. It would be surprising to find a prescription regarding marriage in the Federal Constitution since, as the author of today’s opinion reminded us only two years ago (in an opinion joined by the same Justices who join him today):
“[R]egulation of domestic relations is an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.”10
“[T]he Federal Government, through our history, has deferred to state-law policy decisions with respect to domestic relations.”11
But we need not speculate. When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases. When it comes to determining the meaning of a vague constitutional provision—such as “due process of law” or “equal protection of the laws”—it is unquestionable that the People who ratified that provision did not under- stand it to prohibit a practice that remained both universal and uncontroversial in the years after ratification.12 We have no basis for striking down a practice that is not expressly prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment’s text, and that bears the endorsement of a long tradition of open, widespread, and unchallenged use dating back to the Amendment’s ratification. Since there is no doubt what- ever that the People never decided to prohibit the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the public debate over same-sex marriage must be allowed to continue.
But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law. Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its “reasoned judgment,” thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect.13 That is so because “[t]he generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions . . . . ”14 One would think that sentence would continue: “. . . and therefore they provided for a means by which the People could amend the Constitution,” or perhaps “. . . and therefore they left the creation of additional liberties, such as the freedom to marry someone of the same sex, to the People, through the never-ending process of legislation.” But no. What logically follows, in the majority’s judge-empowering estimation, is: “and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.”15 The “we,” needless to say, is the nine of us. “History and tradition guide and discipline [our] inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries.”16 Thus, rather than focusing on the People’s understanding of “liberty”—at the time of ratification or even today—the majority focuses on four “principles and traditions” that, in the majority’s view, prohibit States from defining marriage as an institution consisting of one man and one woman.17
This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government. Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices’ “reasoned judgment.” A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.
Judges are selected precisely for their skill as lawyers; whether they reflect the policy views of a particular constituency is not (or should not be) relevant. Not surprisingly then, the Federal Judiciary is hardly a cross-section of America. Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers18 who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single South- westerner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans19), or even a Protestant of any denomination. The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today’s social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever ratified a constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage. But of course the Justices in today’s majority are not voting on that basis; they say they are not. And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.

II

But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003.20 They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amend- ment a “fundamental right” overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds— minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly— could not. They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their “reasoned judgment.” These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago,21 cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution.
The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the Court to do so.22 Of course the opinion’s showy profundities are often profoundly incoherent. “The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality.”23 (Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie. Expression, sure enough, is a freedom, but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that that happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say.) Rights, we are told, can “rise . . . from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.”24 (Huh? How can a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives [whatever that means] define [whatever that means] an urgent liberty [never mind], give birth to a right?) And we are told that, “[i]n any particular case,” either the Equal Protection or Due Process Clause “may be thought to capture the essence of [a] right in a more accurate and comprehensive way,” than the other, “even as the two Clauses may converge in the identification and definition of the right.”25 (What say? What possible “essence” does substantive due process “capture” in an “accurate and comprehensive way”? It stands for nothing whatever, except those free- doms and entitlements that this Court really likes. And the Equal Protection Clause, as employed today, identifies nothing except a difference in treatment that this Court really dislikes. Hardly a distillation of essence. If the opinion is correct that the two clauses “converge in the identification and definition of [a] right,” that is only because the majority’s likes and dislikes are predictably compatible.) I could go on. The world does not expect logic and precision in poetry or inspirational pop- philosophy; it demands them in the law. The stuff con- tained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.
***
Hubris is sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall. The Judiciary is the “least dangerous” of the federal branches because it has “neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm” and the States, “even for the efficacy of its judgments.”26 With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them—with each decision that is unabash- edly based not on law, but on the “reasoned judgment” of a bare majority of this Court—we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 6_3204.pdf

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Glimpses into the reason and madness of the US Supreme Court Sun Jun 11, 2017 5:56 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Next I will offer Robert's written majority in the case regarding the individual mandate of Obozocare. While Roberts came down on the right side of the gay marriage case, he not only came down on the wrong side of the individual mandate case but actually tipped it in favor of the wrong side, in a 5-4 split. His "reasoning" in this decision is so utterly insane that I have to wonder whether or not he is actually just trolling. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if he got ordered how to decide the case and then just wrote some bullshit to try and make it look passable as a decision.

Anyway I'm too tired to do it right now, but for the moment you can read the decision at the link below. I'll also offer the dissenting opinions too, when I get around to it.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 93c3a2.pdf

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Glimpses into the reason and madness of the US Supreme Court Sat Jul 01, 2017 12:27 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Styx is entirely wrong on this point here, because he fails to see that the Supreme Court doesn't have the legal right or power to force the states to adopt any one definition of marriage. It isn't about the equal protection clause (which Styx keeps referring to wrongly as the 13th amendment, lol), the Court made a blatantly political and illegal decision which the more conservative justices correctly called out as terminating the debate amongst the states and the people with regard to gay marriage.

The Constitution limits what the federal government can impose as law, and reserves all other issues of law making to the states. The Constitution says nothing about marriage. Therefore unless there is an amendment added that does mention about marriage, the Supreme Court had no ability to say that states with laws defining marriage as beteeen a man and a woman were being unconstitutional.

The problem now is that the Supreme Court has made itself into a mockery of justice and of jurisprudence. Thus federal courts and state supreme courts are sort of free to disregard what the US Supreme Court has said.

The real 13th amendment ended slavery; why didn't the Supreme Court at the time just rule that slavery was wrong/illegal? Because the Constitution didn't say anything about slavery, so a new amendment needed to be ratified and added to the constitution. The same goes for gay marriage, and it might have happened has the crazy liberal wing of the Supreme Court not legislated from the bench like they did.

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Before the Light - Tree of Life Academy - Thought of a Rune (film by Pezer)

Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper

Posts: 7887
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

### Re: The Philosophers

Message
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: π Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:10 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Staring at this animation, I came to feel utterly in the dark as to why this number is this number.

I remember finding a lot of beautiful logics inside the not-numbers notorious decimal tract, and one stood out: there seemed to be an unwillingness of similar terms to be close to each other. In other words, the phenomenon of maximized difference seemed to regulate the distribution of numbers in the decimal range. So - Pi is simply a phenomenon refusing to be a number, refusing to fit into the law of identity beyond usurping the "A" and putting itself there. Pi is Pi, I won't argue with that. But Pi is not "3.14....", but rather the always different calculation with Pi in three dimensions - though time is technically also a function of Pi, as it is measured in orbits or pi-based waveforms.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: π Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:21 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Quite obviously it seems then, Pi must be included to get to a regulatorvalue between GR vs QM....
Somehow.

Gravity compresses on Pi. Pi becomes compromised as many of its own calculations are in play at the same spacetime. By what ratio? Whats the corruption rate of Pi that accounts for the ellipse, and the hyper ellipsoid dark mass of certain new galaxies?

Hell: the square root of Pi. The seventh ring of hell: the 7th order root of Pi.
Maybe thats the deformation rate in black holes.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: π Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:31 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
So this is a threat mixing fact and fantasy about 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510582097494459230781640628620899862803482534211706798214808651328230664709384460955058223172535940812848111745028410270193852110555964462294895493038196442881097566593344612847564823378678316527120190914564856692346034861045432664821339360726024914127372458700660631558817488152092096282925409171536436789259036001133053054882046652138414695194151160943305727036575959195309218611738193261179310511854807446237996274956735188575272489122793818301194912983367336244065664308602139494639522473719070217986094370277053921717629317675238467481846766940513200056812714526356082778577134275778960917363717872146844090122495343014654958537105079227968925892354201995611212902196086403441815981362977477130996051870721134999999837297804995105973173281609631859502445945534690830264252230825334468503526193118817101000313783875288658753320838142061717766914730359825349042875546873115956286388235378759375195778185778053217122680661300192787661119590921642019893809525720106548586327886593615338182796823030195203530185296899577362259941389124972177528347913151557485724245415069595082953311686172785588907509838175463746493931925506040092770167113900984882401285836160356370766010471018194295559619894676783744944825537977472684710404753464620804668425906949129331367702898915210475216205696602405803815019351125338243003558764024749647326391419927260426992279678235478163600934172164121992458631503028618297455570674983850549458858692699569092721079750930295532116534498720275596023648066549911988183479775356636980742654252786255181841757467289097777279380008164706001614524919217321721477235014144197356854816136115735255213347574184946843852332390739414333454776241686251898356948556209921922218427255025425688767179049460165346680498862723279178608578438382796797668145410095388378636095068006422512520511739298489608412848862694560424196528502221066118630674427862203919494504712371378696095636437191728746776465757396241389086583264599581339047802759009946576407895126946839835259570982582262052248940772671947826848260147699090264013639443745530506820349625245174939965143142980919065925093722169646151570985838741059788595977297549893016175392846813826868386894277415599185592524595395943104997252468084598727364469584865383673622262609912460805124388439045124413654976278079771569143599770012961608944169486855584840635342207222582848864815845602850601684273945226746767889525213852254995466672782398645659611635488623057745649803559363456817432411251507606947945109659609402522887971089314566913686722874894056010150330861792868092087476091782493858900971490967598526136554978189312978482168299894872265880485756401427047755513237964145152374623436454285844479526586782105114135473573952311342716610213596953623144295248493718711014576540359027993440374200731057853906219838744780847848968332144571386875194350643021845319104848100537061468067491927819119793995206141966342875444064374512371819217999839101591956181467514269123974894090718649423196156794520809514655022523160388193014209376213785595663893778708303906979207734672218256259966150142150306803844773454920260541466592520149744285073251866600213243408819071048633173464965145390579626856100550810665879699816357473638405257145910289706414011097120628043903975951567715770042033786993600723055876317635942187312514712053292819182618612586732157919841484882916447060957527069572209175671167229109816909152801735067127485832228718352093539657251210835791513698820914442100675103346711031412671113699086585163983150197016515116851714376576183515565088490998985998238734552833163550764791 and beyond.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: π Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:34 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fact and fantasy, as I see now that it can not have been Pi, in which I observed this - it must have been the primes.

Doubtlessly many mathematicians have wasted their lives in deciphering the relation between Pi an the primes. It seems one would only be able to do that from the back-end of Pi, the pot of gold at the end of it; when hell freezes over, when a circle becomes a square.

Message
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Against nothingness Wed May 17, 2017 6:29 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Next time someone asks you "oh yeah, well why something rather than nothing!?"

1- something exists (we know this for certain, based on experience, and the fact that in order to make a statement like "something exists" then logically something must exist to make that statement).

2- because something exists it is not the case that nothing exists.

3- principle of sufficient reason (PSR).

4- because of PSR it is not the case that something can come from nothing.

5- by combining (1) and (4) we get that it is not the case that nothing has ever been the case

6- ergo, something has always been the case

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Against nothingness Wed May 17, 2017 11:32 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I go through that fairly regularly with my Buddhist friends.

The conclusion is obvious (to me) that things exist. I generally use my chair as an example. If it didn't exist my butt would right now be on the floor.

The sad thing is, the Buddhists, and others, have a misunderstanding of their own teachings. The Buddha never said things don't exist. He said things don't exist permanently (all things pass) and things do not exist (functionally) independent of other things.

A similar discussion is that of "emptiness". I always argue on the side of "fullness".

View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Drops_Of_Jupiter
bowstring
bowstring

Posts : 32
Join date : 2017-02-03
Age : 57
Location : Columbus, Ohio USA

PostSubject: Re: Against nothingness Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:12 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This is interesting. Is something always better than nothing? For those of us who don't believe in heaven and hell, there is nothing waiting for us.

It is the fear of nothingness that drives people to believe in false God(s). Why is nothingness so difficult to accept?
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail https://www.facebook.com/debbie.styers
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Against nothingness Thu Sep 21, 2017 12:01 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Drops_Of_Jupiter wrote:
This is interesting. Is something always better than nothing? For those of us who don't believe in heaven and hell, there is nothing waiting for us.

It is the fear of nothingness that drives people to believe in false God(s). Why is nothingness so difficult to accept?

For me, it depends on what "nothingness" we are talking about. The physical (manifest) universe exists. The Ten Thousand Things (all things in the universe) exist until they no longer exist. And true, at some point in time they did not exist.

Same with the human body. At one point it did not yet exist, it was born (creation), lived for a while and then died (destruction). It is a cycle that is ongoing since the manifestation of the first "thing" (I call it the Big Bang).

It's really a very simple process. We see it all the time with plants in our gardens.

And as the Buddhists say: First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is.

Or modifying the process, first there was no mountain, then there was a mountain, then there was no mountain.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Before the Light - Tree of Life Academy - Thought of a Rune (film by Pezer)

Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper

Posts: 7887
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

### Re: The Philosophers

Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Aristotle in a nutshell: Wed Sep 27, 2017 2:52 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
You can't say everything, and its best not to try.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Aristotle in a nutshell: Wed Sep 27, 2017 2:54 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Where of course Sokrates began that whole sharade. He said: Help, theres stuff I don't know, and its pretty important.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Aristotle in a nutshell: Wed Sep 27, 2017 2:56 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
And then Nietzsche, after some millenniums of pretty bad shit altogether, said dude, you don't wanna know.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Aristotle in a nutshell: Wed Sep 27, 2017 2:57 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
But you see, he was actually talking about different shit to not know than Sok was talking about not knowing, and Aristotle was talking about accepting precisely by omitting it in your speeches.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Aristotle in a nutshell: Wed Sep 27, 2017 2:59 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Since Rumsfeld identified unknown unknowns to CNN, nature has doubled down on her efforts to hide.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Aristotle in a nutshell: Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:02 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
words are essentially, all of them, attempts to not hide too much.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Aristotle in a nutshell: Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:27 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Authority Figure: What you you do?
Me: I speak for that which cant be lowered to words.
Authority Figure: .....

Bam. Results.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Aristotle in a nutshell: Wed Sep 27, 2017 10:53 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
"I speak for that which cannot be lowered to words", damn. I like that. I might use that line in a conversation someday.

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Aristotle in a nutshell: Thu Sep 28, 2017 12:09 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Where is that man who teaches without words? I would speak with him.

This is why modern math is retarded View previous topic View next topic Go down
Author Message
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: This is why modern math is retarded Fri Jun 16, 2017 6:47 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: This is why modern math is retarded Fri Jun 16, 2017 6:58 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes, 'math' as a means to unlearn logic.
Obviously none of that is really mathematics, it is simply word-play, where the word 'infinite' is radically misunderstood to begin with, as 'a size' .(?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????)

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: This is why modern math is retarded Fri Jun 16, 2017 8:24 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I had someone tell me about this, claiming "math proves" that you can take a 3D object and cut it apart then put it back together making two objects of the same volume as the original... I couldn't believe someone can be that idiotic. Even the Cantor "proof" is just idiotic, that there are supposed to be more numbers between 0 and 1 than there are integers. Give me a fucking break. This sort of "math" is just a litmus test of non-thinking.

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: This is why modern math is retarded Fri Jun 16, 2017 10:00 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes, theres supposedly different orders of infinity, but all they are referring to is different ways of using math to arrive at the conclusion that you can keep counting, because it is abstract and has no weight. There is no actual, measurable infinity, as a measure is a limit. But surprisingly, this is too philosophical for mathematicians.

The order of real numbers offers a lot of numerical ways into infinity, just as it offers a lot of numerical ways in general. That is all.
They dont stop to think that real numbers are formulated and arrived at by the same decimal system that produces the sequence of integers.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: This is why modern math is retarded Fri Jun 16, 2017 11:46 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
On a science documentary one of the physicists said that whenever their solution included infinity it means they made a big mistake somewhere.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: This is why modern math is retarded Fri Jun 16, 2017 3:02 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sisyphus wrote:
On a science documentary one of the physicists said that whenever their solution included infinity it means they made a big mistake somewhere.

Haha, yeah.

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: This is why modern math is retarded Sun Oct 01, 2017 7:16 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
https://www.math.ku.edu/~jmartin/course ... cantor.pdf

kek

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: This is why modern math is retarded Sun Oct 01, 2017 7:17 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I am beginning to wonder if the field of mathematics is little more than a lack of philosophy, a lack made functional by the fact that mathematics itself is already simply a language based on logic and reality, so that no matter how much mathematicians butcher it it still keeps on working.

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: This is why modern math is retarded Sun Oct 01, 2017 7:21 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
"A set S is finite iff there is a bijection between S and {1,2,...,n} for some positive integer n, and infinite otherwise. (I.e., if it makes sense to count its elements.)"

Lol, no, a set is finite if it has a limited number of items in it. A set with 5 or 500 or 5000000 items in it is a finite set, that is what "finite" means. To have a definite, limited quantity.

Not sure why this is so hard for these "mathemagicians" to understand.

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: This is why modern math is retarded Sun Oct 01, 2017 7:22 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Apparently studying even basic logic isn't a requirement for being a mathematician.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Before the Light - Tree of Life Academy - Thought of a Rune (film by Pezer)

Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper

Posts: 7887
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

### Re: The Philosophers

Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: No more net neutrality? Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:39 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
What is the logic of this move, what does it mean?

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: No more net neutrality? Thu Dec 14, 2017 3:01 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Thrasymachus wrote:
What is the logic of this move, what does it mean?

think it means that what google has been doing is now legal.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: No more net neutrality? Fri Dec 15, 2017 12:23 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes, legal for all access providers. A new way for the wealthy to make more money. It's all about money. Providers can now sell premium access to anyone willing to pay. No pay? Slow service.

View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: No more net neutrality? Fri Dec 15, 2017 2:59 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Of course it sucks and I think it will be undone.
Even the big tech grants are rebelling.
Probably because on a slow and restricted internet no one is gong to bother with internet at all.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: No more net neutrality? Fri Dec 15, 2017 6:21 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Ah ok

lol

Breitbart wrote:
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) passed the FCC’s “Restoring Internet Freedom Order” on Thursday, which will repeal the agency’s 2015 net neutrality regulation.
Chairman Pai told Fox News host Tucker Carlson on Monday, “I think what net neutrality repealed would actually mean is we once again have a free and open Internet. The government would not be regulating how anyone in the Internet service providers, how anyone else in the internet economy manages their networks.”

The FCC’s Restoring Internet Freedom order will reclassify the Internet as an “information service” compared to the FCC’s 2015 net neutrality order, which regulated the Internet as a public monopoly. The order will also require Internet service providers (ISPs) such as Comcast or Verizon to release transparency reports detailing their practices towards consumers and businesses.

The FCC’s net neutrality repeal order will also restore the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) traditional authority and expertise to regulate and litigate unfair, deceptive, and anti-competitive telecommunications practices without onerous regulations and increased cost.

On Monday the FCC and the FTC agreed to share the responsibility to police unfair ISP practices regarding unfair or deceptive practices to block, throttle, or promote web content.

Chairman Pai explained in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal why repealing net neutrality will preserve a free and open internet.

Yeah that makes sense.

"Public Monopoly" is literally Socialist tyranny.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: No more net neutrality? Fri Dec 15, 2017 6:26 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Lol "Net Neutrality" needs to be understood in the same vein as "Gender Neutrality".
I.e. an attack on the internet.

That Google and Facebook are for "Net Neutrality" gave me some pause.

I now see "Net Neutrality" means that only those sites are going to be allowed that are neutering influences.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: No more net neutrality? Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:11 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yeah makes sense. If Obozo, Gulag, Fakebook, etc. all wanted Net Neuter-ality then I am tempted to oppose it without even knowing any of the details. But this breakdown is helpful.

I heard someone panicking over it yesterday, they said “Trump just repealed net neutrality!” Someone asked, “What does that mean?” and they replied, “it means websites can charge you to use them now”. I was like um they can already do that...

Zzz

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: No more net neutrality? Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:27 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I'm glad you guys are keeping up with what's happening here.

Thanks for keeping me informed.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: No more net neutrality? Fri Dec 15, 2017 1:54 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Thrasymachus wrote:
Yeah makes sense. If Obozo, Gulag, Fakebook, etc. all wanted Net Neuter-ality then I am tempted to oppose it without even knowing any of the details. But this breakdown is helpful.

I heard someone panicking over it yesterday, they said “Trump just repealed net neutrality!” Someone asked, “What does that mean?” and they replied, “it means websites can charge you to use them now”. I was like um they can already do that...

Zzz

LOL

Fucking gold.

But yeah. That was my sense too - 'Wait what, Obolko did something moral? Eh no. I don't think so.'

Obolkonet was just a net where eunuchs worked around the clock to sabotage and censor people with potential, will.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: No more net neutrality? Fri Dec 15, 2017 6:05 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
"Obolkonet", hahahaha. Fucking priceless.

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: No more net neutrality? Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:54 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
You: Oh, haha yes I was discussing this earlier
You: Most of those articles you read are biased..
Stranger: But it is bad right? Getting rid of net neutrality?
You: It was basically a government power grab over the internet, under Obama
You: The internet got along just fine before net neuter-ality, and it will be just fine after it
Stranger: But won't it get worse now?
You: No I don't think so
You: Part of it is also that the FCC is more empowered now to crack down on ISPs who abuse the law, for example they cannot deny you service in the economy for arbitrary reasons, same reason McDonalds cannot deny you service based on arbitrary stuff like what books you read or what you wrote in an essay
Stranger: But websites can charge you to use them now
You: They already can, that has always been a thing
You: Ad revenue still exists, that hasn't changed
Stranger has disconnected

TOPKEKZ

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: No more net neutrality? Sun Dec 17, 2017 12:12 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
That might have been me you were talking with.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: No more net neutrality? Sun Dec 17, 2017 2:57 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Lol
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Before the Light - Tree of Life Academy - Thought of a Rune (film by Pezer)

Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper

Posts: 7887
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

### Re: The Philosophers

Summary of value ontology View previous topic View next topic Go down
Go to page : 1, 2 Next
Author Message
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Summary of value ontology Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:25 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
First Definition

Value ontology is the interpretation of "being"/"the world" as composed of beings, subjects. It explains the structure of a subject as a mechanism whereby substance is assimilated in terms dictated by the nature of the subject. This assimilating is done by "valuing", that is, selecting. This selecting requires a standard, a ground value. This ground value is perpetually being set by and as a fundamental mechanism, that sustains itself by restricting its selection of its interactions with the outside to the type that sustains it.

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.

Exact Explication

"Values did man only assign to things in order to maintain himself- he created only the significance of things, a human significance! Therefore, calleth he himself "man," that is, the valuator."
(Zarathustra, of the Thousand and One Goals)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The I is thus always an activity.

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

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

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

Consistency is the fundamental activity.

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

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

[Jakob Milikowski 2011/2012]

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides

Last edited by Fixed Cross on Wed Dec 27, 2017 8:47 am; edited 14 times in total
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
without-music
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 37
Join date : 2011-11-16

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Mon Feb 20, 2012 7:23 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Quote :
...(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.
I find attractive the machinic -- I want to say "metaphor," but that term doesn't quite apply so neatly here -- image you invoke with regard to the valuing-subject. The subject is in-the-world, of course, and what is the world but a matrix of flows, intensities, lines, forces? How perfect, then, the mechanical vernacular. In the midst of a web of intensities, placed between two or more flows, the machine functions to connect, to interrupt, to re-direct, to modify, modulate, in a word: to affect the flows that simultaneously serve as its life-force, its nutrition, and as its excrement, its waste. This affect, always in-the-midst-of, always between. This affect is, of course, valuation, the subject-machine's valuing-capacity, tendency, function. Defined in terms of its capacity to value, that machine incapable of doing so breaks down, its flows overrun it -- it is eaten up by the world, it disintegrates.

And here I can't help but quote Deleuze & Guattari, for their words currently haunt me: "Everywhere it is machines -- real ones, not figurative ones: machines driving other machines, machines being driven by other machines, with all the necessary couplings and connections" (Anti-Oedipus, 1). This it is the world, the body of warring intensities and flows, a matrix of machinic chaos. Machines driving other machines: what a perfect image of the world as will-to-power (understood on the basis of self-will/value). The necessary couplings and connections are valuations. There can be no absence of valuation, for all life valuates -- where it is absent, there life is naught. Rather, only differing intensities, weaker and stronger capacities, active and reactive forces, noble and slavish wills. In supplementing "machine" for "subject," I believe the scope of value-ontology is significantly widened. Indeed, there has already been extensive work in this vein on this forum: society as valuing in terms of self, economy, politic, religion, and so on. Instead of using the subject that wills as a metaphor for what a thriving, flourishing empire does, I think a mechanistic, de-centered (de-subjected) vocabulary makes possible a more focused, less metaphoric, project. Note how Deleuze takes care to emphasize: real ones, not figurative ones, these machines. Not metaphor, but image. Not subject, but machine. The subject does of course come in to play along with consciousness, but such subjectivity is not a condition for the possibility of self-valuation; rather just the opposite. Which is to say that the self-valuing subject is not absolutely primary, it is not the most basic term of such a metaphysic, for not all valuation necessitates subjectivity. I propose, as a more foundational ontological unit, the machine. In any case, I put these thoughts forward with the hope that they will in turn spur more.[/quote]

___________
“…to act is to modify the shape of the world…”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Tue Feb 21, 2012 9:52 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
without-music wrote:
Quote :
...(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.
I find attractive the machinic -- I want to say "metaphor," but that term doesn't quite apply so neatly here -- image you invoke with regard to the valuing-subject. The subject is in-the-world, of course, and what is the world but a matrix of flows, intensities, lines, forces? How perfect, then, the mechanical vernacular. In the midst of a web of intensities, placed between two or more flows, the machine functions to connect, to interrupt, to re-direct, to modify, modulate, in a word: to affect the flows that simultaneously serve as its life-force, its nutrition, and as its excrement, its waste. This affect, always in-the-midst-of, always between. This affect is, of course, valuation, the subject-machine's valuing-capacity, tendency, function. Defined in terms of its capacity to value, that machine incapable of doing so breaks down, its flows overrun it -- it is eaten up by the world, it disintegrates.

And here I can't help but quote Deleuze & Guattari, for their words currently haunt me: "Everywhere it is machines -- real ones, not figurative ones: machines driving other machines, machines being driven by other machines, with all the necessary couplings and connections" (Anti-Oedipus, 1). This it is the world, the body of warring intensities and flows, a matrix of machinic chaos. Machines driving other machines: what a perfect image of the world as will-to-power (understood on the basis of self-will/value). The necessary couplings and connections are valuations. There can be no absence of valuation, for all life valuates -- where it is absent, there life is naught. Rather, only differing intensities, weaker and stronger capacities, active and reactive forces, noble and slavish wills. In supplementing "machine" for "subject," I believe the scope of value-ontology is significantly widened. Indeed, there has already been extensive work in this vein on this forum: society as valuing in terms of self, economy, politic, religion, and so on. Instead of using the subject that wills as a metaphor for what a thriving, flourishing empire does, I think a mechanistic, de-centered (de-subjected) vocabulary makes possible a more focused, less metaphoric, project. Note how Deleuze takes care to emphasize: real ones, not figurative ones, these machines. Not metaphor, but image. Not subject, but machine. The subject does of course come in to play along with consciousness, but such subjectivity is not a condition for the possibility of self-valuation; rather just the opposite. Which is to say that the self-valuing subject is not absolutely primary, it is not the most basic term of such a metaphysic, for not all valuation necessitates subjectivity. I propose, as a more foundational ontological unit, the machine. In any case, I put these thoughts forward with the hope that they will in turn spur more.

I would agree that D&G use wonderful terminology here and this must become a part of the overall schema which we employ. The conceptual precision they bring to the table must serve as a model for us. The reason I use machinic language as a supplement -- and not a substitute -- for valuing/subject language is that the object-centered, non-teleological empiricist causality (however "transcendental") which "runs" D&G-like machines is in itself insufficient as an ontological or phenomenological principle. It tends to obfuscate certain essential elements, tends to enfame these within a confining and imposed model and possibility simply because of the nature of the language employed (it may cause "horizons to withdraw", albeit in a far "better" and more accurate/useful way than almost any other philosophical conceptual systems).

I also like valuing-subject oriented langauge because it is both precise but also imprecise, broad enough with respect to our connotations and habitually-used meanings that it can serve to identify a whole host of various sort of beings and possibilities, and it leaves the horizon wide open rather than closing it up within itself. Not that D&G overtly fall prey to such a closure, but the machinic language itself can tend to act as such a self-enclosing, an "enframing" system (to invoke Heidegger a bit here on technology, and of course language is a technology) that can co-opt possible meanings and contents before they find a chance to otherwise emerge more naturally, carefully and quietly, after-the-fact and without regard to prior mandates inherent to and often embedded invisibly and indivisibly within form/s-as-structure/structuring possibilities.

D&G's language in Capitalism and Schizophrenia is very useful and indeed has been a large inspiration for me. I view D&G's conceptual terminologies as models, languistic and highly useful tools to be employed, but tools ultimately subject in their usefulness and accuracy to an appeal to a broader, quieter and often as-of-yet imprecise/vague framework and possibility than these tools alone are able to capture. To approach this most sufficient frame and possibility of being we need to "impregnate" the machine with that "part" (necessity) of the machine which "speaks a different, non-object-oriented language", which escapes the confines of boundaries and possibility for delimitation under the current systems. We must have an account of a machine which allows for the je ne sais quoi of that machine itself. D&G make good efforts in this direction, but I also see value ontology as essential here. I see valuing/subject(-ive) language and appeal as setting object-ification within what is most necessary and sufficient for it, the valuing/s goings-on (however relatively centered or de-centered as the case may be) that give rise to objects (machines, images) and to object-relations (machinic processes and functions, flows/etc), that aim to identify and carefully trace the myriad intricate and often convoluted, barely articulable interpretations at the heart of all being/s. (In otherwords I do not think we need abandon the metaphor, not at all, indeed we need to rescue it, re-value it). I think value ontology, as a supplement to D&G-like machinic assemblages, helps to keep being open before itself and to ensure that what does arise does not do so prematurely, inadequately or as the result of prior unseen assumptions.

"To speak without speaking (falsely)"... such possibilities more afforded through the poetic or aesthetic experience become necessary methods if our ontological approach is to avoid falling prey to an objectivist-empiricist reduction. I worry that machinic language in itself or as a/the conceptual basis/ground flirts with this sort of reduction.

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Fri Feb 24, 2012 4:58 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Indeed, the core of the self-valuing entity can only be described, objectified, as a machine. It does what it does because of an inevitability that we may deduce from being, our own being and whatever this implies.. We may deduce it from what we know, the full extent and depth of it. We can not indicate anything that exists without seeing how it must hold itself as a standard with the aid of what we perceive as some mysterious force or quality. Gravity, strong force, the facts of nature we can not penetrate into by isolating the things they pertain to from us, these are expressions of what we can understand when we take ourselves as a model for such machinery.

This is where the distinction between subject and machine dissolves. A subject is a machine. We are conscious, yes -- Parodites is making vast strides in describing what this particular form of self-valuing/machinery is, how it stands apart, what it produces, what we may attain with it, and what we may/can/must value in it., as ourselves. I have identified the other way end of the scale -- but the mechanism, the machine is still the same. We perish if we do not function as such a machine. Therefore, as vast and interesting and even crucial to know in order to aim for our ends the difference between the subject and the atomic machine is, they are still. under the definition of value ontology, identical at their basic machinery.

So, in line with what Capable says, We must affirm a more object-based descriptiveness within value ontology, and refer to what now stands in Production under "naive valuation" -- the concept of valency. This derivative of the concept "(to) value" stands precisely between the valuing "subject" (self-valuing/self-sustaining standard) and that what it values, "the world", the other, the object. It is in this medium of the universe, the true "ether", entirely a matter of possibility and correspondence,, where "all is properties and situations", that we may identify the machine-like infrastructure, the circuitry of the machine.

We can not penetrate deeper into the core of self-valuing than by knowing comprehensively our own self-valuing. This is the phenomenal/phenomenological task before us, and this is the perspective that I hold in regard to a new ethics. Very elementarily, we take our organism as the axiom from which to penetrate into the logic of the atom. In this, the subjective, including what we refer to as consciousness, stands logically prior to the things from which it is seen/interpreted to emerge/be constructed. So the study of phenomenology and ontology now must be a study of psychology, but not the categorizing kind, rather a new direction (of which the 21st century has seen preludes) -- something we may call experientology. The categorizing not of "effect" of "substances" but of modes of being, as recognized and categorized by beings as resulting from a certain "brew of passions" which is enabled by a certain valency-structure. This is and has always been the study of economics and politics, the true social sciences, working mass-psychology. We have just found its proper terminology, the scientific language for the subjective -- the means to objectify subjects into machines without devaluating them.

There remains the fundamental difference between a machinic object (a car, etc) and a machinic subject (a self-valuing). We may however understand now why we create machines around us, and why they so easily fit our valuing system. Our cosmos is host to and product of a machinal structure. At the core of all machinery is (identified from a human perspective) this machinal inevitability that is also at the ground of evolution - a mechanism that only in retrospect appears as logic. From its own perspective this mechanism can not be exhaustively conceptualized, but we must, as Capable notes leave room for the undefined of the machine, that makes it so distant from an automobile which only functions by knowing exactly what it does -- the quality of the machine that makes it not a tool, but a tool-wielding, interpreting all machines as its own functions. We can only approach and delineate this. What we can define is that which approaches and delineates it -- valency.

In order to articulate the categorical science of valencies, our area for objectification, it is useful and necessary to understand the subject and its non-conscious counterparts in terms of the machinal. But at the same time we have an overlap, a twilight zone between the visible / technical and that 'je ne sais quoi', the area where valency becomes value, where our approach is suddenly reversed mid-course without changing direction of its course inward -- the realest and most bewildering revaluation of values -- the moment where the machinal, first approached as the most precise, as we touch on its core appears entirely imprecise. This is the moment where "the severest self-legislation" is required, which means not only to set laws for oneself, but to set oneself as a law. Science has not been supported by ego's strong enough to attempt this - it has so far been the domain of the Camelof Zarathustra's metamorphoses of the spirit.

With the introduction of value ontology into science, there is an "I will" required. Science must deliberately impose itself on its subject matter, in order that its subject matter does not impose itself any further on him. The "I am" of science is still very far away, we stand at the beginning of penetrating into the machinal, the "machinery of the universe", by introducing ourself into its vital functions.

For this to become viable, tenable, this "self" has to be elaborated and even 'celebrated' like never before. The perspective, for every ontic machine is a perspective, every perspective is a machine, must be the new 'atom' of a new science. This will require an entirely new scientific caste -- to which end we can only begin to inspire new students, seedling-thinkers. To this end the language of the machinal could be employed effectively -- to draw out, "lure" rigorous, scientific minds into a realm of self-knowing by allowing the notion of self-valuing to express itself in the language of the machinal. We should appeal to the hardest, toughest and proudest with our project, for it carries the potency to bend the strongest steel, to shape everything around its dynamic core.

To make circles out of straight lines. value ontology does for logic what the notion that the Earth is spherical did for mans awareness of himself in relation to the cosmos. It places the limits of the subject (of logic) within itself, and describes the mechanism/cosmos wherein it exists in terms of the consequences of this centering. So as "gravity" first became the core from which effective physics emerged, so "valuing" becomes the core from which an effective thinking can emerge.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Sun Jul 20, 2014 7:53 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
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.

"[This] is not what is produced but what is original, and it is produced only because it is. It is therefore already in every thing which is. The power which flows forth in the mass of nature is essentially the same as that represented in the mental world, except that in the former it has to combat the preponderance of the real, as in the latter the preponderance of the ideal. But even this antithesis, which is not an antithesis according to its essence but according to mere potency, appears as antithesis only to him who is outside the indifference and glimpses the absolute identity itself not as the original one."

- Schelling

Quote :
[Self-valuing] explains why what exists exists and persists through time,

And the principle itself can be seen as underlying the mechanism of time.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Mon Aug 18, 2014 12:20 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
"Value ontology is, obviously, an ontology–that is, it claims knowledge of Being in some way. The knowledge it claims is that beings are self-valuings. This is to say that every being is a self-valuing. But it does not mean that every being values itself as a self-valuing. Only those who accept value ontology can value themselves as self-valuings, as opposed to simply as selves. For those who accept it, however, valuing themselves means valuing themselves as self-valuing-valuings…

One may distinguish between four basic levels of self-valuing.
1. Most of existence consists of self-valuings who, however, have no knowledge whatsoever of themselves. That is, they value all things in their grasp in terms of themselves, but that is all they do. They have no notion of themselves.
2. Some of existence consists of self-valuings who do have a notion of themselves. These are what may be called animate beings or the “souled”.
3. Among the latter, there are those who, at least in theory, can know themselves and thereby the whole of which they are parts. These are usually called human beings. (Note that a human being in this sense need in theory not be a member of the species homo sapiens sapiens.)
4. Among the latter, there are those who actually knows themselves (or at least can know themselves in practice). These are the ones who know that all beings are self-valuings.

If the self one values is a self-valuing, then one’s self-valuing is self-valuing-valuing; and as all selves are self-valuings, all beings are self-valuing-valuings. But in most beings this is unconscious. That is, most beings are unaware of just how alike they are to others. The vehemence of the adversity springing from this ignorance may even be proportionate to how close one is to enlightenment in this regard! Is there greater adversity than among so-called “human” beings, whether they have different skin colours or be fans of different football clubs or belong to different sects? And in fact, they are not wrong, as far as their self-knowledge is concerned; they cannot value the other, because he does not match what they hold to be their defining characteristics (note how football fanatics tend to be much less intolerant, in fact often do not even notice, those who do not care about football at all). An enlightened football fan would be one who realised that fans of the rival club love the same sport, and that that love is what makes one a football fan. Well then! An enlightened self-valuing is one who realises that all other beings value the same thing, namely self-valuing! This however means that the peak of self-valuing is to value all beings, to value the whole, to value Being itself. Nay more, it means that this is what all self-valuing is. But there is conscious and unconscious self-valuing. An enlightened self-valuing would value enlightened self-valuing the most, would value self-valuing more the more conscious it is. And this leads naturally to the preference of the souled above the soulless, the human above the non-human, the enlightened above the unenlightened. It leads naturally to a politics of soulfulness, of humanity, of enlightenment."

Sauwelios
Humanarchy

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Sun Jan 08, 2017 1:02 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster

The soul and its excess, Ouroboros in/against time rather than above it.

this is selfvaluing and the pathos of distance it creates
the tangents of its dunamis hook into those of others, and thus we get friction called society.

Law and crime, status and disgrace, growth and error - the seams of the flower mark these... judgments.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Sun Jan 08, 2017 11:05 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Dualities and making judgements (prejudging) are concepts I speak to often on the Taoist forum.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Mon Jan 09, 2017 4:21 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I am curious, Sisyphus, would you say a Taoist judges judging?

Ive often heard it say that one shouldn't judge, for judgment is divisive and imperfect. But this is a judgment. A judgment on judgment.
It raises the conundrum to the second power.
Someone judges, then judges himself for having judged.

My judgment is that judging is what keeps us alive. Our joy is in refining our judgments and in strengthening our responses that follow from them.

"And the good saw that it was good" - "And the good saw that its seeing was the good" - circular judgments of positive existence, which is positive existence itself.

To cease judging means to dissolve. Many Buddhists aim for this. But to wholeheartedly judge all contradicting states and also their states of contradiction as good, is to fully self-encompass, to value all of which one can potentially be aware, that is enlightenment. From it issues forth a love that is infinite. In that state, no self-sustaining creature, nor any mineral, can escape ones ardent love. One sees the elementary love that brings forth such being, and all else pales in that light. "Compassion" is this - a love almost too strong to endure for the courage one sees in every single effort to live independently, i.e. to give freely of oneself in order to make a path.

Infinitude of possibility brought forth love as the most comprehensive resolution of that possibility. All else is just reference to these two, lesser forms of truth, partiality against partiality, paradoxically, partiality against being itself, and thus against 'the whole' - might it choose to exist.

The whole can not be loved as a whole. Being is loved in recognizing detail and nuance, in its 'work' - this is how a woman wants to be complimented as well, and how children must be raised - you don't address the "I" of the child, you address its actions, which represent his far deeper identity, his world-shaping selfvaluing rather than his panicky survival circuit.

Apparently small children can't conceive of "I" - this is taught. Selfvaluing is always a "we".

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Mon Jan 09, 2017 10:47 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Note that I added the word prejudging in my above post. This is a rather difficult subject in Taoism and I enjoy getting involved in all the discussions concerning it.

Yes, we all judge. Agree, it is what helps keep us alive. What I always key in on is the prejudging. And I don't care too much about the need to "right" and thereby judge the other person "wrong".

It is said that the Sage acts spontaneously. There is no conscious judging involved. A situation presents itself, the situation is dealt with, and then let go of. That is all. Was he right or wrong in his actions? He doesn't worry himself with such matters.

Prejudging is what we should avoid. Making generalized statements is another. And, of course, dualities as much as possible (good/bad, beautiful/ugly, etc). To avoid this as much as possible I opted for useful/useless (to me). This way I can determine something useless to me but it may well be the exact thing someone else was in need of. This isn't judging the item but rather judging my needs (wants, desires, etc).

In Chuang Tzu's stories we see judgements all over the place. We can even see them in Lao Tzu. But both avoid prejudgements in the most part even though some arguments could bee made.

There is nothing wrong with judging that a meal does not have enough salt or that this woman who is making up to us doesn't turn us on.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Mon Jan 09, 2017 2:38 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sisyphus wrote:
Prejudging is what we should avoid. Making generalized statements is another. And, of course, dualities as much as possible (good/bad, beautiful/ugly, etc). To avoid this as much as possible I opted for useful/useless (to me). This way I can determine something useless to me but it may well be the exact thing someone else was in need of. This isn't judging the item but rather judging my needs (wants, desires, etc).

Nice wording but does it ring true? Prejudging a new object/subject, prejudging potential, prejudging the old object/subject unawares of new aspects/growth? Prejudging as in no prior experience with?

A sage lives in the moment and performs accurately? What is a sage?

I do what Fixed is asking all the time, I judge my judging, but a sage doesn't need to? I'm not buying that.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Mon Jan 09, 2017 10:56 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Hi-D wrote:

Nice wording but does it ring true? Prejudging a new object/subject, prejudging potential, prejudging the old object/subject unawares of new aspects/growth? Prejudging as in no prior experience with?

Yes, it really does ring true. This is linked to the concept of expectations. If we constantly place our expectations on others we are going to be constantly disappointed. To prejudge a person because of their skin color is insane. To prejudge how long a coffee maker will last will almost always find you wrong. We prejudge and place our expectations on others way too often. Likely many great opportunities will have been missed.

A sage lives in the moment and performs accurately? What is a sage?

The Sage is one who can travel anywhere on the planet and not offend anyone. He can walk through a village, invisible, and leaves no tracks. He lives spontaneously, doing only what needs be done, never under-doing or over-doing anything. And he never allows himself to get involved in any kind of conflict.

I do what Fixed is asking all the time, I judge my judging, but a sage doesn't need to? I'm not buying that.

You are the worst judge of yourself. You will always judge with prejudice. I have been asked numerous time who/what I am and all I can do is to state that this is not for me to say. It is up to those who feel the need to judge to make those judgements.

It is true, the Sage does not consciously judge. We might say that his/her actions are inspired by the subconscious or by instincts but no conscious thought is involved. There are no questions like "What if ..." (S)he does what needs be done and that is all. Judgements by others to what (s)he has done matters not.

I know that this is difficult to grasp because it implies one acting from a perfect altruistic essence. I regularly get the argument that there is no such thing as altruism. I always disagree.

View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:17 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
There's much romance in Taoism or your version of it. Growing sleepy. Until tomorrow.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Tue Jan 10, 2017 3:54 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
"Things are not the way they are, they are the way we are."
(Talmudic saying)

This is in accordance with Sysiphus' policy of not judging what a thing, person, or situation is, but what it's value is to him. The wise one judges himself: he establishes whether he has any use for the appearing thing, or not. I find this wise and inscrutable.

My path consists much of such practice, I practice it wherever no red lines are crossed. But the way I am and love myself, I have plenty of red lines. When someone crosses that line, I judge that not only have I no use for that persons actions, but I consider that person to be an ill in the state he is in. In the same way as I judge a disease not only in terms of not requiring it, but with a bit more aggression, so I judge sick individuals, those whose actions have spoken loudly enough for me to know what to expect.

Once I judge another, I no longer judge myself. I know I cant afford to do both. Once I have judged myself as having less than no use for a persons insistent violations of my values (what it comes down to), I will shift my judgment to that person, and set myself to destroy his capacity to influence me or my environment. I take immense joy in this, as I know that once I have come to such a resolution and resolve, I am fighting not only for myself but for my entire world. The world I want to live in, and that wants me to live in it: once my red line is crossed, I know I have my whole 'nation' behind me. Even though my 'nation' is still small, it's hard as diamond at its core and it will vanquish more than anyone here imagines, myself included. (I dont tend to imagine into the future, I just build on principle and sometimes receive visions based on observing history and current narratives)

This is a consequence of knowing valuing to be primacy. It allows for the spontaneity of judgment Sisyphus describes, but commits to judgment beyond a certain threshold, and from there on it becomes a straight line. Very much like the picture I posted.

A form of pain is a result of this, the social friction that Taoists generally want to avoid, this is the pot I like to stir... the world is my soup, my cauldron, as I stand over it with a rod....

Whereas only judging oneself in terms of 'do I value this/that' is perfectly healthy, judging ones own judgments is a disease. It is what westerners have been taught to do, and get cancer because of it. Judging is being itself, and to be structurally mistrustful of it, is to ruin ones mind and body.

Judge as you judge, but realize it is a judgment of your own situation.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:20 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I edited out a bunch of personal info here, its not the thread for it.
Still I'll leave this remark standing:

Only my lovers know me. That is axiomatic, by the way: only love can know. Hence, no knowledge is objective - "objectivity" is the possibility of love, of deciphering a moment into pure being.

Once you've known unfragmented love, pure positive judgment, you know death is of no concern. Whatever really matters is beyond the strain of moment upon moment - it pervades the ground of everything, and is always the final consequence. Nihilism is little else than impotence before such love.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Tue Jan 10, 2017 10:55 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Hi-D wrote:
There's much romance in Taoism or your version of it. Growing sleepy. Until tomorrow.

So I put you right to sleep, did I?
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Tue Jan 10, 2017 11:08 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:

My path consists much of such practice, I practice it wherever no red lines are crossed.

Yes, the red lines, the limits we have established for our interaction with the universe. These limits dictate how and when we must judge. This actually goes beyond my useful/useless concept.

Actually, I think it is fair to state that if we do not have established limits (red lines) we do not have a functional life philosophy.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Tue Jan 10, 2017 11:12 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:

Once you've known unfragmented love, pure positive judgment, you know death is of no concern. Whatever really matters is beyond the strain of moment upon moment - it pervades the ground of everything, and is always the final consequence. Nihilism is little else than impotence before such love.

That is pretty profound. Maybe you could consider working it up a bit more, say like a little article?

View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Tue Jan 10, 2017 1:46 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed is a beautiful writer when invested and his insights pull you in to his gold mind. You must pen many books that mix renaissance poetry (Moby Dick keeps popping into my head for some reason?<---Not renaissance, but powerful writing I guess. I've never read Moby Dick.) with modern tensions. You mix potent imagery with your love of words and what exists is glorious. I'm a bit of a fan.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Tue Jan 10, 2017 9:44 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I'm confused by this endeavor of judging value as useful or useless against my needs. If my needs are unchanging as well as an unchanging object/subject, then it would make more sense with regards to a permanent judgement otherwise I just can't grasp how to judge on the fly without really understanding what I'm judging. Further more, what about timing is everything and not being a shortsighted fool?
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:09 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Hi-D wrote:
I'm confused by this endeavor of judging value as useful or useless against my needs. If my needs are unchanging as well as an unchanging object/subject, then it would make more sense with regards to a permanent judgement otherwise I just can't grasp how to judge on the fly without really understanding what I'm judging. Further more, what about timing is everything and not being a shortsighted fool?

But, to judging/valuing:

From my perspective, not speaking for Fixed,

Our values change through life until the time we have attained inner peace and contentment. That is, we place importance on our external environment and do our best to attain that state of being satisfied. We must judge in order for this to happen.

Over time we begin to hold values that are important to us only. Nothing to do with our external world. We have judged these values as being useful for us toward our attaining inner peace and contentment. Those things that do not add to, or even distract from our inner essence we judge as being useless.

Fixed has a different way of saying this and that's good. His learning experiences are surely very different from mine.

View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:13 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Challenges to our peace cannot lead to unexpected growth?
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Wed Jan 11, 2017 11:07 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Hi-D wrote:
Challenges to our peace cannot lead to unexpected growth?

Of course they can. Thing is, if the challenges have upset our inner peace then our peace wasn't as secure as we thought it was and tht means we have more work to do.

And remember, I am speaking to only our inner peace. Our peace with our externals are always being challenged. That is part of the dynamics of life.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:32 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I don't see how those modes operate independently, the internal and the external. If the internal is not affected by the

external are you living life to the fullest? Also by unexpected growth I meant our own as well as anothers, simultaneous

occurrence. By inner peace, you mean the perfection of love and joy mixed? I've only felt this three times for a period long

enough to realize what it was. It is the absence of fear and the acceptance and harmony with existence, which leaves you

with simply peace. Others were not in my company during those experiences.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Thu Jan 12, 2017 12:21 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Hi-D wrote:
I don't see how those modes operate independently, the internal and the external. If the internal is not affected by the
external are you living life to the fullest? Also by unexpected growth I meant our own as well as anothers, simultaneous
occurrence. By inner peace, you mean the perfection of love and joy mixed? I've only felt this three times for a period long
enough to realize what it was. It is the absence of fear and the acceptance and harmony with existence, which leaves you
with simply peace. Others were not in my company during those experiences.

Yes, we are talking about the same thing.

Internal: I have everything I "need" and I'm not having any internal conflicts (I'm not arguing with or disappointed with my mental condition).

External: This easy hair is broken and I need a new one. or My friend really pisses me off sometimes.

No, they don't operate independently but I think that the two operate from different levels. The internals are based in our needs and the externals are based in our wants and desires. If we can keep our needs separated from our wants and desires I think we would have a better chance of attaining inner peace and contentment.

I don't talk about love too much. To many attachments to the word. Joy, I would equate with contentment. Love, I would likely equate with peace, or perhaps no negative emotions; perhaps even emotionless - just being.

Yes, I'm sure many of us have the experience you spoke of but we fail to recognize the significance f it and more important, the conditions that led to that state. (What conditions caused us to be in that state of "just being"?
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Before the Light - Tree of Life Academy - Thought of a Rune (film by Pezer)

Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper

Posts: 7887
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

### Re: The Philosophers

Summary of value ontology View previous topic View next topic Go down
Go to page : Previous 1, 2
Author Message
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:22 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Hi-D wrote:
I'm confused by this endeavor of judging value as useful or useless against my needs. If my needs are unchanging as well as an unchanging object/subject, then it would make more sense with regards to a permanent judgement otherwise I just can't grasp how to judge on the fly without really understanding what I'm judging. Further more, what about timing is everything and not being a shortsighted fool?

As I wrote yesterday in a congested and deleted response, timing is entirely crucial, but it rests on the ground of consistency. One can not time well if one does not have permanent grounding.

In Kung Fu, or Aikido, or other ancient 'dances of life and death', the sole aim is to solidify ones body, physiology and mind so as to be able to produce the perfect spontaneous response to any given situation. Perfect in terms of what?

Exactly. That is the question.
The East Asians have arrived at a bottom line standard here which can be pointed out with words like aesthetics, cleanliness, purity. But we western philosophers are moving beyond this as we speak. A comprehensive answer to the bequest for a standard, life will provide to us individually, as we walk across the threshold of an age of greater humanity... guided no longer by the sky or the earth, but by philosophy, by an awakening to 'raw valuing', which, by the way, is experienced as a burning heart when it commences to take hold of a heart that has been placed by its owner on the altar of some deity or void.

Awakening hurts, and making judgments that result in further pain is required.... only to those to whom the pain of tedium and nausea of the indirectly-valuing humanity has grown intolerable, the pain of standing utterly alone in the universe as a potential center (the solipsist makes an empty claim) is also a pleasure, a nektar.

Still introducing.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Fri Feb 02, 2018 4:48 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
A next phase is a demonstration and explication of VO.

Ive decided today, on recommendations of Pezer and in light of Capable's valuing, to accept the arrival of the end of the forum phase, and continue the teaching of my philosophy through music.

It was this particular clan, which itself is the original explication of VO, that allowed me to step into music with absolute freedom - such freedom is the only absolute - and now Ive succeeded in setting a musical standard for my friends. The proof in the pudding.

This is only possible as a resolution now that the basic logos has been spread around the web and Trump has been elected in its spirit. The first phase of the work has been completed. The second part of the trajectory to 2023 began with Wolf Child.

As concerns the first phase: All of what we have written so far will be proliferated, by physical publications as wel as reposting. It forms a backdrop to the music as well as a world to which the music is a portal. This is the beginning of many beautiful friendships, and of friendship even of man with the Earth.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Before the Light - Tree of Life Academy - Thought of a Rune (film by Pezer)

Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper

Posts: 7887
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

### Re: The Philosophers

What does the world run on? View previous topic View next topic Go down
Author Message
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: What does the world run on? Wed Feb 07, 2018 3:46 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Oil?

No.

Money?

No.

Power?

Maybe.

Truth?

Not sure.

Philosophy?

Possibly.

But only in the reverse, maybe.
—-

What is under the surfaces of (the reversals of) philosophy’s governance of things? On what do humans rest their valuings?

I have an answer: a taste of freedom.

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: What does the world run on? Wed Feb 07, 2018 3:59 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Perhaps a person becomes convinced to remain in slavery because being so enslaved he/she is able best to formulate a taste of freedom. Because he does not have it he therefore is able to desire it.

This thread belongs in psychology perhaps. Oh well fuck it.

The moral soul, a beautiful spirit, a heart overfull with sensitive feelings and a natural revulsion for all things crude, banal, crass, simple, insensitive, bawdy, unwholesome... such a soul as may possess also the intellect required to forgo religion and all superstitions, save one—the myth of goodness, or rather the clinging to goodness that remains unseen or unexpressed, at least far from adequately known much less willed to be known, and therefore is able only to know what is good through myth, as myth, as a kind of despising of any breaking of the dawn over the quiet landscape of the undisturbed soul, so replete in the tranquil conscience, and which would therefore shield its eyes from sunlight for finding the glare too harsh and unforgiving, yet still cannot find too much in common with the creatures of the night either; a poetic soul, therefore, who longs most for what he is steadfast in never possessing, namely a kind of freedom that would make the desire for freedom wholly unnecessary, and what could be more terrifying, more demanding, more painful, more unpredictable, than... freedom actualized? I’ve known only one person who took the true leap of faith, of the heart, as soul, and transformed themselves. I’ve done so but not of the heart and soul, rather of the mind. Other spirits walk quietly and quickly through the forest of the new, at dawn or dusk, always, but never linger long enough to see a sunrise or a sunset. I, on the other hand, see only... sunrises and sunsets. I long to transform as another has, but it is not so for me, because to transform the mind imposes certain criteria upon later transformations, and perhaps even the capacity for a mental transformation and freedom earned thereof necessesitates a kind of prior state of inability for certain emotional transformation when undertaken outside of the most ideal and perfect environments. But I have my freedom, and so I do not desire freedom, in fact I find that often the suffering of it balances overly against the pleasure and gain of it. But gain and detriment are already the words in the mouths of the dead, and we shall not sully ourselves here after the fashion of the dead. Rather we speak of pleasures and of sufferings, desires and the absences of desires, perhaps we may even speak of power and its lack, at times; yet how much of this truly runs the world? The very fact that we are supposed to think it runs the world, and the fact that we indeed do think this, remains the greatest thorn in the side of this supposed fact’s certain conquest over the philosopher.

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: What does the world run on? Fri Jun 08, 2018 3:15 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
1 5 14 14
4 9 19 19

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: What does the world run on? Fri Jun 08, 2018 10:06 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Brilliant.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

PostSubject: Re: What does the world run on? Thu Jun 28, 2018 3:42 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Lol, fool, it's fear. And the pride that covers it.

If it weren't for that pride, fear would not be so prevalent over the others. Like a dam.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

PostSubject: Re: What does the world run on? Thu Jun 28, 2018 3:43 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
But this is the stuff of eons.

What right have you to speak of any of it?
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: What does the world run on? Thu Jun 28, 2018 6:13 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
7

7

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: What does the world run on? Thu Jun 28, 2018 6:19 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
13 25 8 5 1 18 20 4 9 5 4 20 15 4 1 25

4 7 8 5 1 9 2 4 9 5 4 2 6 4 1 7

4 | 785 192 495 4264 | 17

(2397)

717

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: What does the world run on? Thu Jun 28, 2018 6:24 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
(M)isanthrop(E)

^ good name for a band.

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: What does the world run on? Thu Jun 28, 2018 6:27 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
i now formally withdraw myself from all things political.

this world can burn.

if i find an isolated value that is worth it to me then i will value it, direct and out of context if needed.

fuck tectonics.

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: What does the world run on? Thu Jun 28, 2018 6:31 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
strong valuings are always disconnected gems in the dark. no tectonics underlies them. worlds are separate.

i have removed my books, because they were based on a faulty theory.

there is no order, there is no chaos.

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: What does the world run on? Sat Jul 07, 2018 9:34 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Agree about these gems in the dark.
A reverse of mining.

The gems have to mine their world for things to shine on.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: What does the world run on? Mon Jul 09, 2018 12:08 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
now i’m seeing there are connections, worlds, they’re just not “universal” in a reductive sense. well that’s probably a good thing.

worlds are made out of dust, like adam. our universe-reality is a multi billion year old world, our planet is another little derivative world inside that. i’m sure that tectonics structure the ascent and descent between worlds.

earth is a gem of the universe geology. and life is a gem of the earth geology. and human consciousness is a gem of life geology. or so
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: What does the world run on? Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:50 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
But this is the stuff of eons.

What right have you to speak of any of it?

What right has the sky to be above us?
What other rights would you take to create crimes?

Rather build a rocket.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: What does the world run on? Mon Jul 09, 2018 5:02 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Thrasymachus wrote:
now i’m seeing there are connections, worlds, they’re just not “universal” in a reductive sense. well that’s probably a good thing.

It is the most excellent of things. It is the beauty of the value logic, there are only particulars, thus virtually all is hidden treasure. And hidden treasures don't care about time, only about the one who finds them. Objectivity is a thin mist hovering low in the cave of the mind, which reflects in a pool in its midst the moon and sun through an opening in the roof. Sometimes it rains, then the mind is one with the world, or imagines so a it forgets its depths away from the openings and washes its nose.

Quote :
worlds are made out of dust, like adam. our universe-reality is a multi billion year old world, our planet is another little derivative world inside that. i’m sure that tectonics structure the ascent and descent between worlds.

earth is a gem of the universe geology. and life is a gem of the earth geology. and human consciousness is a gem of life geology. or so

So indeed.
Minerals, the beings between atoms and our lives, between light and the cosmos, I like them.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: What does the world run on? Thu Jul 19, 2018 9:25 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Its true, a taste of freedom is what the world runs on. It has been that way long before there was life.

Orbits are like ordered freedoms. The perception of freedom within orderly bounds as seen from the outside.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Before the Light - Tree of Life Academy - Thought of a Rune (film by Pezer)

Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper

Posts: 7887
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

### Re: The Philosophers

Daemonic polarities View previous topic View next topic Go down
Go to page : 1, 2 Next
Author Message
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Daemonic polarities Fri Oct 21, 2016 10:19 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Money is freedom, but the only way to get money is to give up freedom.

Wage-slavery destroys happiness, but we are convinced that happiness is still possible so that we keep wage-slaving in attempt to consume. Consumption is the modern form of compensation for the death of happiness.

The idea of nation-states imposes a false categorical equivalence among peoples and cultures. Supposedly there is a sense in which any culture or people or society is "equal to others" on the simple basis of the fact that we have this idea of the sovereign nation-state, and regardless of the actual content and real conditions of those cultures, peoples or societies.

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Daemonic polarities Fri Oct 21, 2016 10:49 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose,
And nothin' ain't worth nothin' but it's free,

Kris Kristofferson

A Buddhist might say that freedom is a life without attachments.

But I think I grasp what you are saying.

We are brain-washed into thinking that we deserve stuff by people willing to lend us money (at a cost) so that we can buy what we deserve. That will bring us freedom and happiness. Really?

Nation-states earn revenue from people spending money. Of course they are going to promote the spending of money. And they even tax your wealth if you don't spend your money.

Regarding wage=slavery: I have mentioned other places that a person should find a job doing something they would do as a hobby if they were self-sufficient. That way they can do what gives them enjoyment and they even earn money from doing it.

View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Daemonic polarities Sat Oct 22, 2016 12:27 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Most people don't have money. If you don't have money then you're forced to sell yourself into wage-slavery which is tantamount to death, philosophically speaking. Money is freedom to have the basic desperate needs of life taken care of and to therefore have a possibility of actually having... a life, which without money is impossible.

I'm at the point where prolonged poverty is effectively slowly dissolving my personality. I've noticed it for a long time now. Emotions wear away under the crushing weight of living in a supposedly civilized self-conscious species yet being unable to even have the most basic physical and metal needs of life met without selling oneself into slavery, oppression, pain and all the bullshit that comes with "working". The only people who can actually value work are those who get paid enough money to live a decent life not on the edge of poverty, but most people don't have that luxury, and even the people who do are stuck in slave jobs where they basically sell out the best parts of their lives and themselves for the luxury of having some excess money.

So even that kind of money is still slavery. It's an Orwellian nightmare: Freedom is Slavery, literally this is the reality that the modern economy has brought us. Through money, freedom becomes slavery and only the false promise of slavery becoming freedom sustains the empty gesture of the false self stuck in delusions forever about its eventually earning its freedom from chains, which of course it never will do.

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Daemonic polarities Sat Oct 22, 2016 12:29 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It's an absolute fucking cosmic joke what this human species calls "civilization". No wonder no aliens have bothered stopping over to say hey.

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Daemonic polarities Sat Oct 22, 2016 2:24 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yeah, aliens would surely avoid us.

I understand what you are saying. I've been there and done that. I lived many years of my life chained to a job because there was a need for money in order to live an acceptable life away from the job.

But I made it through and reached the age to retire and had enough financial stability to retire without financial worries.

I realize that many people don't ever get there. That's sad. And I agree, it is our civilized society that treats the eldery with such disregard.

I demand respect. No respect? You don't see me any more. And you don't get any more of my money.

And it's true, most people are in financial debt to someone. And as you stated, this limits their freedom.

But I still do not support the idea of full socialism. That's my philosophical root belief.

I speak about "fairness" often and suggest that we (America) are far from that. Seems to me we need a different economic system in order to make life a little more fair for all Americans.

I don't know if there are any good answers or solutions to the problem. IMO, a flat tax on all income over the poverty level would be a start but even something as simple as that likely will never happen. Of course, if we would stop gettig involved in wars that would help greatly too. But I don't wee that happening any time soon.

View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Daemonic polarities Sat Oct 22, 2016 2:44 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yeah "socialism" is a meaningless buzz word, I don't advocate that either. Capitalism is the best system and in any case isn't going anywhere; so we must reform capitalism toward sane ends. But this will only come at a kind of phase-transition point where a threshold of understanding is reached. Marx was one such threshold, the American Constitution was another, now global neoliberal capitalism is pushing toward another. Nothing ever happens unless it was necessary all along for it to happen like that. Progress is literally the exhaustion of all other (worse, less useful) alternatives.

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Daemonic polarities Sat Oct 22, 2016 3:10 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Normally I don't like to complain so openly about my finances, but I'm going to break it down anyway. This is what America looks like now for "young people":

I make around $40,000 a year. Not too bad, you might say. Well with subtracting out social security, Medicare, state and federal taxes, and paying for my health insurance that drops to$23,000 a year. So if you count health insurance as a "tax" (apparently it is, according to the supreme idiots on the Supreme Court) my actual real tax rate is around 42%, higher than the highest tax bracket.

Then you factor in my roughly $6000 a year in student loan payments and it drops to$17,000 a year.

Considering I pay around $600 a month in rent, that drop income to less than$10,000 a year. Then you got all the other bills like car insurance, heat, water, electric, phone and Internet... also apparently I'm supposed to eat sometimes, get new clothes every now and then. Can't say I have any kind of savings or retirement at all.

I would happily go back for an advanced degree of some kind, maybe in something science related or law school, but that would run me up probably \$100,000 in more debt. Maybe worth it in the long run if I could double my income, but the time commitment plus the expense of debt and lost income while I'm in school for a few more years is just too much for me. Poverty isn't just about not having money, it's about the psychological drain on people and their energy reserves. Without cigarettes and alcohol for example I wouldn't be able to function during the week. So called vices are the highest necessity for the poor, of course that adds way more expense since most of the cost of alcohol and tobacco is taxes.

Capitalism defines your value by what you create that can be and is translated into monetary gain. Longer term projects such as learning or writing, art, or traveling and building up something subjectively meaningful than can later become monetizable is usually out of the question. Public school is a joke, we should scrap grades 11 and 12 and just let 16 year olds take free college classes across the board, also cut out a lot of the required courses that college kids are forced to take. A one percent tax increase on people making over a million dollars a year would yield plenty of money to start really funding higher education, then if you use the money currently spent on grades 11 and 12 in public schooling things would be just fine.. but then of course the banks wouldn't be able to take in the trillions of dollars in student debt payments they get from us. Basic reform could just start at counting net income minus student debt payments, for taxes and other purposes. Try to get a real picture of the economic situation of people today.

We have a consumption society, the US consumes over a billion dollars a day net from the rest of the world, effectively sustaining these other economies. Yet young people today have next to no disposable income, so that game is going to come to a crashing halt soon enough.

This is America, in terms of the next generation. So I pay 42% real tax rate and I'm supposed to not ask for an additional 1% increase on top income earners, many of whom use tax loopholes like what Trump does for example, to pay next to no tax at all? Lol.

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Daemonic polarities Sat Oct 22, 2016 3:21 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I should really be pissed off about all this, but I have a pack of cigarettes here that says otherwise. Anyway it's a good thing that I discovered philosophy, so I can at least translate much of this bullshit into something meaningful.

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Daemonic polarities Sat Oct 22, 2016 5:42 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
Yeah "socialism" is a meaningless buzz word, I don't advocate that either. Capitalism is the best system and in any case isn't going anywhere; so we must reform capitalism toward sane ends. But this will only come at a kind of phase-transition point where a threshold of understanding is reached. Marx was one such threshold, the American Constitution was another, now global neoliberal capitalism is pushing toward another. Nothing ever happens unless it was necessary all along for it to happen like that. Progress is literally the exhaustion of all other (worse, less useful) alternatives.

I really don't have a problem with capitalism either. I would like to see a fairer distribution of the wealth though. No more near-slave labor. I would also like to see more opportunities for those in need. I never did like America's welfare system. It is very corrupt and a great waste of resources.

But you are right, we don't see changes until after the chaos has begun and the final results might be worse that what was being replaced. We have seen that over and over again.

What we need is a benevolent dictator. Mother Teresa has passed on. Maybe there'll be another.

View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Daemonic polarities Sat Oct 22, 2016 6:01 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
Normally I don't like to complain so openly about my finances, but I'm going to break it down anyway. This is what America looks like now for "young people":

It wasn't too many years ago I would complain about the youth in America not putting enough effort into keeping America strong. But after being scolded a couple times I had to look at the reality of today's youth and not from what the conditions were when I was young.

Most wealthy people who have most of their wealth in investments of almost any kind pay half the tax rate that I do. Yes, I still have to pay income tax on my Army retirement pay. The government says that it is because I didn't contribute to the system. What the hell was I doing for twenty years if not contributing? But I really don't complain too much about that.

You actually have a higher gross income than I do. But my net is higher because I don't have the liabilities that you have.

I often complain about the education system in America. The cost of higher education needed to become upper middle class financially is way too expensive for most people. Therefore they never make it out of the hole they were born into. There are many countries that have much better educational systems than we do. Sure, our higher education is better than most but again, that takes lots of dollars.

And yes, IMO our health care system now sucks worse than it did before ObamaCare. And the costs keep increasing at a really disgusting rate.

I guess America will just go down the same road Rome did. We will if we don't make changes.

View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Daemonic polarities Sat Oct 22, 2016 6:04 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
I should really be pissed off about all this, but I have a pack of cigarettes here that says otherwise. Anyway it's a good thing that I discovered philosophy, so I can at least translate much of this bullshit into something meaningful.

Yes, being able to talk about what we perceive as problems helps quiet the monkey mind. Hehehe. And yes, smokes help too.

If more people talked about the problems more people would pay attention and maybe the politicians would actually start listening to the people.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Daemonic polarities Sat Oct 22, 2016 6:21 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yeah, I don't like to play the "generation war" things at all, I want barriers between generations broken down and more mutual understanding for instance between young and older people. But it's true that generally speaking the middle age to older people right now are totally clueless the severity of the situation they have imposed upon anyone 35 or younger today (so called Millennials or younger).

Thanks for the words of encouragement too, by the way.

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Daemonic polarities Sat Oct 22, 2016 6:24 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It's also another reason to vote for Trump, he is the only candidate I've heard seriously talk about crushing student debt. Hillary just pays lip service, it's so obvious she doesn't give a shit at all. Democrats are fucking full of hot air. Fuck Bernie Sanders too, I never saw authenticity in him either, just a bunch of talking points very well polished until they shine in the eyes of naive young people. It's obvious by now that Sanders never cared about real change, he is supporting the person who wants to perpetuate the system and who deliberately fucked over Bernie himself. What a goddamn tool.

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Daemonic polarities Sat Oct 22, 2016 9:47 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
Yeah, I don't like to play the "generation war" things at all, I want barriers between generations broken down and more mutual understanding for instance between young and older people. But it's true that generally speaking the middle age to older people right now are totally clueless the severity of the situation they have imposed upon anyone 35 or younger today (so called Millennials or younger).

Thanks for the words of encouragement too, by the way.

You're welcome.

Agree, it's almost like different planets for people my age and those between their teens and late twenties.

I can't take any of the blame though because I have always been against the changes that have made living the American Dream so difficult for so many today.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Daemonic polarities Sat Oct 22, 2016 9:54 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
It's also another reason to vote for Trump, he is the only candidate I've heard seriously talk about crushing student debt. Hillary just pays lip service, it's so obvious she doesn't give a shit at all. Democrats are fucking full of hot air. Fuck Bernie Sanders too, I never saw authenticity in him either, just a bunch of talking points very well polished until they shine in the eyes of naive young people. It's obvious by now that Sanders never cared about real change, he is supporting the person who wants to perpetuate the system and who deliberately fucked over Bernie himself. What a goddamn tool.

I have to agree with you regarding Clinton and Sanders.

I will find it very difficult to vote for Trump instead of Jill Stein though. Besides her faults, she would stop the USA getting in wars overseas and bring most of the troops home to defend the USA. And she is against the Big Banks and Big Industry running the government.

View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Daemonic polarities Sat Oct 22, 2016 10:04 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
It's also another reason to vote for Trump, he is the only candidate I've heard seriously talk about crushing student debt. Hillary just pays lip service, it's so obvious she doesn't give a shit at all. Democrats are fucking full of hot air. Fuck Bernie Sanders too, I never saw authenticity in him either, just a bunch of talking points very well polished until they shine in the eyes of naive young people. It's obvious by now that Sanders never cared about real change, he is supporting the person who wants to perpetuate the system and who deliberately fucked over Bernie himself. What a goddamn tool.

But really.
I actually had started liking him a bit, when the bird came to sit with him during that speech I got the idea he was maybe a good guy of sorts. Then he goes and back Clinton. The ultimately perfect negation of all the value of democracy. But what do you expect from a Socialist. Theyre scum. The value of fairness is not something they actually uphold.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Daemonic polarities Sat Oct 22, 2016 10:30 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
Money is freedom, but the only way to get money is to give up freedom.

Yeah - there are different unfreedoms one can put oneself through - wage slavery is the most accessible one, but we must be tied down to make the money to be free. I found my path twice now and had some luck with it - I now have as my only worldly goal to make all my philosopher friends attain financial freedom. A kingdom of philosophy. You, Capable, are its central man, for one thing because you are the man that got together this forum. Since 2 years I live by only respecting factual values produced by the philosophical for the philosophical, - building, dwelling, thinking.

Quote :
Wage-slavery destroys happiness, but we are convinced that happiness is still possible so that we keep wage-slaving in attempt to consume. Consumption is the modern form of compensation for the death of happiness.

Absolutely true.

Quote :
The idea of nation-states imposes a false categorical equivalence among peoples and cultures. Supposedly there is a sense in which any culture or people or society is "equal to others" on the simple basis of the fact that we have this idea of the sovereign nation-state, and regardless of the actual content and real conditions of those cultures, peoples or societies.

I agree that the Nation is insufficient as a Value to group people underneath. In cases, it is indestructible (Russia, England, Italy) and in cases it is only an obstruction (Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Chad, Somalia, Algeria, North Korea - the list is long) - and in some cases it can go either way. The USA is the primary example of this, the Netherlands is a good example, and France is also an example, even though it is the strongest nationalism in the world, it has afforded the strongest universalism - it truly manages to press people into its fold out of sheer erotic status, evolutionary prospect. French cool is the most reliable cool. It speaks even in North and West Africa and the Levant, where French is a leading language. Therre is no way to speak or think in French while not being cool. It will thus prevail, even over English, ultimately - as Spanish overtakes English in the Americas, French will gain back a lot of ground. But back to the point - the US, and how its nationalism now functions as a splitter rather than a uniter.

A few months ago, each half of the country is mortally ashamed of what the other half is proud of. But the country has been united as a fundamental division - north and south, cold and warm, rational and instinctive, moral and traditional, trade and crop, word and deed, head and heart, Democrat and Republican. Very roughly of course, along these lines I see the nature of the division. The ethical dualism of the past has pervaded the earthy logos of wealth and made scarcity of it.

To us who grasp the nature of Value, is naturally given the work of restoring the idea of Wealth into the American constitution (sound-state) ; and to begin with we need a multi party system. Trump wins: Next elections, we move to create conditions for a minimum of three real candidates. The one after that we go for a full spectrum. This is the proposal as it occurs to me now, I guess it is realistic in that case, my intuitions tend to play out. The prospects from within a chaos of privileged forms (yes, the burden has enriched us, by forcing us to exalt ourselves above what is expected) are highly favorable for independent initiatives. The whole apparatus is paralyzed in over-extension, and cramp is what it will be going through the next years - we need to approach the State with this in the focus of the minds eye. It is not going to be reasoned with - it is going to slowly disengage itself from its extension and any outside stimulus will slow down this process.

What we are going to build is just the extension of what we have built. An internet society.
Laws will be on the program - to redraft the constitution.

I dont really see a reason to delay this any longer. Ive quite ILP, I have time to do this. The self-valuing principle is no doubt its guide - but it also commands that the draft be put in motion by American citizens. Taste demands this - taste simply for adequacy.

The American legal system is by far the most complex one that has existed on this planet. Beyond Capitalism, this system stands as the true innovation of man.

It can be reduced, honed back into a polished form, because it is law, not commerce - yang, straight lines, not yin, that which always comes back to itself ---> mythical image ---> Sagittarius: Centaur Chiron, teacher of Heroes dies for Prometheus gift to man and is raised to godhood as the Acher -Philosopher who makes laws under the Auspices of Jupiter.

Man as Storm is the limit of the law -
the violence that is given, which the law is forged to justify.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills

PostSubject: Re: Daemonic polarities Mon Nov 28, 2016 8:50 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
It's an absolute fucking cosmic joke what this human species calls "civilization". No wonder no aliens have bothered stopping over to say hey.

lol Oh, but they have. They just blended in. Didn't stay long though and when they returned to their own space and time, they left "No More Visits to Earth" signs to be strewn all over the Universe.
We're on our own - the Prime Directive has won out...and that can only be Good.

___________
Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself.

Philosophy is the childhood of the intellect, and a culture that tries to skip it will never grow up."

"If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped."

Thomas Nagel
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Daemonic polarities Sat Jan 06, 2018 2:00 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I really do see that dialectics ultimately bows to daemonics. The real stuff doesn’t work in averagings, not even the few billion bits of data our brains filter out of consciousness every second are working by averages, but by clear formulas and logical commands of selection. Yeah some averaging occurs, naturally, but it is always subservient to meaning just as quantity is always subservient to quality.

True, meaningful polarities, differences, entities, end up establishing lines between each other and these lines come to constitute what those entities are and mean, to each other and to themselves. Within the parameters of such ‘lines’ the excess pools and takes shape, forcing pressures outward and inward upon every tectonic vantage.

If two different entities, daemons, happen to have similar enough onto-psycho-epistemologistical structures then they can form meta relations between and as their respective line-limits. Then the daemonics can start to get really interesting.

Dialectics occur least where things make the most sense. There, dialectical process is like the slow erosion of rock or topsoil, just a weathering. Nothing but the principle of Time itself, outside the scope of the daemon (outside of ‘entities’, beings). So yeah, obviously Hegel and Marx and all the rest idealized the End of Time in the Perfection of History, or some such nonsensical thing. Lolzkekz.

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

PostSubject: Re: Daemonic polarities Sun Jan 07, 2018 8:37 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I don't think everybody hates their jobs like you do. Maybe it's an office job? That does sound soul draining. But good physichal jobs are apt for warriors and philosophies, because they allow for zen meditation. I found this in the kitchen (hat tip to FC), peeling potatoes for four hours, constantly seeking the optimal peeling mechanisms, peering into the whatever-the-opposite-of-nature-or-core is of the potato.

Then there was coleslaw.

But I won't get into it. It was satisfying.

Then I used my free time to smoke too much weed and reach for the dreams of a dying soul, which death I also am grateful to FC for helping. But I'm sure I could now invest it in more profitable things, like the stock market, which I dare a philosopher to say is not fun to follow and get to know and play.

Then who knows? Freedom may arrive some day, freedom to pursue shit that only not having to make money allows one to pursue.

I have written here before that evolution works like that. Every stage must be both self sufficent and able to transition eventually.

In the past 7 or so years I have grown mounting respect for thosr you call slaves. Maybe the Venezuelan ones I've met are happier (well not these days, there is famine afoot), maybe because they weren't bred to believe everybody can be middle class or pampered so much as kids. That's cruel, to raise someone to be an aristocrat and then give them a working man's life.

It's the masons' fault, of course, it was their idea that everybody should be raised as an aristocrat. Still, they abolished slavery.

If you want to change the world, so that the trully privileged can get more privilege and the working man can be left to happily work, you have to become a man that can be both and more.

https://youtu.be/t-HLGcTGWSY
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Daemonic polarities Sun Jan 07, 2018 8:51 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Not everyone hates their jobs.

"Slaves" (people stuck in dead end jobs or crushed under massive debt or bad economic conditions) can be people we can have respect for.

Physical, repetitive, simple jobs can be nice and satisfying.

Venezuelan people are cool because they are born knowing they are going to be poor.

Just trying to get my mind around what you are saying here. And trying to discern any connection or meaning behind it, with regard to the topic, anything I have already written here, or anything else.

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Daemonic polarities Sun Jan 07, 2018 11:05 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
Then there was coleslaw.

LOL
Good memories.
The time of death-valley alley.
around the back of the Dep

I agree that manual labor is better for the soul than administrative labor.
I had an office job once, for a month I could do it, then I broke literal fevers 5 minutes in, until I received a mercy-firing.

Quote :
But I won't get into it. It was satisfying.

Then I used my free time to smoke too much weed and reach for the dreams of a dying soul, which death I also am grateful to FC for helping. But I'm sure I could now invest it in more profitable things, like the stock market, which I dare a philosopher to say is not fun to follow and get to know and play.

Thats what Im saying. Its looking at valuing, how people are going to be valuing the next day. It requires keen psychology, as well as a lot of practical fact knowledge about events in the world. And there are more angles. It is not trivial, it is connected to everything.
Nor is manual labor often trivial.

Quote :
Then who knows? Freedom may arrive some day, freedom to pursue shit that only not having to make money allows one to pursue.

I have written here before that evolution works like that. Every stage must be both self sufficent and able to transition eventually.

I guess one state can only transition to a higher state when it is satisfied, saturated, completed, when it starts to produce excesses and comes in risk of decadence. At that point it must move on or collapse.

Quote :
In the past 7 or so years I have grown mounting respect for thosr you call slaves. Maybe the Venezuelan ones I've met are happier (well not these days, there is famine afoot), maybe because they weren't bred to believe everybody can be middle class or pampered so much as kids.

Slaves like the ones Capable and I suffer of are strictly first-world phenomena:

"That's cruel, to raise someone to be an aristocrat and then give them a working man's life."

Well said man. That, exactly, is what went wrong in the first world. This is exactly what led to the unfathomable ugliness of spirit in most of my generation.

Quote :
It's the masons' fault, of course, it was their idea that everybody should be raised as an aristocrat. Still, they abolished slavery.

Montreal revealed Mason nature to me. Very fucking lofty. But over-optimistic, indeed, if it concerns the general populace - but accurate as it concerns ... well, me. The statue, the office across.... life=myth, once you start making it.

Quote :
If you want to change the world, so that the trully privileged can get more privilege and the working man can be left to happily work, you have to become a man that can be both and more.

https://youtu.be/t-HLGcTGWSY

No matter what it takes my crickets.

LOL

yes.
T - to connect this to the OP -
what is freedom? The power to act toward a goal that one has set oneself - therefore freedom begins with the power to set goals.
"Strength sets goals." - N

So also financial strength. Once capital is acquired, the capital will become a medium to communicate "the world" (a becoming) to the self-valuing mind, in such as way as for the world to become a medium for the self-valuing, manifested in this capital finding its paths and bedding rivers. Making history before it happens.

A further question is how to arrive at this capital. How to exit debt. This is a moral question, as debt is insidious, a psychological depressant, which is why it has been proliferated across the educated.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Daemonic polarities Sun Jan 07, 2018 12:04 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Freedom as a conception creates a further need than what biology imposes on the animal.
The Daemonism here is Capitalism.

Capital as Ontos,
Wealth is Excess.

Humanity is a fertile soil. It is (thus) very dirty.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Daemonic polarities Sun Jan 07, 2018 12:06 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Meanwhile in Russia

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

PostSubject: Re: Daemonic polarities Sun Jan 07, 2018 4:00 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I guess I'm just saying, you have options.

Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Daemonic polarities Mon Jan 08, 2018 2:50 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yeah, definitely. I don't even work at that job anymore, the one I had mentioned earlier in this topic. I quit it without having anything else lined up, despite having no money at the time. Because yeah, options. I won't be stuck in some fucking hellhole.

___________

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

PostSubject: Re: Daemonic polarities Mon Jan 08, 2018 2:54 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Goddamn right.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Daemonic polarities Mon Jan 08, 2018 10:00 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
You are both to begin with very "economically viable" artists. I know as I have worked a lot with both kinds.
Its just an artist can't sell himself. He can't even believe in himself, think of himself as an artist, I forget this. When I made good films, I laughed at Art. When I made music, I certainly did not figure what I was doing had merit. So it is done strictly because it is enjoyed, as will to power.

totally contrajuxtapositioning then; Pezer you need to do filmmaking. Even Bill himself liked your first with his music, called it an excellent film. But more people have been impressed. I certainly think it is excellent, Thought of a Rune, and I really am strictly actor in it, all direction is very much different from my initiatives. I had no clue what you were doing, aesthetically.

I ruined many talents by heaping praise on their seeds that had just crawled into the light. I am a resistance.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Daemonic polarities Mon Jan 08, 2018 10:04 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
There is no money in art. That is what the artists who consider themselves artists say, as there is indeed no money in their display.
only the probing ponderer who uses some instruments and aesthetic consistencies to force a path through nothing is worth his salt.
Art as the circumference to philosophy. Philosophy as looking directly into the sun.

https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/ ... quality=85

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

PostSubject: Re: Daemonic polarities Mon Jan 08, 2018 10:13 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I might try filmmaking again some day.

It's asthetics that bother me. I see geniouses like Kubrick, Cronenberg, that guy from Drive, and it kills me that I don't know how to make the aesthetics serve the plot.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Daemonic polarities Mon Jan 08, 2018 10:24 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Thats why they have screenwriters.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Daemonic polarities Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:18 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
Money is freedom, but the only way to get money is to give up freedom.

Wage-slavery destroys happiness, but we are convinced that happiness is still possible so that we keep wage-slaving in attempt to consume. Consumption is the modern form of compensation for the death of happiness.

The idea of nation-states imposes a false categorical equivalence among peoples and cultures. Supposedly there is a sense in which any culture or people or society is "equal to others" on the simple basis of the fact that we have this idea of the sovereign nation-state, and regardless of the actual content and real conditions of those cultures, peoples or societies.

I think that the way to give up lest freedom must have eto do with the direct engagement of money as such; one to love money or find a way to actually love its nature, to be free in gainig it.

This speaks to, for example, both stock trading and rap music.
These are two of my paths to approach money on its own merit without prejudice toward it.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Before the Light - Tree of Life Academy - Thought of a Rune (film by Pezer)

Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper

Posts: 7887
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

### Re: The Philosophers

Message
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Nietzsche and the Metaphor Sat Jun 02, 2012 5:41 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Title of the thread is the title of a book in which which the writer exhibits the metaphor as the underlying way of designating of all formulaic logic. This concept is not unknown or uncommon by itself, but it is interesting to notice from the constant returning to the premise, that what follows as a consequence of this realization is far more difficult to control and even influence than ccould be expected of what so far had lived as philosophy. Heidegger made it apparent that it is possible to reason this way, via broad strokes of densely meaningful landscape. His metaphors were sober, real-life objects. A wise opening move, from which we have, via Deleuze and other meaningful post-x dwellers who arranged the game so that everything is indeed possible, arrived at a position to create an attack. Here the metaphor ends, because there is no opposing king.

Author Message
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: This claim is false. (linguistic justification of value-ontology) Mon Oct 22, 2012 6:38 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
"This claim is false."

Why is that possible?

The answer is remarkably simple: Because language did not originate in logic, but in differentiation.
Logic therefore can not be perfected in the form of language. It can only pertain to language perfectly.
It has proven to be a matter of locating the term that denotes the meaning of language itself. The case was so extraordinarily fortunate that this same term also refers to the basic primordial instinct-to-be, which now is understood inclusively as the inherent mechanism of self-valuing and the outwardly projected valuing in terms of this inherently perpetuating self-value.

Even now after clarity's dawn it is only a relation to language that the "path" or truth" is found - the most pertinent value in each instance of conceptualization. Language is much of man but it is not all - but it has guided man since instinct had become madness and madness eventually mind [the birth of mind - the most terrible path nature could possibly have taken] became reason, and reason habit and custom and a path out of hell.

And here we are at the exit of this - cave soiled by million gods - there is light beyond these walls - the paintings are our memory - primordial past. The times when "Our truth" was possible, the place where the writing was on the wall, and not up in the air in song and 'self-valuing geometry' and different from every perspective as a clous of summerbirds as heat collects in the air and the pregnant darkness sets in.

The question on my mind is: is the cloud a self-valuing? No - there is only one self-valuing int he cycle of charge and discharge - that is the principle of lightning itself. This keeps itself in motion by being the cataclysm of two forces it values in terms of it's self-valuing. But this principle re-incarnates from place to place in the same context and is 'embodied' by nature, and 'brought to life' with a consequence that cracks open "reality" for a moment and makes one aware of the central mechanism - the circuit of energy collection and discharge. This is "looped" in a lifeform, feeding back on itself. A combustion engine, even a wheel, certainly fire, is repreoduction a a part of the self-valuing circuit. All great inventions, from television to tea-making to proton colliders, all tap into the 'genius of the cyclus', which is "being".

a politicians word View previous topic View next topic Go down
Author Message
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: a politicians word Tue May 30, 2017 8:49 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
In 70-90 percent of cases a politician will speak as unnaturally to the full truth as possible before an unwitting audience - and an audience to a politician is almost by definition unwitting -, merely as a basis technique to give the opponent a maximum of trouble in setting things straight, before a counter statement can be made.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: a politicians word Wed May 31, 2017 12:59 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yeah, most politicians test the waters, finding out what the people want to hear, and then telling them what they want to hear. The truth doesn't matter here.
___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: This claim is false. (linguistic justification of value-ontology) Mon Oct 22, 2012 6:57 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
To become a whole cyclus - or better, for each day, or each moon, or year to become a complete cyclus of self-valuing - of arrival fulfillment commencement of 'greater things' which is always the impetus - the mirroring back of oneself as 'potentially greater' is essential to the expansion of matter into its various forms. Valuing in terms of self-valuing circuitry is 'the illusion whereby power is attained'. The power attained by it is expelled into force in all 'natural phenomena' - technology taps into that root, but brings forth different things because it has, instead of the air, sunlight, water and soil of the earth, the mind of man as its ground, and this mind is also the 'air' in which it grows, and from man the budding idea receives attention like a creature receives sunlight, and in the end it must be seen to be believed - except to this flower itself and that which brought it forth - a flower is the consequence - what kind cause can we see to a flower, beyond, at the end of, it's chain of evolution from the first atoms?

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5192
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: This claim is false. (linguistic justification of value-ontology) Sat Oct 22, 2016 2:33 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This is a common "problem" cited in analytic philosophy, the whole "this sentence is false" thing. I was writing about this in my topic about the idiocy of analytic philosophy; the Crete paradox, which isn't a paradox at all, of "All Cretans are liars" when the speaker is himself of Crete. What it shows is that humans operate linguistically in a kind of gray area ambiguity of not understanding what they are doing or why. Language affords this gray middle space of partial unknown, a kind of surrogate and externalized partial unconsciousness. This is a good feature of language that it allows for this, and the analytics think of it only as an error and problem because these analytic thinkers are idolizing computer robot consciousness, they are all trying very hard not to be human. So naturally "human vagueness" is a problem for them, even though the vagueness in this and many other cases is a productive and healthful one.

Real problem: you are nature, so how do you get a species of somewhat becoming-self-conscious apes to externalize their unconsciousness? If it is externalized directly it is simply non-conscious instinct as all animals already have, but if it becomes more conscious then it becomes not-unconscious.

Answer: nature decides to invent a higher form of language. Humans evolved the capacity not only for very dexterous tongues, mouths, lips and vocal chords but also the key ability in the brain matter to emulate the position of all those parts an instant before they arrive at that position. This allowed these human apes to really diversify and solidify a large number of very specific morphemes of speech-utterances, the vowel and consonant sounds that we call the alphabet. This introduces an intermediary between the instinctive unconscious excess-force and the utterance itself; now this utterance is able to distance itself (differentiate as you said Fixed) from the unconsciousness excess energy of psyche and body from which the utterances actually are always coming. Every vocal utterance is (and this is still true today of humans) a kind of pressure-release of some inner unconscious and instinctive excess. Speech deep down is the mouthpiece of the unconscious. But with this middle-space now mediating the end result formation of the utterances there naturally arises a backward pressure upon the unconscious which pressure begins to retroactively organize that unconscious from which an utterance came. Hence humans learned about what we call reason.

Examples like "this sentence is false" are categorical errors of falsely conflating one thing with another. "All Cretans are liars, I am a Cretan, therefore I am a liar, therefore when I said all Cretans are liars I must have been lying, therefore all Cretans are not liars, therefore whati said is true, therefore all Cretans are liars..." this sort of thing is idiotic. It's like a human mind degenerating into a little closed loop in a programming code. We don't work like that, neither does language, neither does Reason, neither does meaning, neither does the unconscious. These examples only illustrate that philosophers don't yet understand what language is and what it means when we use language to communicate something. Each of these "paradoxes" that false philosophers use to mystify college students in Phil 101 courses while stealing those kids money in the process, each such "paradox" breaks down completely upon closer examination.

Analytic philosophy is the enemy.

before the word View previous topic View next topic Go down
Author Message
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: before the word Sat Apr 08, 2017 10:08 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It is believed that the first signs and sounds of language originated as religious practices.

But this is natural, and unavoidable, because the power of speech introduces the very thing that we now know as God. With language, man distances himself from himself into a separate entity, which can be inherited by people he will never have physical ties to. And this is what God is; that possibility of being by not actually being, namely by, instead of in a particular way and place, being everywhere and in every way, always. At least that is how Spinoza finally approached God as a concept within that language-magic that had evolved finally to catch up with the system of hallucinations its imperfection (namely its non locality, which prevents it from Being, to speak Heidegger, prevents it from emerging and unfolding in time) had produced in time on the soft bed of the human brain.

Now to the post that inspired me to make this thread.

Thrasymachus wrote:
Quote :
Before the alphabet was invented, early writing systems had been based on pictographic symbols known as hieroglyphics, or on cuneiform wedges, produced by pressing a stylus into soft clay. Because these methods required a plethora of symbols to identify each and every word, writing was complex and limited to a small group of highly-trained scribes. Sometime during the second millennium B.C. (estimated between 1850 and 1700 B.C.), a group of Semitic-speaking people adapted a subset of Egyptian hieroglyphics to represent the sounds of their language. This Proto-Sinaitic script is often considered the first alphabetic writing system, where unique symbols stood for single consonants (vowels were omitted). Written from right to left and spread by Phoenician maritime merchants who occupied part of modern Lebanon, Syria and Israel, this consonantal alphabet—also known as an abjad—consisted of 22 symbols simple enough for ordinary traders to learn and draw, making its use much more accessible and widespread.

By the 8th century B.C., the Phoenician alphabet had spread to Greece, where it was refined and enhanced to record the Greek language.

What a great connection there, right to Ancient Greece.

http://beforethelight.forumotion.com/t9 ... ving#10563

Let us try to reach back into those times, and dig up the state of being that gave forth the word.
Or let's at least conceive of the difficulty of that quest, and see if in our trembling before it we catch scent of a path.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: before the word Sat Apr 08, 2017 12:27 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
It is believed that the first signs and sounds of language originated as religious practices.

I don't accept that. It would have been about survival.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sauwelios
bowstring
bowstring
avatar

Posts : 109
Join date : 2011-12-15
Age : 40
Location : Amsterdam

PostSubject: Re: before the word Sat Apr 08, 2017 8:57 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Let us try to reach back into those times, and dig up the state of being that gave forth the word.

These are two completely different things. The former ("those times") is when the alphabet was invented--and not even written language in general. The latter, the emergence of the word, happened long before that. And I tend to agree with Sisyphus about the latter.

Quote :
[T]he power of speech introduces the very thing that we now know as God. With language, man distances himself from himself into a separate entity, which can be inherited by people he will never have physical ties to. And this is what God is; that possibility of being by not actually being, namely by, instead of in a particular way and place, being everywhere and in every way, always. At least that is how Spinoza finally approached God as a concept within that language-magic that had evolved finally to catch up with the system of hallucinations its imperfection (namely its non locality, which prevents it from Being, to speak Heidegger, prevents it from emerging and unfolding in time) had produced in time on the soft bed of the human brain.

Yes. The Logos. Logic's self-identical "A". The cosmic Bull conceived as not having sprung from Chaos (X) and never to exit the world stage (-os). The Platonic eidos of the bull.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Before the Light - Tree of Life Academy - Thought of a Rune (film by Pezer)

Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper

Posts: 7887
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

### Re: The Philosophers

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Before the Light - Tree of Life Academy - Thought of a Rune (film by Pezer)

Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper

Posts: 7887
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

### gold is the case that they gave me...

Value violations are as common as things which aren't gold. But eventually all will be gold dust, it is the end product of natures alchemy. Pressure and time.

This will happen pretty much never, a vaguely asymptotic path of increasing slowness leads towards it, but if anything will be the case in the end it will be gold.

"...for Time and Midas are one and the same"

---fragments, olden, philosophic,

For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals

Jakob
ILP Legend

Posts: 6131
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

### Re: The Philosophers

quetz

avatar

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-12-29
Age : 54
Location : somwhere else

PostSubject: What’s wrong with value systems Thu Dec 29, 2011 10:30 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
What’s wrong with value systems

Seams like sometimes the notion of value systems/judgements are assumed to be worthless, one may say; ‘that’s just a value system’ and in doing so make it seam as if ones ethics are defunct.

As long as value systems are adaptive and non-dogmatic I don’t see why they cannot be a basis in and of themselves. Moral relativism is a good thing imho but that’s surely not moral nothingness.

Lets take an extreme example:

Fucking female children can cause death via underage pregnancy [their bodies are too small for birth but may be fertile], thus it is wrong to do that.

Surely a value which works in its own right ~ even if there are other areas more questionable e.g. AOC.

btw, this is not meant as a debate about that topic specifically.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: What’s wrong with value systems Sat Dec 31, 2011 6:52 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I suspect that they have a poor reputation due to being both ill defined and ill conceived.

"We ALL know that this... is bad. So lets all hate it together."

The proposition that everyone should love or hate any particular thing alludes to mass delusion of righteousness and blind oppression. That isn't to say that a system could not be devised void of such outcome, but I have not seen ye-ole typical onliner even come close.

The issue isn't coming up with a system but rather finding that 1 in a hundred which is actually valid and helpful.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
avatar

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 31
Location : The Moon

PostSubject: Re: What’s wrong with value systems Mon Jan 02, 2012 6:00 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I'm beginning to believe that if something exists, there is at least something good about it, otherwise why would it exist?

___________
"There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." -Socrates
"Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God." -Cicero
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily believing it." -Aristotle
"I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law." -Aristotle
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
avatar

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 31
Location : The Moon

PostSubject: Re: What’s wrong with value systems Mon Jan 02, 2012 6:02 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
If there is a door "God" put it there to be opened... but humans are just good at opening doors at the wrong time.

___________
"There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." -Socrates
"Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God." -Cicero
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily believing it." -Aristotle
"I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law." -Aristotle
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
quetz

avatar

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-12-29
Age : 54
Location : somwhere else

PostSubject: Re: What’s wrong with value systems Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:45 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Quote :
The proposition that everyone should love or hate any particular thing alludes to mass delusion of righteousness and blind oppression. That isn't to say that a system could not be devised void of such outcome, but I have not seen ye-ole typical onliner even come close.

The two commandments;

X is right unless Y, Z, determines otherwise. [x may equal e.g. killing, raping, or the moral in the op]
Only apply where accurate I.e. don’t assume anything [like the woman is usually right/wrong].

Quote :
I'm beginning to believe that if something exists, there is at least something good about it, otherwise why would it exist?

Because ‘things’ exist.

Or if there is a creator god, not all things are created. We change stuff, the world changes stuff. The original creation idea/manifestation becomes non-derivative.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
avatar

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 31
Location : The Moon

PostSubject: Re: What’s wrong with value systems Mon Jan 02, 2012 2:00 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
quetz wrote:
Quote :
The proposition that everyone should love or hate any particular thing alludes to mass delusion of righteousness and blind oppression. That isn't to say that a system could not be devised void of such outcome, but I have not seen ye-ole typical onliner even come close.

The two commandments;

X is right unless Y, Z, determines otherwise. [x may equal e.g. killing, raping, or the moral in the op]
Only apply where accurate I.e. don’t assume anything [like the woman is usually right/wrong].

Quote :
I'm beginning to believe that if something exists, there is at least something good about it, otherwise why would it exist?

Because ‘things’ exist.

Or if there is a creator god, not all things are created. We change stuff, the world changes stuff. The original creation idea/manifestation becomes non-derivative.
Creation aside... that's not where I am coming from... I'm thinking more along the lines that the universe cannot be upheld in its very nature without what things do exist in it... as such all things must serve some function that by being crucial to existence makes any negativity we perceive of it nonetheless 'fair'.

___________
"There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." -Socrates
"Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God." -Cicero
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily believing it." -Aristotle
"I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law." -Aristotle
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: What’s wrong with value systems Tue Jan 03, 2012 6:08 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
A value system is a philosophy or "tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

The problem isn't so much having such a tree, but rather the serpents that are found within the branches.

One must be designed such as to naturally inhibit serpent sustainability and in fact, repel such.

It isn't hard. What is hard is getting anyone to see it before they fall prey to the serpent that they already have.

It is a question of how to bring sight to the "blind of value" when their sight is blinded by the lust of presumed value. "We already know what is good and evil." Really?

We "know" that dogma is bad. And do we know that? Well, because experience has shown us. And by what means did you observe experience if not by the eyes of value already presumed? Preseeded value guides sight, causes both blindness and awareness. Once a value system is accepted, even if injected without awareness, the eyes of the mind and heart are already shuttered. The blinders are already formed and placed. The horse is already prepared to see only what his value-system blinders allow.

The trick is to ensure that the only value system accepted is one wherein each moment is monitored for the correct concerns and filters out only what was not of the correct concerns. But to fashion that, one must know what would constitute correct from incorrect, fundamentally what is good or bad to the life itself.

Life, any life, has specific needs that can be outlined, categorized, analyzed, and labeled. Fundamentally, they are all the same for every instance of life. But beyond the fundamental category, all else is relative to the individual situation, hence from that point upward, all secondary morality is relative or conditional. What is not conditional is the set of fundamental values that allow for the life to persist at all.

Thus to design a value system that does not mislead, one must first know of what a life is and thus know its most fundamental needs for sustainability and persistence. Within that knowledge, is the knowledge of how to discern the conditions of the secondary moralities. Regardless of what those secondary moralities turn out to be, the ability to discern the conditions must be maintained, else they cannot function in accord to their own conditional restraints.

Discerning conditions or situations is called "awareness", "sight", "enlightenment", and "clear mindedness".

And in that, you have what I always have accepted as the very first concern of Life, "Clarity".

To allow oneself to become unaware, is to force oneself into presumption, acting unaware; the very seed of sin from which ALL error/sin arises.

And there you have, merely for an example, the beginning of a value system that does not in itself confine the individual to dogmatic particulars, but rather merely states;

"Thou Shall NOT Intentionally Do What Brings Confusion to the Mind and Heart."
Or from the more positive perspective;
"Thou Shall Always Seek Optimum Clarity of Mind and Heart."

Serpents function by virtue of shadows, obfuscation, and confusion.
"The devil hides in the details."

View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
without-music
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 37
Join date : 2011-11-16

PostSubject: Re: What’s wrong with value systems Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:05 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Seems suspiciously Socratic, James.

___________
“…to act is to modify the shape of the world…”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: What’s wrong with value systems Sun Jan 08, 2012 12:14 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James S Saint wrote:

The trick is to ensure that the only value system accepted is one wherein each moment is monitored for the correct concerns and filters out only what was not of the correct concerns. But to fashion that, one must know what would constitute correct from incorrect, fundamentally what is good or bad to the life itself.

Life, any life, has specific needs that can be outlined, categorized, analyzed, and labeled.
But in exactly knowing these needs, could an amoeba have evolved to man. Evolution occurs through the combined factos fo consistent self-valuing and the random or unpredictable encounters with different types of factors and conditions, of which parts may be valued in terms of self-value and of which parts may not. Coincidence is as instrumental to evolution and therefore to life as as consistency in self-valuing, or as you call it, clarity. It is true that this consistency is logically prior to what the being is consistent towards, buit it does not hold the answers as to what it may be in itself. Not unless all the possible factors which are not itself are known by it, and this almost amounts to a logical contradiction, for knowledge also constitutes being. It seems that one would already have to be "God-like" to amount to the clarity your ethics demand.

Quote :
Fundamentally, they are all the same for every instance of life. But beyond the fundamental category, all else is relative to the individual situation, hence from that point upward, all secondary morality is relative or conditional. What is not conditional is the set of fundamental values that allow for the life to persist at all.
Which is the same as "holding itself as a value". Can this be specifically determined, explained, explicated, categorized? I think that it can be approached, but not intellectually so much as by various types of activities, such as "kung fu" as you have mentioned (which by the way means "good work", which is an apt summary of what we are looking for), but I can not see that it can be formulated "on paper", as metaphysics. I wonder how you have managed to done this and to what extent this accomplished amounts to an effectively attainable ethics.

Quote :
Thus to design a value system that does not mislead, one must first know of what a life is and thus know its most fundamental needs for sustainability and persistence. Within that knowledge, is the knowledge of how to discern the conditions of the secondary moralities. Regardless of what those secondary moralities turn out to be, the ability to discern the conditions must be maintained, else they cannot function in accord to their own conditional restraints.

Discerning conditions or situations is called "awareness", "sight", "enlightenment", and "clear mindedness".
I agree with this, but with the condition that this awareness must comprise an embracing of the unexpected. There is no gain without risk. Indeed, risks can only be taken responsibly if one is aware precisely of what one wishes to gain, and where this gain is possible in the encountered.

Quote :
And in that, you have what I always have accepted as the very first concern of Life, "Clarity".
Then it is of the greatest importance to further define this concept, Clarity.
Is it the capacity to extract value from uncertainty? If so, clarity is the same as active and consistent self-valuing.

Quote :
To allow oneself to become unaware, is to force oneself into presumption, acting unaware; the very seed of sin from which ALL error/sin arises.

And there you have, merely for an example, the beginning of a value system that does not in itself confine the individual to dogmatic particulars, but rather merely states;

"Thou Shall NOT Intentionally Do What Brings Confusion to the Mind and Heart."
Or: You shall not value that which can not be valued in terms of your own self-valuing.

Quote :
Or from the more positive perspective;
"Thou Shall Always Seek Optimum Clarity of Mind and Heart."
Or: You shall continuously seek to be aware of your own self-valuing.

But whereas I agree that, wherever LAW exists, this must be it, I do not think that always keeping to law is the most effective way to attain vitality, or vital experience. What is lacking her is the concept of suffering and overcoming suffering. Without allowing itself to fall prey to "sin" or uncertainty or unclarity for limited durations (limited so as for the threats not to get at the root of self-valuing) there is no possibility for the joy of extended power, overcoming, superseding ones expectations.

Compare the fate of Jesus, to stay in Biblical idiom: If he had not allowed Judas to betray him, he could not have been resurrected. By the ethics you seem to propose, Jesus would simply have avoided his capture, he would have have chosen to let the cup pass him by.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides

Last edited by Fixed Cross on Sun Jan 08, 2012 12:51 am; edited 2 times in total
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: What’s wrong with value systems Sun Jan 08, 2012 12:40 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:

But whereas I agree that, wherever LAW exists, this must be it, I do not think that always keeping to law is the most effective way to attain vitality, or vital experience. What is lacking her is the concept of suffering and overcoming suffering. Without allowing itself to fall prey to "sin" or uncertainty or unclarity for limited durations (limited so as for the threats not to get at the root of self-valuing) there is no possibility for the joy of extended power, overcoming, superseding ones expectations.
Consider the last part of the post linked here.

http://beforethelight.forumotion.com/t7 ... rime-mover

And let me extrapolate "life" to "being". It seems to me that being, following your ethics, would always amount in noble elements, and never into something as fragile as life.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
without-music
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 37
Join date : 2011-11-16

PostSubject: Re: What’s wrong with value systems Sun Jan 08, 2012 7:41 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
We ought always to keep in mind that an increase of power, as well as joy, results from over-coming. Indeed, the strong man seeks out obstacles to overcome: he affirms his suffering in order that he may grow from it. Without "sin", no increase in power.

___________
“…to act is to modify the shape of the world…”
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: What’s wrong with value systems Mon Jan 09, 2012 6:03 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
without-music wrote:
We ought always to keep in mind that an increase of power, as well as joy, results from over-coming. Indeed, the strong man seeks out obstacles to overcome: he affirms his suffering in order that he may grow from it. Without "sin", no increase in power.
The last part may be overstated, as the concept of "sin" as Jame uses it may refer not to the concept of uncertainty, but to not doing the utmost to increase ones structural integrity (self-harmony) in the face of uncertainty.

Of course, the the subject, its surrounding reality is always uncertain, and he can only be certain of how it applies to him, if he has in fact formulated (brought to consciousness) to himself entirely his own worth to himself, in all its technical particularities.

I doubt that this is possible, but "sin" may also simply mean "to do what is necessary to maintain ones structural integrity", in which case, it may include a certain kind of risk-taking, within the margin of the expendable.

"We ought always to keep in mind that an increase of power, as well as joy, results from over-coming. Indeed, the strong man seeks out obstacles to overcome: he affirms his suffering in order that he may grow from it. "

Yes, this is where James' ethics differ from Nietzsches. To Nietzsche, I would say and perhaps you would know where to find this, far greater risks and experiments are justified than what may amount to losses falling within the margin of the expendable. And I would say that nature itself takes such risks, continuously, as nature is not per definition "clear" in its intentions, it is just that the type of nature that is "clear" in this way has a greater average chance of survival. It does not however have a greater chance at greatness -- for this a balance is required, a risk taking that measures the possibility of attaining enormous gains against the likelihood of death, instead of the likelihood of survival against the possibility of death.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: What’s wrong with value systems Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:46 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
James S Saint wrote:

The trick is to ensure that the only value system accepted is one wherein each moment is monitored for the correct concerns and filters out only what was not of the correct concerns. But to fashion that, one must know what would constitute correct from incorrect, fundamentally what is good or bad to the life itself.

Life, any life, has specific needs that can be outlined, categorized, analyzed, and labeled.
But in exactly knowing these needs, could an amoeba have evolved to man. Evolution occurs through the combined factors of consistent self-valuing and the random or unpredictable encounters with different types of factors and conditions, of which parts may be valued in terms of self-value and of which parts may not. Coincidence is as instrumental to evolution and therefore to life as as consistency in self-valuing, or as you call it, clarity.
"in exactly knowing these needs, could an amoeba have evolved into homosapian?".
My first thought was "Emm.. knowing those needs, I'm not so sure that an amoeba would want to."
But presuming that homosapian is in fact a higher or better life form to be taken, the answer is "certainly".

It is true that natural evolution (no longer existent on planet Earth) depends on naturally occurring accidents. But then a natural amoeba wouldn't be able to know of its needs.

Look at it this way..

In the interest of self-preservation, a man chooses to not sleep with a particular prostitute because he is aware of his needs as well as suspecting that she is carrying a particular retro-virus designed to reduce his particular set of genomes to a state of defenselessness.

Now is that "natural evolution"? Or is it a life being aware of its needs, aware of its situation, and making a choice to maintain its integrity? But then it doesn't stop there..

That same man, being aware of his actual true needs, discovers a food substance that seems to have no more effect than to enhance his awareness of his situation, it perhaps improves his eye sight or hearing, or better, his clarity of mind and heart. Does he choose to eat only other things? Does he choose to only accidentally imbibe the nutrient that he has discovered? Or does he intentionally eat of the fruit that promises to enhance his survival and "will-to-power"?

Is that "natural evolution"?

The filtering process that a life imposes upon itself is the issue. It seeks to have no more accidents of consuming foods that are not of sustaining value nor continue to allow itself to be exposed to other life forms (viruses or germs) that would diminish its capacity to cope. It chooses not only to protect what it currently is, but also seeks to enhance what it currently is into something greater, stronger, more capable. It chooses to not allow evolution, natural or not, to destroy it. And it is only by that method that evolution can actually work. Evolution can't function in a positive direction unless it is resisted fore it is a process of that very same filtering of all life, "I, Evolution, choose to no longer allow lives on Earth to choose the wrong path to survival. I dispel the effort, the spirit, the life that chooses wrongly."

Do you choose to have Evolution make your choices for you and thus defeat its very positive nature? Or do you choose to defend against Evolution in every way you can manage so as to either lead to the eventual success of your replacement or grow to the point of not being able to be filtered out of the mix and noise and having no further need to individually grow any greater?

Man doesn't survive by the evolution process. He merely comes closer to the lack of its ability to filter him out by ensuring more and more that each individual is in itself less susceptible to damage. When he chooses to allow evolution to filter out the "unchosen" by his own design and value system, he either becomes what life always was, or he proposes to dictate what life is. In the first case, he becomes great and eternal. In the second case, Life will End Him. So for sake of his own value ontological system, he will only survive by conforming to what Life has always been.

Thus yes, by truly knowing what constitutes true life to the last detail, even an amoeba, would ascend to the form of an eternal life, be it homosapian or what is replacing homosapian.

View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: What’s wrong with value systems Mon Jan 09, 2012 3:13 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
If you place on a list the exact constituents of the essentials of your life, a value-ontology is easy to derive;

A) That which enhances the items listed is to be valued as "good". {helps}
B) That which destroys the items listed is to be valued as "bad". {hinders}

It might help to remember that often a challenge, although seemingly in the direction of a bad, can actually be a good, so the degree of disruption of the fundamental self-harmony is the actual issue, not a mere black-white or dichotometric assessment of "helps vs hinders".

The balance of the essential self-harmony guides the assessment.

It is that simple.

...well, until you get to the next stage.. growth. Cool
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: What’s wrong with value systems Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:07 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The problem is that can not see value directly in terms of "items".
For me the term holds a more fluid, more rudimentarily experiential - value.

What is the used meaning of the word value? A problematic question, related to that of the word power.
Power compares to valuing in terms of oneself as the feeling of power to self-valuing.

will-to-power is what the totality of these two things amounts to, and this is "the drive" "life", as a noun.
Will to power is a noun, where self-valuing is a verb as which this willing must be explained.

That which is good, i.e. of value, is what structurally (not momentarily) enhances the feeling of power.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills

PostSubject: Re: What’s wrong with value systems Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:13 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Abstract wrote:
If there is a door "God" put it there to be opened... but humans are just good at opening doors at the wrong time.
Sometimes WE are the ones who create the door so it's also within our OWN power to open it to enter or to leave...or to simply leave it open to see what possibilities occur.

___________
Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself.

Philosophy is the childhood of the intellect, and a culture that tries to skip it will never grow up."

"If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped."

Thomas Nagel
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills

PostSubject: Re: What’s wrong with value systems Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:28 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Abstract wrote:
I'm beginning to believe that if something exists, there is at least something good about it, otherwise why would it exist?
Perhaps it exists for you to ask that question.
Does it exist because it IS something good or is it the meaning which we place in something which ultimately gives rise to and creates its own value?
There is nothing under the sun, at least to me, which cannot at some point be seen as having a purpose. We draw that purpose out.
We are the ones who, depending on the amount of light which we allow into our experience and interpretation, will see either brilliant colors, black, white, or shades of gray.
There is absolutely nowhere that a lemon cannot be made into lemonade. Twisted Evil
There need be nothing wasted nor lost with nature.

For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals

Jakob
ILP Legend

Posts: 6131
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

### Re: The Philosophers

Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom

PostSubject: Group ethics & selective "unfitness" Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:33 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Part of the cost of socializing, domesticating ourselves and forming civilization/s has been a degree of loss of naturally-selective pressure toward maintaining (genetic, physiological or psychological) fitness. Civilization allows some individuals to survive (in evolutionary terms here 'survival' meaning being able to successfully reproduce) who otherwise, absent civilization, would not. This propagates a degree of unfitness across the gene pool.

This cost of a rise of unfitness is not only a necessary parallel to civilizing but is, I argue, an ethical imperative. How so? Because as humans, the "rational animal" (which is to say the animal that exercises a degree of self-control and self-direction over its own valuing capacity), we occupy a certain environmental niche unlike any other animal or living species. Our niche is one of radical environmental control and direct manipulation, and one of extremely high social dependency. Social dependency occurs in the form of language aquisition and use, establishing and maintaining a currency and other economic systems of value-extraction and exchange, prescriptive and regulative law, educating-rearing the young, cooperating in all sort of business ventures/structures aimed at producing what we humans need and want, and of course our inter-relationships, friendships and courtships and family that are a backbone of our means of surviving and thriving.

Humans are highly social beings. We are not born with sufficient instincts to survive quickly on our own without a very high degree of constant and effective assistance in the form of social intervention such as learning, guidance, protection, support and cooperation. Perhaps because of this our ethics tend to be largely rooted in our social milieu, in our inter-relational interactions and the possibilities for and implications of these. Ethical norms guide behaviors and expectations. We feel ethics most as a response to those circumstances and possibilities which most affect other humans - the closer we are to the other human the more affected we tend to be.

Many decry the unfitness allowed for and encouraged due to our collective self-domestication. Yet because this self-domestication is and has become necessary for us we must accept that a degree of unfitness is also necessary. (Forget for the moment that evolutionary fitness tends only to have meaning with respect to certain environmental circumstances and survival requirements, because we may also and indeed here are speaking of another sort of "fitness", the fitness of self with respect to individual health, self-consistency in body and mind, internal integration of the organism with respect not just to its environs but with respect to itself. The degree to which an organism represents its own self-possibility to a higher degree, what we might call "self-actualizing", becomes a standard against which the idea of fitness/health may be measured in a way that is not directly conditioned by only a reference to environmental conditions of survival at any given moment.)

So if group ethics aims to tackle the terrain of ethical valuation/s with respect to social/group organization of humans, it must first take into account that a so-called "peak level" of fitness/health, concretely defined or not, cannot be a pinnacle standard. We must accept, from the start, the necessity of abandoning any idea of raising up fitness or healthfulness to "highest possible" levels, when this highest possible reflects an (open or implicit) appeal to comparison to the relative fitness and health levels of animals "in the wild" and living embedded within a direct survival selectivity. We might say that this sort of health/fitness is pertinent only with respect to organism survivability. In this case, adaptions and gains to human survivability made by humans themselves mitigate this type of loss of "otherwise natural" health or fitness. Therefore we can see that the second type of fitness/health, loosely captured under the heading of "self-actualization" becomes most relevant to us humans. We must make a transition from the ideational conceptualizing of health/fitness with respect to so-called "natural" survival selectivity and breeding, and into a conceptualizing of fitness and health in a manner that takes into consideration 1) that a degree of loss of "absolute" or "natural" fitness is a necessary price we pay for our intellect/consciousness, which is to say for our being a social creature, 2) that survivability in the strict naturalistic sense is relative to environs, thus meaning that, for example, the fact that human eyesight is not as good as it used to be is not problematic so long as we continue to have available corrective techniques such as glasses and surgery, and 3) that survivability of the other "self-actualizing" type must be the way in which we conceptualize and evaluate our own survival potential with respect to how much (or how little) our social systems and constructs further human survivability.

1, 2 and 3 above lead to a somewhat startling conclusion, not so much a direct thesis as a subtle shift in paradigm: that it is not inherently problematic that humans might be called relatively unfit animals, and that there is another more useful and valuable way to look at the notions of fitness and survivability when applied to human individuals and species. This new paradigm should be what guides us going forward with seeking to understand and envision the present with respect to its latent possibilities for being better, more improved, more useful, sane, wise, rational. Because present potentiality is mapped upon the terrain of the future, this new paradigm shift (at first perhaps seemingly small, but which leads to growing increasingly powerful and drastic changes in what it implies and necessitates) itself operates based on a perspective situated astride the present and the future, bridging both. This is a sort of "rainbow" or bridge connecting one point to another, along which more practical real-world applications of thought begin to appear and develop.

The application of theory upon reality requires mechanisms of linkage such as these bridges spanning present and future. One such mechanism is the notion of fitness/health, and it has been used in this capacity for a long time. What must now be done is to first reform this mechanism along the lines outlined above, which means adopting a more nuanced, accurate and potent form of the mechanism, and then second to affirm it as it is situated firmly "between" or rather among/within conditions of present actuality and future potentiality (mediated thus in part through present possibility). I.e. first bringing about the sufficient construction of the mechanism, and second bringing it into its contextual embeddedness, actualizing it, applying it.

What emerges from this, when the movement is complete, is a new perspective on ethics, particularly on group ethics. This new perspective tends to largely or completely nullify previous conceptions of group ethical principles and truths, being not only a better and more refined formulation of these but also providing a new platform upon which to (re)evaluate and incorporate the older ethics themselves. The mechanism/s of the past become part of a newer model, building to a thought both higher and wider, growing this ethical thought and possibility taller, more secure, more useful.

___________
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom

PostSubject: Re: Group ethics & selective "unfitness" Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:05 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
A little expansion on the above, "We feel ethics most as a response to those circumstances and possibilities which most affect other humans - the closer we are to the other human the more affected we tend to be".

This shows how we are "wired" in our valuing capacity, there are certain people we value more than others. All affective states into which we enter with others are a function of this relative status of value, of to what degree the other imposes him or herself upon our own valuing-capacity and -potential.

Part of the utility of attaining a paradigm shift and evolution with regard to our understanding of group ethics is that we free ourselves into a possibility for more direct influence over our own subjective values-judgments and constraints. The fact that we value those other humans more whom we have previous positive experiences with does not escape our attention, and this fact is brought together with the possibilities for re-orienting our valuing capacity with respect to how and why we value as we do based on this new understanding of group ethical principles. The idea of group ethics is so simple and obvious because it, like valuing, is a concept implied in nearly everything we do - implied but not understood, and rarely even seen. What is required to break this hold of ignorance-assumption is to state the obvious, plainly and simply, and let it be in such a way that it does not immediately get re-appropriated back into the status quo of our habitual conceptual formation and maintenance.

So it is imporant we break with the doctrine the of survival of the fittest as a standard to which our group ethical principles and interests must adhere or at least acknowledge - we render this issue of survivability along new lines, as demonstrated in the first post above. This breaks the ideas of survivability and fitness free from undo and harmful constraints and lets then expand and breath in the new fresh air of our human reality. Now survival, fitness, value, group ethics, these all mean something new - they are not entirely changed, but they are given over into a new potentiality and truthfulness. These begin to organize around common themes as they are allowed freedom of movement within the ideational sphere, building momentum, outlining potencies and necessities. We begin finally to see how literally the problems associated with the old ways of thinking plague even the philosophers, even the free thinkers, and how these problems directly prevent humanity from evolving, from transcending its present-day form/s into next-stage rational continuations. The present strives to break free into its future, to conceive itself thus as its own future... yet this valuing-striving is naturally blocked or redirected, limited by, among other things, our own inability to think differently, perceive differently, imagine differently.

The conditions of our survival and evolution are now our own, and as such require of us a great burden and responsibility. Ethics elevated in/to and for the group-as-individual, the individual-as-group and the breaking-down of absolute limitations and categories therein, these new mediated broken-down and intertwined categorizations now conditioned to and by a new subjective potency, as value ontology is beginning to outline.

___________
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: Group ethics & selective "unfitness" Fri Feb 03, 2012 8:01 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
When evolution is the aim, suicide is the fate.

"We" do not evolve. "We" get replaced by others who avoided the dangers that we did not handle. They might or might not have been able to handle them any better. They simply didn't have to at that time for whatever reason. The next generation is seldom the stronger or more intelligent, merely the smaller and more numerous.

We can evolve the homosapian (and are) into something stronger than we are.
Why would any sane sentient life form do that?
How is it a higher priority to ensure that a life form that doesn't yet exist is stronger than we?
I would think making us as strong as possible would be not only more sane, but also ensures that evolution can actually work. If a life form isn't trying with all it has to survive, to NOT evolve, evolution doesn't work at all except to eliminate that type of life form all together. The aim to evolve is a con game that eliminates the mark.

Quote :
We must make a transition from the ideational conceptualizing of health/fitness with respect to so-called "natural" survival selectivity and breeding, and into a conceptualizing of fitness and health in a manner that takes into consideration;
1) that a degree of loss of "absolute" or "natural" fitness is a necessary price we pay for our intellect/consciousness, which is to say for our being a social creature, [agreed, but deciding how much from whom is a extremely serious issue]

2) that survivability in the strict naturalistic sense is relative to environs, thus meaning that, for example, the fact that human eyesight is not as good as it used to be is not problematic so long as we continue to have available corrective techniques such as glasses and surgery, and [agreed and stipulated as above]

3) that survivability of the other "self-actualizing" type must be the way in which we conceptualize and evaluate our own survival potential with respect to how much (or how little) our social systems and constructs further human survivability. ["homosapian survival" isn't the issue due to the reasoning stated above]

When the survival of the species becomes the priority, the species perishes.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Aleatory
bowstring
bowstring
avatar

Posts : 50
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: Group ethics & selective "unfitness" Sun Feb 05, 2012 6:12 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I think it’s more of a lobster than that; this matter of ethics is but a tributary of the greater issue composed of proliferating double articulations, involutions and recursions. Because I feel we can only identify or locate the broader issue by marking the point of convergence indicated by the orbital trajectories of its symptomatic issues, we can for convenience’s sake dub this issue the ethical black hole. Where the black hole of physics is supposedly born from a collapsing star, I theorize our ethical black hole is born from (though now only an incipient form) the collapse of the natural order; an attempted hiatus from aeons of evolutionary engineering, a moratorium from the harsher side-effects of natural selection (or more like double interest but no payments for a century). I ask you: Is preserving life inherently good? I’ll neglect the more ambiguous issue of genetic decadence and ask of our burgeoning, soon to be (if not already) turgid, population: what of them? Death, War, Famine and Pestilence: man has systematically domesticated not himself but the four horsemen. This is indeed a black hole that I will need hours to write something I’ll be satisfied with, but let us run through this ethical singularity with a fine-toothed comb and see where we arrive…if you feel so inclined.

___________
Suis-je un homme, ou un omelette?
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom

PostSubject: Re: Group ethics & selective "unfitness" Thu Feb 09, 2012 5:30 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James S Saint wrote:
When evolution is the aim, suicide is the fate.

"We" do not evolve. "We" get replaced by others who avoided the dangers that we did not handle. They might or might not have been able to handle them any better. They simply didn't have to at that time for whatever reason. The next generation is seldom the stronger or more intelligent, merely the smaller and more numerous.

We can evolve the homosapian (and are) into something stronger than we are.
Why would any sane sentient life form do that?
How is it a higher priority to ensure that a life form that doesn't yet exist is stronger than we?
I would think making us as strong as possible would be not only more sane, but also ensures that evolution can actually work. If a life form isn't trying with all it has to survive, to NOT evolve, evolution doesn't work at all except to eliminate that type of life form all together. The aim to evolve is a con game that eliminates the mark.

Quote :
We must make a transition from the ideational conceptualizing of health/fitness with respect to so-called "natural" survival selectivity and breeding, and into a conceptualizing of fitness and health in a manner that takes into consideration;
1) that a degree of loss of "absolute" or "natural" fitness is a necessary price we pay for our intellect/consciousness, which is to say for our being a social creature, [agreed, but deciding how much from whom is a extremely serious issue]

2) that survivability in the strict naturalistic sense is relative to environs, thus meaning that, for example, the fact that human eyesight is not as good as it used to be is not problematic so long as we continue to have available corrective techniques such as glasses and surgery, and [agreed and stipulated as above]

3) that survivability of the other "self-actualizing" type must be the way in which we conceptualize and evaluate our own survival potential with respect to how much (or how little) our social systems and constructs further human survivability. ["homosapian survival" isn't the issue due to the reasoning stated above]

When the survival of the species becomes the priority, the species perishes.

In point of fact, "we" as individuals do evolve, but not in the traditional (genetic) sense. In Darwin's evolution individuals, of any species, do not technically evolve, as this evolution as natural selectivity works across generations. But for humans, we take our own evolution, as individuals, directly into our hands, via self-directed learning, our sufficiency of (our) consciousness of (our) consciousness. This is strictly speaking growth, not evolution, yet because this does involve a degree of adaptive-selection of methods, tools, solutions in the ideational and physical sphere -- which is to say because there are generations of/for ideas in the mind, each breeding that which passes after it, each passing through a process of selectivity with respect to the 'environments' to which ideation/affection are conditioned within the subject -- and because we excercise a (more or less) direct control over this process via our envisioning of it as possibility, before it is actualized, this othewise linear-natural growth-as-learning, what any animal is able to do (apply remembered patterns to present scenarios) attains, in us humans, a rudimentary evolutionary form.

The human of course also evolves as a collective species, like any other life species, but not in entirely the same manner as these others. Humans are no longer very much subject to strict natural genetic selection, since as a consequence of civilizing most humans are survivable (with respect to their possibility for successful reproduction). Therefore the human gene pool is no longer a product of active forces maintaining it toward genetic fitness. Instead, as mentioned above, we evolve in terms of our minds, in the realm of ideas, affect, imagination, reason, perception, and this new mental-affective evolutionary realm has all but replaced traditional genetic evolution (at least in terms of natural selection pressures). Of course this replacement is only partial at best, but grows in influence in tandem with the degree of civilization we humans live in, which is to say to the degree that a group has attained distance from the brutal conditions of otherwise natural survivalism and selective pressure. This as more and more humans live in this state of guaranteed minimal shelter, food and water and medical care, we escape more into a new artificial, non-Darwinian environment of new selective pressures.

Parallel to this is the need for this human animal to take into into its own hands this new evolutionary potential. The old genetic evolution works naturally, emergently, non-teleologically (the ends emerge after-the-fact, secondarily-causally; telos is absent). Human evolution works this way as well, but to a greater degree this is increasingly being supplanted by the possibility for a self-directed (and socially-directed) evolution via potentiality-as-imagining of future conditions, and direct environmental manipulation with the ability to conceptualize how this manipulating affects our own selves at the individual and species levels. This is only the condition of this new evolution, not its mechanism: this condition, the union of imagination and memory in the human being (probably largely facilitated-mediated by language), is only what makes possible the new mechanism, this mechanism being what directly impacts and shapes, leads to human environments which then end up reciprocally conditioning the individual and his or her ultimate survival, and the collective group which emerges from the behaviors of the sum of individuals. Ideas shape the world. The world shapes us. Those human worlds which tend over time to better shape conditions toward survival for the greatest number, in the most successful manner (defined in all sort of ways, of course) tend more to also therefore reproduce their own collective survivability.

We have no choice in this, it is a necessity. Unlike other animals, humans must make survival of the species a priority, because it is us who are directly responsibly for this evolution, us as creators of ideas, and of the created things (tools, machines, languages, etc) which come from ideas. We have taken a direct role in the shaping of our environment, first in a rudimentary form through tools and such, now through highly complex and direct forms of near-total control, through economics, politics, science and technology, and philosophy. Mankind directly engineers his environments, which means he directly engineers the very conditions of his own survivability or unsurvivability. We do this collectively, each individual functioning as a part of these ongoing (and competing!) social-systems. We do not have the luxury of leaving our survivability to the unconscious-automatic realm where it resides for other species, taken care of emergently across many generations through basic natural selection pressures. We will survive or perish, as humans, as we are, based on the degree to which we are able or unable to harness directly evolutionary forces and powers. We must now begin increasingly to conceive of our activities, goals, possibilities, ideals with respect to survivability, not just our own but in general, as a group, as a species, and as a future. We now have (conscious) control over the selective mechanism conditioning our ultimate evolution.

We might say that meme-selection has supplanted gene-selection as a central mechanism for directing human evolution. It is our memes, our ideas and qualities-forms of consciousness/es which directly cause and condition the myriad ways in which we humans impact and manipulate our environment(al possibilities and outcomes), and it is these possibilities and outcomes which we are (as individuals and as an entire species) subsequently conditioned by.

To evolve, other life does not need to value itself in terms of its own survival, it need only naively value, value without respect to its own survivability (as a group) and nature takes care of the rest. For humans this is no longer the case. We must value ourselves consciously, directly, actively and in terms of our own survival as a group because we are now the only evolutionary mechanism that can guarantee our survival. The responsibility is ours, whether we want it or not, whether we are ready for it or not.

___________
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom

PostSubject: Re: Group ethics & selective "unfitness" Thu Feb 09, 2012 5:49 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Aleatory wrote:
I think it’s more of a lobster than that; this matter of ethics is but a tributary of the greater issue composed of proliferating double articulations, involutions and recursions. Because I feel we can only identify or locate the broader issue by marking the point of convergence indicated by the orbital trajectories of its symptomatic issues, we can for convenience’s sake dub this issue the ethical black hole. Where the black hole of physics is supposedly born from a collapsing star, I theorize our ethical black hole is born from (though now only an incipient form) the collapse of the natural order; an attempted hiatus from aeons of evolutionary engineering, a moratorium from the harsher side-effects of natural selection (or more like double interest but no payments for a century). I ask you: Is preserving life inherently good? I’ll neglect the more ambiguous issue of genetic decadence and ask of our burgeoning, soon to be (if not already) turgid, population: what of them? Death, War, Famine and Pestilence: man has systematically domesticated not himself but the four horsemen. This is indeed a black hole that I will need hours to write something I’ll be satisfied with, but let us run through this ethical singularity with a fine-toothed comb and see where we arrive…if you feel so inclined.

Singularity or not, this ethical black hole, as you call it, is entirely necessary and natural. What is missing in the human equation, now, is higher degrees of conscious control and will toward "ethics", ethics being (as it is being used here in this response of yours; it is also this, but much more, in my own usage here) a stand-in term designating regulative and prescriptive methods and perspectives, conditioning-delimiting of human affects and ideas and the potentialities therein. Man has come to a 'point of crisis' with his "deviation from the natural", what you mention as evolutionary engineering, the moratorium from side-effects of natural selection. This crisis is a result of the slow emergence of this new human power, the power over evolution, the power to circumvent and over-ride Darwinian selection. It has grown slowly, largely unconsciously in man for thousands of years. Now we reach a crisis point because this power is becoming so great, and so global-totalizing, that it must either be controlled (subjugated to a sane, rational will, guiding principle/s) or turn toward self-destruction and chaos. This sort of chaos has largely been diffused and siphoned in the past through inter-cultural and inter-national warfares, physical and then later in the realms of economics, politics, ideas and achievment. But today, in our global small world, the outlet for such chaotic overflow is increasingly shrinking. The forces are multiplying and becoming magified.

Is preserving life inherently good? Why would it not be? What sort of life, and why? And how? Humanity will either conceive the idea of itself in such a way that it is able to also conceive its own survival-good, in a sane-rational manner, which will involve among other things the adoption of a sort of Group Ethics of which I allude to here, or... humanity will fail in this, and probably either perish or reduce back into a largely Darwinian sort of natural selective evolutionary principle. Or probably most likely, mankind will lose its high level of scientific-technological affluence and power and regress back to a largely pre-industrual state, to begin the process of gradual build-up all over again. This current high level of escape from natural selection which mankind has earned for itself has a terribly high cost and price: the cost is massive intake and organized use of resources, along with the cost of excessive chaotic over-flow and entropy, and the price is even higher: self-responsibility, maturity. Evolution of conscience. It is most with respect to this latter that the ultimate survivability of the human species will be determined. Humanity must answer the question of whether or not its own life is inherently good and worth preserving.

___________
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: Group ethics & selective "unfitness" Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:11 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
What is missing in the human equation, now, is higher degrees of conscious control and will toward "ethics", ethics being (as it is being used here in this response of yours; it is also this, but much more, in my own usage here) a stand-in term designating regulative and prescriptive methods and perspectives, conditioning-delimiting of human affects and ideas and the potentialities therein.

There is a force at the heart of all ethos- at the heart of the "valuing animal," which is what man is after all, rather than the "rational animal." ... A force which is preventing the "evolution of conscience" which you are pointing toward. Something I wrote:

In nature, the animal man’s instincts were coordinated in such a way that the expression of one instinct was not merely the expression of its own force, but that of the entire organism, that of the consciousness. Consciousness is only this unified force, this reflexivity. To call forth the greatest store of consciousness with the slightest amount of sensory excitation, that was the “goal” of nature. Man’s reason eventually separated the instincts from one another, it introduced discontiguous states of mental affect into a consciousness born out of the need to grasp through continguous impressions relations of temporal and spatial nature. Such discontiguous states of affect we now recognize as “ideas,” words, abstractions. To reason, to arrange aesthetically the same kinds of relationships arranged metonymically by the early consciousness, relationships between events, things, and feelings, that is to say, to arrange them in accordance with these abstractions and the relationships suggested by an appeal to their standard (such as causality) man would have been provided with an advantage over the other beasts, the advantage of anticipation, imagination, and strategy.

His reason, in short, had the psychological consequence of a disruption in the metonymic structure of consciousness so that man began to experience the force of the instincts individually. The sensation of distance and gulf within himself inspired him with the thought of the soul, the thought of a self. The self represents a kind of abeyance of consciousness, the repose of a continuously discharging instinctual organism, a fragmentation of this activity in accordance with which the instincts could be re-coordinated, through “thought.” But this “thinking” could not realize a harmonious order of the instincts like that which nature took thousands of years to produce. The first thoughts to lend their coloring to the humans soul were accordingly very painful, and constituted a kind of negative expression of the organism, the force not of an organization but of a disorganization, from which man still suffers, for this disorganizing power of thought was doubtlessly very seductive, the force it was capable of generating far surpassed that of the organized instincts and the individuated instincts, and was in its power very compelling to early man, offering to him an impetus toward action and life that could not be denied, even if the life and the acts it led him to were dangerous, painful, tragic. It took root in the deepest parts of his consciousness. It is his conscience. The conscience juxtaposes instincts and passions of contrary dispositions, as the sexual drive and the metaphysical need are counter-poised to produce the inspiration of the Christian saint, and grasps this disorganizing power, this inspiration, in an abstraction, in a discontiguous state of consciousness. The disorganizing power of thought is the most seductive and powerful impetus to life that has been produced by nature, and for this reason it persists in man. This is only because thought has still been unable to realize a harmony of the instincts equal in power to that of his original nature.

The conscience, then, is the perishing and diseased nature which still lives within a consciousness attempting to actively realize an organization of its constituent drives, attempting to attain through discontiguous abstractions a new organization of the forces engendered by these drives as well as by the senses which disturb and incite it to life. In short, it is the voice of a disintegrated nature, a compendium of all bestial life, it is the voice of a being trying to become human.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Group ethics & selective "unfitness" Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:56 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Parodites wrote:

His reason, in short, had the psychological consequence of a disruption in the metonymic structure of consciousness so that man began to experience the force of the instincts individually. The sensation of distance and gulf within himself inspired him with the thought of the soul, the thought of a self.
Very interesting. The notion of the self then as resulting from the absence of the effective, continuous integrity of - well, the self. That make sense. Of course here we get the concept of the "higher self" which is then indeed a good term, as it is something to be attained by conscious and creative effort, not given by animalistic nature.

"The ego" falls in a strange void here -- what would it be? The remainder of the integrity of the animal, which can only be a perversion, as, as a passive given, it must be incomplete, un-integer. Mans struggle between ethics and survival/power -- between power in the world and a feeling of power over oneself is hereby understood quite well.

What is a healthy ego? Surely the ego of someone who is not blessed with a lot of consciousness. This would explain why it is so attractive for humans to be dominated, to be told what to do -- not to think. Why humans are seeking dogma -- "God" or "Der Führer" in whichever form, as long as He is not experienced as part of the sel, as long as his rules are simply obeyed as they are conveniently written down or dictated, allows for the instincts to remain more or less animal, for the ego to be a simple expression of instinct.

Quote :
The self represents a kind of abeyance of consciousness, the repose of a continuously discharging instinctual organism, a fragmentation of this activity in accordance with which the instincts could be re-coordinated, through “thought.” But this “thinking” could not realize a harmonious order of the instincts like that which nature took thousands of years to produce.
Naturally it could not as long as thinking represented simply that very aberration of the instincts, their estranging from each other. But thought struggled to become its own antithesis -- perhaps this is all thought is! But then, by understanding thought, we have arrived at the end of thought.

Quote :
The first thoughts to lend their coloring to the humans soul were accordingly very painful, and constituted a kind of negative expression of the organism, the force not of an organization but of a disorganization, from which man still suffers, for this disorganizing power of thought was doubtlessly very seductive, the force it was capable of generating far surpassed that of the organized instincts and the individuated instincts, and was in its power very compelling to early man, offering to him an impetus toward action and life that could not be denied, even if the life and the acts it led him to were dangerous, painful, tragic. It took root in the deepest parts of his consciousness. It is his conscience. The conscience juxtaposes instincts and passions of contrary dispositions, as the sexual drive and the metaphysical need are counter-poised to produce the inspiration of the Christian saint, and grasps this disorganizing power, this inspiration, in an abstraction, in a discontiguous state of consciousness.
Right. Christianity then as the honesty of the aberration toward itself as such -- how natural then that humanity is here seen as inherently sinful! How well we can now understand the profound inspirations of the "Fall" and the hallucinogenic imagery surrounding it -- amazing how human history is coming together now.

Quote :
The disorganizing power of thought is the most seductive and powerful impetus to life that has been produced by nature, and for this reason it persists in man. This is only because thought has still been unable to realize a harmony of the instincts equal in power to that of his original nature.
Until finally, perspectivism arose, and thought overcame its honesty toward itself, that is to say, learned to dismiss itself, broke out of its short-circuiting. With thinkers like Nietzsche, thought shifted its focus from its own nature to the nature of the animal that was still present in its most integrated, immoral and triumphant acts, as well as its least conscious dwellings. And now perspectivism has led to value ontology, which gives us a rational conception of the animal as unity that may be applied to man as it can be to animal. With value ontology, the self-estranging rational process has re-joined the road of unified experience, and enabled at least the conception of the possibility of a new harmony of the instincts, under a 'command' that resembles 'nature' -- nature becomes conscious, consciousness become natural.

Quote :
The conscience, then, is the perishing and diseased nature which still lives within a consciousness attempting to actively realize an organization of its constituent drives, attempting to attain through discontiguous abstractions a new organization of the forces engendered by these drives as well as by the senses which disturb and incite it to life. In short, it is the voice of a disintegrated nature, a compendium of all bestial life, it is the voice of a being trying to become human.
The final battle, the theatre has been erected -- yes, a beginning of an understanding of what humanity would mean to itself without the need for this conscience, has been created. But consciousness is still alive and well because it has come to represent the best of our values... That which in the end must be discarded as the hindrance to direct valuing, at this point encompasses our values! The struggle will mean the disentanglement of values from conscience, the disintegrating of values based in notional morality and at the same time the re-integrating of values into a living ethics, a 'higher self'... not only of the individual, but of the self-image of mankind.

If Man is indeed the "rational animal" and we have arrived at the end of the line of this rationality, then it seems to me that we have in fact arrived at the power to manifest the object of Nietzsches longing - the Übermensch.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: Group ethics & selective "unfitness" Mon Feb 13, 2012 9:56 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
And now perspectivism has led to value ontology, which gives us a rational conception of the animal as unity that may be applied to man as it can be to animal. With value ontology, the self-estranging rational process has re-joined the road of unified experience, and enabled at least the conception of the possibility of a new harmony of the instincts, under a 'command' that resembles 'nature' -- nature becomes conscious, consciousness become natural.
Due mostly to the inability within me to be certain of what is being meant by much of what is being said in this thread, I can't agree to much of it. But that one quoted bit is probably the most significant thing revealing the value of "value-ontology".
(from my perspective Smile )

For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals

Jakob
ILP Legend

Posts: 6131
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

### Re: The Philosophers

James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Lust to Dominate, Evolution, and Mutations Sat Feb 04, 2012 10:59 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
So you think mutation is the key to evolution. Consider why it is that you have been convinced of that;

American use of DU is "A crime against humanity which may, in the eyes of historians, rank with the worst atrocities of all time." US Iraq military vets "are on DU death row, waiting to die."

James Denver wrote:

'Depleted' uranium is in many ways a misnomer. For 'depleted' sounds weak. The only weak thing about depleted uranium is its price. It is dirt cheap, toxic, waste from nuclear power plants and bomb production. However, uranium is one of earth's heaviest elements and DU packs a Tyson's punch, smashing through tanks, buildings and bunkers with equal ease, spontaneously catching fire as it does so, and burning people alive. 'Crispy critters' is what US servicemen call those unfortunate enough to be close. And, when John Pilger encountered children killed at a greater distance he wrote: "The children's skin had folded back, like parchment, revealing veins and burnt flesh that seeped blood, while the eyes, intact, stared straight ahead. I vomited." (Daily Mirror)

The millions of radioactive uranium oxide particles released when it burns can kill just as surely, but far more terribly. They can even be so tiny they pass through a gas mask, making protection against them impossible. Yet, small is not beautiful. For these invisible killers indiscriminately attack men, women, children and even babies in the womb-and do the gravest harm of all to children and unborn babies.

A Terrible Legacy

Doctors in Iraq have estimated that birth defects have increased by 2-6 times, and 3-12 times as many children have developed cancer and leukaemia since 1991. Moreover, a report published in The Lancet in 1998 said that as many as 500 children a day are dying from these sequels to war and sanctions and that the death rate for Iraqi children under 5 years of age increased from 23 per 1000 in 1989 to 166 per thousand in 1993. Overall, cases of lymphoblastic leukemia more than quadrupled with other cancers also increasing 'at an alarming rate'. In men, lung, bladder, bronchus, skin, and stomach cancers showed the highest increase. In women, the highest increases were in breast and bladder cancer, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.1

On hearing that DU had been used in the Gulf in 1991, the UK Atomic Energy Authority sent the Ministry of Defense a special report on the potential damage to health and the environment. It said that it could cause half a million additional cancer deaths in Iraq over 10 years. In that war the authorities only admitted to using 320 tons of DU-although the Dutch charity LAKA estimates the true figure is closer to 800 tons. Many times that may have been spread across Iraq by this year's war. The devastating damage all this DU will do to the health and fertility of the people of Iraq now, and for generations to come, is beyond imagining.

The radioactivity persists for over 4,500,000,000 years killing millions of every age for centuries to come. This is a crime against humanity which may rank with the worst atrocities of all time.

We must also count the numberless thousands of miscarried babies. Nobody knows how many Iraqis have died in the womb since DU contaminated their world. But it is suggested that troops who were only exposed to DU for the brief period of the war were still excreting uranium in their semen 8 years later and some had 100 times the so-called 'safe limit' of uranium in their urine. The lack of government interest in the plight of veterans of the 1991 war is reflected in a lack of academic research on the impact of DU but informal research has found a high incidence of birth defects in their children and that the wives of men who served in Iraq have three times more miscarriages than the wives of servicemen who did not go there.

Since DU darkened the land Iraq has seen birth defects which would break a heart of stone: babies with terribly foreshortened limbs, with their intestines outside their bodies, with huge bulging tumors where their eyes should be, or with a single eye-like Cyclops, or without eyes, or without limbs, and even without heads. Significantly, some of the defects are almost unknown outside textbooks showing the babies born near A-bomb test sites in the Pacific.

Doctors report that many women no longer say 'Is it a girl or a boy?' but simply, 'Is it normal, doctor?' Moreover this terrible legacy will not end. The genes of their parents may have been damaged for ever, and the damaging DU dust is ever-present...

..Then, when a growing number became seriously ill, and should have been sent to top experts in radiation damage and neurotoxins, many were sent to a psychiatrist...

..Since DU darkened the land Iraq has seen birth defects which would break a heart of stone: babies with terribly foreshortened limbs, with their intestines outside their bodies, with huge bulging tumors where their eyes should be, or with a single eye-like Cyclops, or without eyes, or without limbs, and even without heads. Significantly, some of the defects are almost unknown outside textbooks showing the babies born near A-bomb test sites in the Pacific...

..Yet, far from banning DU, America and Britain stepped up their denials of the harm from this radioactive dust as more and more troops from the first Gulf war and from action and peacekeeping in the Balkans and Afghanistan have become seriously ill. This is no coincidence. In 1997, while citing experiments, by others, in which 84 percent of dogs exposed to inhaled uranium died of cancer of the lungs, Dr. Asaf Durakovic, then Professor of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine at Georgetown University in Washington was quoted as saying, 'The [US government's] Veterans Administration asked me to lie about the risks of incorporating depleted uranium in the human body.' He concluded, 'uranium does cause cancer, uranium does cause mutation, and uranium does kill. If we continue with the irresponsible contamination of the biosphere, and denial of the fact that human life is endangered by the deadly isotope uranium, then we are doing disservice to ourselves, disservice to the truth, disservice to God and to all generations who follow.' Not what the authorities wanted to hear and his research was suddenly blocked...
....Entire article Rence.com

Israel's war with their neighbors via the USA has all but ended homosapian. The same people are also designing the DNA of every source of food, and designing "proper thought and life", all for the same purpose. You have been consuming it most of your life and it is just beginning to have its irreversible effects.

All is lost by virtue of victory at all cost.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Lust to Dominate, Evolution, and Mutations Sat Feb 04, 2012 12:43 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The subject is terrifying, the inferences made from it horrifying.
Can you combine this with the notion of health and momentum?

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: Lust to Dominate, Evolution, and Mutations Sun Feb 05, 2012 6:54 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
The subject is terrifying, the inferences made from it horrifying.
Can you combine this with the notion of health and momentum?
Every process, especially one of life, has an adversary to that process, an agent of entropy. The victor at every point of contention is determined by Momentum.

That DU problem is perhaps 10-20 percent of the current adversary to the life process of homosapian and cleverly initiated by homosapian. It is a tsunami more vast and momentous than his little mind can comprehend or believe. It is not a matter of something catastrophic that might happen one day. It is already on its way. It is kept under the sea, out of sight where it can build even greater momentum before even the notion to stop it can be inspired. Yet there is no stopping it. The components that comprise the danger cannot be removed, are already dispersed, and already spawning their effect and next unstoppable consequence. Homosapian's hopes of victory, normality, and control are but fantasies, children playing on the beach, marking territories with lines in the sand, shouting noises into the wind, chanting the sacred tunes of mystical manipulations.

Momentum is an issue of volume of mass and velocity of that mass. The adversary has a mass volume too great to quantify, but its velocity almost too slow to perceive. But every contest is one of strategic momentum, the right forces being applied to exactly the right points until the adversary is no longer a threat.

The only way to survive such an extreme contest of momentum is with an extreme counter measure. No matter how great a momentum, it can never win a contest with the immutable. No matter how quickly that momentum rushes onward, it can never outrun what has already transpired.

The only hope of any life in the current, real, and present danger, is to become the immutable before the contest of momentum and mutation begins. I can spell out the principles of the immutable stone (more than the Ark), but it takes more than one person to manifest it. I am merely one distant voice in the noisy wind at the beach. None survive until two are immutable. Upon three, the contest is won. The noise, the fire, the corruption, the divisiveness, and all that comprise the threat are consumed into the Momentous Harmony/Health of Life victorious, ending the incredibly long struggle against itself.

View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Lust to Dominate, Evolution, and Mutations Sun Feb 05, 2012 1:14 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I hear you. This is my rationale: The only way to combat the momentum of capital, in whichever direction it is pushed, is to change, re-root, (suppant) the principle of value, on which capital is based.

I am stuck on the specifics of the 1, 2 and 3 in relation to each others.

Perspectivally, 1 is transcendent, self-enclosed, 2 is experiential, polarity, 3 is a continuos relation of potentialities, a manifest power.

Taking this logic further, from 4th power on the unit applies to the real world, the acquisition of this dimension is the crossing of the threshold from the archetypical/geometrical to the formative world of rewarding battle and riskfull identification, where a set of qualities is required to keep the boat afloat on the river of flux with the vortexes of entropy.

Abstractly, I understand these concepts. What I do not have is the variable-language representing 1 in relation to 2 and 3, enabling the permutations required to arrive from the singular at the multifaceted perspective.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: Lust to Dominate, Evolution, and Mutations Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:47 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sounds a little like you are speaking of;
1) Self
2) Else
3) Border between

Self is perceptive influence with a compromised potential interferometer (PI). The PI is constantly undermined so as to disable the natural perceptive responses. Very, very many important things are going on right "under your nose". As long as you cannot perceive the potential of them, your influence has no self determining decision making capacity.

To re-establish the health and harmony of the perceptive influence (the "Self") in someone who has been compromised, a type of baptism of the perceptive influence must be undergone (exorcism of the de-mons, the de-unifiers). Doing such a baptism of oneself is a matter of;
1) TSLs - Temporary Self Locks
2) PITs - Potential Interferometer Tools

A simple example is the self lock of insistence to sit and meditate on something for no less than 5 minutes. To self-baptize, one must minimize the potential interference (sit in comfortable a quite place, eyes closed). Then maximize the potential influence (focus on the breathing until you sense nothing else and can easily and consciously alter it).

The fundamental process of such an endeavor is universal throughout life and thus to enhance the Self, that process must be instilled through regular practice. The re-cleansing, exorcising of any spurious demons, re-establishing pure harmony within, Self-harmony, must be a regular part of life's activities. Sleeping is merely a lower level of the same process.

Much greater uses of TSLs and PITs should be gradually introduced so as to enhance the formerly broken/divided life. Eventually there is no more need for any TSL other than the Self's will and the potential interferometer (PI) is finely tuned. From there, more significant influence tools are developed with the same perception-to-influence thought instilled deep inside. The "Will-to-Power" is established in this manner.

The potential perception interferometer (self-valuing) and potential influence interferometer (together as "Potential Interferometer") must be strongly enhanced so as to remove insidiously implanted effects such as hypnosis, blame-shifting, obfuscation, false flagging, and so on. Accuracy in perception is paramount (thus the need for the verification step often mentioned).
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: Lust to Dominate, Evolution, and Mutations Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:30 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Continuing the Tsunami theme concerning the momentum that is soon to be on your beach and cannot be stopped...

I estimated that the DU contamination problem is merely perhaps 10-20% of that Tsunami building up. If that wasn't enough to get your attention, perhaps another 25-30% is the following concern:

Biotech or Die via Monsanto:
Quote :
(NaturalNews) The one man who may be responsible for more food related illnesses and deaths than anyone in history, Michael R. Taylor, has just been promoted from US Food Safety Czar to Senior Advisor to the Commissioner of the FDA, a position which would enable the giant biotech company Monsanto to silently and legally feed cancer causing vegetables to every living person who is not 100% strictly organic.

President Obama has appointed the former Monsanto Vice President and lobbyist Michael R. Taylor to the throne. This is the same man who was Food Safety Czar for the FDA when Genetically Modified Organisms were allowed into the US food supply without undergoing a single test to determine their safety or risks. This is like putting a terrorist in charge of the world's food supply. What will the cancer numbers look like in 2016?

The GMO nightmare all started with the Dan Quayle led FDA/GMO marriage. Under George Bush Senior's Administration from 1989 to 1993, Dan Quayle single-handedly catapulted GMO's into existence through FDA's anti-consumer right-to-know policy, which stated that GMO foods did not have to be labeled or safety tested. Yes, you read that correctly: There is no safety testing required whatsoever to take some Agent Orange pesticide and genetically mutate the seeds of vegetables in a chemical laboratory so that nothing on planet earth will eat the plant that grows from the ground except for all the humans who have no idea what happened.

Michael Taylor is part of a revolving door at the FDA, where Monsanto Execs just come and go as they please. First, Michael R. Taylor was an assistant to the FDA commissioner. Then he left to work for a law firm in the 1980's to help gain FDA approval of Monsanto's artificial growth hormone (rGBH), which is directly linked to cancer. Then he became deputy commissioner of the FDA in 1991, and was later re-appointed to the FDA in 2009 by Obama. He is the food villain who tried his best to keep this "malignant milk of the turn of the century" from being labeled.

Michael Taylor is the epitome of everything Monsanto represents. Taylor is like a vehicle for Monsanto's patenting of seeds and global domination of farming. He implements the government's "favorable" agricultural biotech policies because it's much more of a financially sure shot to use RoundUp in food than to farm organically and ethically. If the investments aren't paying enough at the corporation, Execs just switch over to Federal Regulations and write some new Legislation based on "tainted research", which allows them to pile more toxins on the American public and bankroll off it when they flip back to the corporate side.
Far more
Comprehensive Report.

A while back, Alex Jones had submitted this short 10min video on YouTube.

And since Micheal Taylor got appointed without public or congressional consultation, more investigation was made in this extensive 2hr documentary on Monsanto. Unfortunately the most interesting portion of that documentary comes at about half way up til the very end.

What is not so blatantly clear is the general method of control of life being discussed. It is obvious that any plant DNA designed to subvert all others is a bit of a problem. But the more serious issue is the very foundational method - "make the chosen immune and then 'RoundUp' (kill) all else that cannot be controlled."

The newly designed DNA is self replicating and cannot be stopped any more than that DU contamination. In Canada, it was decided that if any part of a field became contaminated by the patented GMO seeds, the entire field belonged to Monsanto. In the USA, it works a little differently, but the results are the same. Europe has varying rules. Mexico has even less formal laws concerning it, but again, the results are the same - the unstoppable displacement of all uncontrolled, undesigned life.

What you can't control, RoundUP and destroy.

From the 2008 motion picture The World According to Monsanto

It has been going on for many years. It is not something that you can rebel against any longer. It is not merely "under your nose". It is literally in your mouth. You have been eating gold implanted, artificial genome foods which do not treat your body the same as their natural counterparts. It is already in your food, your water, your air. It is already there. Rebelling against it is futile. Like the DU contamination, the damage is already done and growing into a next even more unstoppable generation of attempts to dominate all Life.

Keep in mind, that if you have followed along, you are still seeing less than 50% of the Tsunami already coming your way.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Lust to Dominate, Evolution, and Mutations Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:59 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Of course, deeply unwholesome and threatening. But the grand scheme is not quite as bleak as you describe, not all governments are like sheep to the shepherd Monsanto. I just read this:
http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/02/1 ... FQ20120213

But more importantly, Monsanto seeds have always been banned from Austria (as have all genetically engineered products), and, as far as I can find out, since some years from Germany as well. Not all the world is entirely lobby-driven, a notion of health does exist, even in (some) political circles.

I suggest the US based resistance builds from this awareness -- of having stronger allies overseas -- not from a position of utter abandonment and hopelessness, which is never a good basis for action.

For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals

Jakob
ILP Legend

Posts: 6131
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

### Re: The Philosophers

Message
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: The birth of morality and a new unease. Wed Feb 15, 2012 12:41 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It seems to me that what has been called morality has thus far existed for the sake of incorporating what seems strange and fantastical, what seems ridiculous and improbable- for example, the freedom of the will or the idea of the self-caused, into an active and participatory consciousness. Thus, the conception of the freedom of the will has been rendered palpable in our feelings of guilt. These ridiculous conceptions, at least for our ancestors, posed a great riddle, for in their lack of knowledge they had no alternative explanation and had to accept them, they had to accept the reality of the gods, of the free will, of the absurd. In order to force themselves to accept such ideas they began to moralize. We now have many contrary explanations and no longer require the acceptance of ridiculous concepts, yet because we have no need to incorporate them into an active and participatory consciousness our truths have no chance of victory in the struggle with those errors which, over the centuries, have been wed with the stuff of life. We require some new order of poets to render us uneasy with regard to these truths, poets who have forgotten man as well as god, poets who are capable of championing under the banner of tragedy that young soul which must wrestle with the question of acceptance with regard to so many unfavorable truths for, insofar as joyousness is always the product of refined, deliberate craft, and the fruit of a peculiar ingenuity, it shall be precisely this neediness, the need for bearing the truth joyously as opposed to the need to accept the absurd for want of more reasonable truths, that will in the long run allow us to finally overcome our errors.

Message
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Ethos anthropos daimon. Sun Feb 26, 2012 9:22 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
"Man must rise to his fate. " -
Ethos anthropos daimon.
Heraclitus.

The beauty and difficulty of the Ancient Greek language is in the fact that rather than strictly delineate concepts, it tends to instead place a limit to what something can be. This limit can be filled in many different ways. It is a way of speaking I exercise in my own writing and aphorisms. There are dozens of translations to the above Heraclitus quote, the one I gave is my own. "The soul is destiny," "Character is destiny," "The impulse is fated," "The deed is fated," "The deed must observe fate." Etc.

This Heraclitean aphorism (As I have translated it) is a good example of how the ancient Greek conception of man was rooted in an internal disproportion, a kind of excess rather than lack which had to ascend through earthly material and desire in order to purify itself and realize the ideal, a vision depicted by Plato, and which I call the daemonic. It implies, taken to its highest conception, that the limit, the fatum, of man has not yet been found. Only when the limit is discovered can the horizon of man begin to be filled, and a conception of humanity be arrived at.

Because man has not yet found the idea to provide his limit, his daemonism cannot be resolved, and he must continually alternate through the ascent and descent upon the Platonic scale of being, through the spheres of empirical and transcendental life.

One should recall the words of Aeschylus:

oneirophantoi de penthēmones
pareisi doxai pherou-
sai kharin mataian.
matan gar, eut' an esthla tis dokōn hora,
parallaxasa dia
kherōn bebaken opsis ou methusteron

Why does Aeschylus use the word "keleuthois" to designate the path which the deceptive images of beauty take in leading man to the sleep of empty, hopeless longing? It means not merely path, but twisting path. Both Hesiod and Parmenides used this word when making the point that day and night, sleep and wakefulness, are caught up in eternal alternation, and so pothos or longing, the sleep of love, continually awakens us to eros and the definite object of our longing, and this awakened love must in turn fall back into itself, must sleep.

As yet man lacks a fatum, a limit. He is only ethos daimon, the ascending and descending, wavering spirit, half beast half god.

"Ει ουν φιλοσοφητέον είτε μη φιλοσοφητέον, φιλοσοφητέον, (Man, by nature of his daemonic existence, must philosophize, philosopher or not.) to speak with Athanasius. We cannot, in the manner of one of the old Greeks, name the world a cosmos and beauty until we have named our own soul a cosmos and beauty; to behold and grasp all the world in an idea we must first have come to know ourselves as one particular being and no other and have had everything good and evil rent from the trembling heart and held, not in time, which diffuses our being like colors from a ray of light, but in eternity, which concentrates it. Every man of genius has believed in the eternal, that belief is the very condition of his vitality and flourishing. Perhaps this belief serves as nothing more than an obscuration of the spirit, which man requires if he is to ascend into the highest possible regions of his genius; perhaps he must find all the earth wanting if, like Cassandra of Ilion, he is to utter things not fit for the earth, but it is always the same, and we become like that angel whose wings were set aflame when he reentered this world, if one can entertain the old Gnostic myth. We suffer upon turning back into ourselves, we suffer from the failure to seize upon that inner motion of the heart's genius, which alone could move us to acknowledge the ideal as fate; the consequence of that strange lust which compels us to embrace obscurity, darkness, and uncertainty, but moreover to prefer this benighted world of the self over that law which strikes against the heart when love, fully matured, overcomes and inspires us to act with proud indifference against the hazards of our mortality. Dei virtutem dei sapientiam, [knowledge, for god, is a virtue] or if one may reverse the old theologian's paradox: yes, and man's sin; or, to reinterpret the account of Genesis, what flowered with the greatest sweetness in heaven is reaped with the most bitterness upon the earth." - Hamartia

___________
A sik þau trûðu

Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.

It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud

Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: A new ethics. Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:55 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
In contrast to the theory of repression and sublimation which Freud elaborated from Nietzsche, I have my own picture.

I have gone on about my theory of consciousness, the reflexive nature of it, and the disintegration of the drives... Instead of the repression of one drive by another drive or drives, you get simply one drive acting separately from the others. Instead of sublimation, you get multiple drives operating in unison. This unison I called active consciousness, because it is involved in the higher ventures, like art, the production of genius, the creation of values. You could picture the consciousness of man as a number of pendulums swinging... In most men the pendulums are separated by a great distance, they swing not together but at different speeds, by different paces, etc. A lot of them do not swing at all, they have run down over time, a particular drive has atrophied, ie. human domestication prevails. But in the man of genius all the pendulums- the drives, instincts, thoughts, and emotions which constitute consciousness.... are close to one another. If one pendulum swings, it hits up against the one next to it, and it to the one that follows, and so on, until all the pendulums are operating equally. Genius is measured by how little stimuli is needed to induce the entire consciousness to activity, the greatest geniuses need only a little stimulation to become very, very conscious. The fact that the drives operate as one leads to the strange behavior that allows the association between genius and insanity to be possible. Sexuality, intellect, all the emotions, etc.. all operate as one. Of course this is all archetypal, no genius, no man, has every united in his consciousness absolutely all the constituent drives available to human nature. They have achieved greater and lesser degrees of such a union, which always operates against a much stronger, much larger background of the unconscious which, again, is not repressed memories and drives, but those drives, thoughts, etc. which resist integration and still operate as separate forces.

------

"In nature, the animal man’s instincts were coordinated in such a way that the expression of one instinct was not merely the expression of its own force, but that of the entire organism, that of the consciousness. Consciousness is only this unified force, this reflexivity. To call forth the greatest store of consciousness with the slightest amount of sensory excitation, that was the “goal” of nature. Man’s reason eventually separated the instincts from one another, it introduced discontiguous states of mental affect into a consciousness born out of the need to grasp through continguous impressions relations of temporal and spatial nature. Such discontiguous states of affect we now recognize as “ideas,” words, abstractions. To reason, to arrange aesthetically the same kinds of relationships arranged metonymically by the early consciousness, relationships between events, things, and feelings, that is to say, to arrange them in accordance with these abstractions and the relationships suggested by an appeal to their standard (such as causality) man would have been provided with an advantage over the other beasts, the advantage of anticipation, imagination, and strategy.

His reason, in short, had the psychological consequence of a disruption in the metonymic structure of consciousness so that man began to experience the force of the instincts individually. The sensation of distance and gulf within himself inspired him with the thought of the soul, the thought of a self. The self represents a kind of abeyance of consciousness, the repose of a continuously discharging instinctual organism, a fragmentation of this activity in accordance with which the instincts could be re-coordinated, through “thought.” But this “thinking” could not realize a harmonious order of the instincts like that which nature took thousands of years to produce. The first thoughts to lend their coloring to the humans soul were accordingly very painful, and constituted a kind of negative expression of the organism, the force not of an organization but of a disorganization, from which man still suffers, for this disorganizing power of thought was doubtlessly very seductive, the force it was capable of generating far surpassed that of the organized instincts and the individuated instincts, and was in its power very compelling to early man, offering to him an impetus toward action and life that could not be denied, even if the life and the acts it led him to were dangerous, painful, tragic. It took root in the deepest parts of his consciousness. It is his "conscience." "

From Hamartia.

----

One only needs to think of human sacrifice, self-torture, cannibalism, death worship, all common in the earliest human societies. Why is this destructive "disorganizing force" preservative of the human species? It is a greater impetus to life, it is "stronger" than the half-slumbering active consciousness achieved by re-harmonizing the drives through "thinking." It provides a greater way of cohering a social order. When man made the switch from small hunter-gatherer tribes to larger communities, it found its best soil.

" The conscience juxtaposes instincts and passions of contrary dispositions, as the sexual drive and the metaphysical need are counter-poised to produce the inspiration of the Christian saint, and grasps this disorganizing power, this inspiration, in an abstraction, in a discontiguous state of consciousness. "

It allows contrary mental states/affects to be grasped simultaneously. That is much easier, comparatively, then achieving genuine mental integration.

So we have one group that grasps contrary emotional states in an abstraction, through discontinguous states of consciousness, so that the intellect operates separately from the emotional organism, the egoic consciousness wholly circumscribed by the intellectualiation and narcotisized as it were. Everything is morally good which provides this respite, anything that reawakens emotional and sensual life (which must be highly painful, granted the contrary passions) is bad, like sexual desire, etc. Another group, who achieve mental integration, are not hurt by the same things that awaken for the former the drives, because their drives do not exist in such destructive configurations. But these two classes of people do not war, they integrate, socially, over time. Those who are not harmed by the drives, as the drive for sex, become early priests, the administrators of the Gods, and teach others how to tolerate these drives through things like sex rituals, as was practiced at the temples of Athena. The grasping through abstraction of contrary drives and the active integration of compatible drives, as two tendencies or psychological strategies, operate together, producing the model of the modern human being, a highly compartmentalized, coping-efficient, somewhat "less insane" psychology.

But the truth is often spurred along under the wing of madness.

But for us philosophers of the future, what do we need to do to intentionally produce what all genius has heretofore only for-shadowed? A truly active consciousness? It involves a new way of valuing, of creating morality.

"......... doubt and suffering can only serve as the presentiment of a replete and living self, of some vital power within us that longs to be exhausted, and certainly can never extinguish such a vitality; for who and what a person is depends in the final case, not on the truth he has acquired or the morality for which he lives, but rather on the number of passions, joys, sufferings, and thoughts that he can unite within the circle of his comprehension, it depends upon the breadth of that image, of that idea, which he is capable of drawing from out of their opposition and turmoil, for anything not held within the confines of this image will certainly be lost amidst the passage of years, and everything not informed by its singularity destroyed. It is what Shelley called the hope which has created from its own wreck the thing it contemplates; it is Eros, that love which ennobles philosophy, which searches into the depths of mortal passion, which chastens the springs of joy and suffering, which raises our passions and experiences into the higher language of ideas; it is love, which engenders within that suffering which is the bitter fruit of all practical morality the seed of heroicism, that unites the disparate elements through which our individuality comes into being. When the sky darkens and the storm sets in, the bird does not cease flying because it is afraid, but because it can no longer see the horizon in its infinite distance, and it longs to brave immensity and impossibility, and cannot live under anything but that boundless horizon; so too does a man live and take shape only in the horizon of his love, his hope, and his ideas." -- Hamartia

The logic of the daemonic and the idea of reflexive consciousness I developed before I ever caught word of what you were doing here. Once I familiarized myself with value ontology I realized my concepts of the daemonic and my theory of consciousness could be used as the psychological basis of it, of value ontology. The psychology of the daemonic also articulates a new conception of morality, the idea of transcendental goods. Value ontology, when it has been fully formed, might be understood as the science of articulating and creating such transcendental goods, transcendental values, values which intentionally provoke the daemonic side of man. All of these separate ventures are different components of a new philosophical movement I don't have a name for.

"All youths are prophets. Is not all of our wisdom only a long interpretation of the poem and dream of youth?"
- Hamartia

___________
A sik þau trûðu

Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.

It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: A new ethics. Thu Feb 23, 2012 1:01 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This was supposed to be a reply to a PM by Capable, and I accidentally posted it in ethics. I suppose I might as well leave it here.

___________
A sik þau trûðu

Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.

It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom

PostSubject: Re: A new ethics. Thu Feb 23, 2012 1:49 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It is good that you did post this here. This is quite substantial. I would first like to focus on one small part here (essentially I feel like I understand most of what you write here - although it has taken me a while to habituate to your language and terms - so I want to focus more on where I so far have less grasp on your meaning),

Quote :
The first thoughts to lend their coloring to the humans soul were accordingly very painful, and constituted a kind of negative expression of the organism, the force not of an organization but of a disorganization, from which man still suffers, for this disorganizing power of thought was doubtlessly very seductive, the force it was capable of generating far surpassed that of the organized instincts and the individuated instincts, and was in its power very compelling to early man, offering to him an impetus toward action and life that could not be denied, even if the life and the acts it led him to were dangerous, painful, tragic. It took root in the deepest parts of his consciousness. It is his "conscience." "

Why/how was this first experienced as a suffering, as a negative expression? Delimitation of what I will call the human-subjective drives from a functional unity-whole into discrete units ("thoughts" or ideas/conceptual-perceptive imaginings, and distinct "feelings") would seemingly have schizophrenized the human mind, introducing total confusion and chaos into the human. Suddenly man is experiencing powerful "thoughts", internal images that are not memories but vivid imaginings of presently unreal conditions that yet seem entirely real, and intense passional-emotional states that linger and seem to arise "out of nowhere" rather than as a result of immediate environmental stimulus. It seems like "chaotic" and confusing would be a good way to describe all this. What I want to get at is more exactly what you mean by, "very painful, and constituted a kind of negative expression of the organism". This negative expression resulting from how a single moment of consciousness is now being defined-constituted by a more limited-narrow experiential stimulus rather than the result of a unified functional whole of all relevant internal states, drives and affects ("instincts") given the stipulations of the environment of the immediate moment? That each moment of such a now highly compartmentalized consciousness is an expression of more "lack" of "what is not there, what is not saliently functional" than what is?

I am also curious in what manners this would have been so seductive and socially useful to man. Probably the emergence of shaman and language (or further development of language) was spurred by the necessity of coping with this now-schizophrenized consciousness, which had previously known only "animal unity" of a more or less functional whole "image" of consciousness where no single drive or impulse would have unduly impeeded upon the rest (out of sync with environmental necessity, of course). Now picture this new man, this ape, standing around experiencing these inner turmoils that have no immediate environmental stimulus. Certainly language and social force, in other words the imposition of powerful regulatings and limiting mechanisms that would have been recognized by this ape (e.g. elements of the social sphere, power hierarchies, words/sounds designating known threats or desired objects, etc.), would have been needed. Those early societies which survived were the ones that developed more useful mechanisms of limitation and constraint with respect to this newly compartmentalized-freed system of drives and affects? In otherwords, without an "animal" functional unity the consciousness needed to supplement itself in part with a new sort of compensational unity, one borrowed from the social sphere.

Assuming this is hitting on where you are going with this, I would like to further explore how this situation led to the emergence of conscience, specifically what this conscience was, consisted of, at first, and how our modern experiences with it can be seen as derivative of these earlier states. I suppose I have a preconceived connotation of what "conscience" means and is, and there is some lack of overlap here with regard to how this may be seen to have derived from the early condition of man just having developed rudimentary self-consciousness and "reason", and a basic symbolic-representational language in such a way so as to experience the delimitation and compartmentalization of the various inner sensations from each other, and what this situation would have been like and what it would have necessitated on a social-collective scale.

___________
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: A new ethics. Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:19 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
To answer Capable's questions... Nietzsche often makes the point that we cannot understand the origin of a thing based on what it does or what it is used for now. In the present time we understand the conscience to be the internal voice of a moral system. It has, or produces, this inner sense of right and wrong because the moral system has been so thoroughly ingrained in a person that he no longer has to think about it, it is intuited.

When man first learned to look beyond the veil of time, when he began to think... He very quickly learned how to differentiate internal states of emotion and drive in accordance to the now easily divisible world outside of him. Man could now only act in accord with a particular emotional state that was paired with a change he wanted to see in the world outside of him. He could no longer behave as animals do, he had to think, he now possessed a will. The problem is that individual drives do not possess enough power to compel man to act, save for those drives directly involved in his survival, and that is only because they overcome his reason. Starvation would compel him to eat. But there was no way to evolve social bonds, a culture, anything beyond hunter-gather societies. There was no way to value. The fact that the individual drives were not powerful enough to seduce man to action is exampled by the fact that they do not grant him the capacity to value, and it is only value that will satisfy that hunger which no other animal possesses, the hunger of his newly developed intellect.

He could only pair one drive with an intended result, he could not appraise many results and value them against each other. He was just a clever animal at that point. He needed a lot of stimuli and got only a little consciousness out of it... He needed a way to weigh many different decisions and drives against each other, but for that he needed a developed sense of self-hood.

So now a "self" had to be developed, the thing that values... Something that can apprehend the variances in drive and emotion, between internal states, that can comprehend them and itself as something enduring throughout them. The disorganization of his integrated sensuality, the separation of his animal nature into constituent drives through his reason, took on a life of its own. Two inner states were reified in an abstraction in which their discontiguity, their variance, their difference, could be comprehended. This is the beginning of the spiritualization of man and world, and the development of the "self," of the psychological sense of selfhood, in such abstractions. Those abstractions in which man grasped the changes, the transformations and difference between his emotional states, granted him more and more consciousness of his selfhood. So the first stage of the development of the conscience, the capacity to value, was the intuited sense of self-permanence, self-hood.

Contrast is then the basis of our consciousness. There is no consciousness without the separation of inner and outer phenomenon into opposition, oppositions which must be reified in some abstraction that makes us conscious of the variance between two things or inner states. It would have been psychologically painful at first because all the drives responsible for the survival of man had to be placed in opposition to one another. Death rituals that celebrated life, things of this sort, took place. Mass suicides, cannibalism, death orgies, pain festivals. All of this was necessary. It formed the first social connections beyond hunter-gather, ie. religious connections, as well as helped develop self-consciousness. The failed abstractions, the values that proved suicidal or ended up leading toward death, obviously we don't know of. The failed cultures to which they belonged never lived long enough to write their own history books. But there is an extensive history which we have no knowledge of which details such failed cultures, the forgotten madness of our species, and much self-imposed torture. Only the "sanest" values and value-creators survived, all the history and culture we know is of them. The values and moral philosophies of this survivor culture are no more credible though, they just didn't end up killing us. Well, they didn't end up killing all of us.

In our time, in recent history.... this process of reifying the variance of the inner life, of extending the sphere of consciousness over the collapsed foundation of animal instincts, is only carried out by "geniuses," through moral philosophy, art, etc. But in our early history all men were doing this, in order to deal with their destroyed psyches and broken drives. Values are created only in response to the fact that there is no impetus to live. All men once needed that impetus, few men do now.

___________
A sik þau trûðu

Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.

It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: A new ethics. Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:30 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
However that impetus to life has dimmed and is dying, Nietzsche called it nihilism. The brutal process I just described and all the madness that comes with it- much greater madness now though, since so many centuries of philosophers and knowledge-workers have differentiated the drives, the animal pathos... All of that must be done again and endured again. You see, we have already seen a few failed cultures and noted their dying rituals. The madness of the Nazis, for example. More of that will come. Nietzsche himself is an example of a failed culture, perhaps. Maybe we all are too. Hard to say.

___________
A sik þau trûðu

Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.

It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom

PostSubject: Re: A new ethics. Fri Mar 09, 2012 9:12 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I just made a connection between something I wrote in the topic 'What is religion?' and your new theory of ethics.

I wrote,

But whereas actual children grow whether they want to or not, are forced to grow and overcome themselves again and again even if they do not wish to, the adult "child" of the religious type has no such organic-physiological necessity. Man can remain child-like throughout his entire life, child-like when it comes to the character and quality of his consciousness. This lack of an impelling necessity for growth to continue outside of actual child-hood might be one of the severest problems we face as a species.

And your ethics now stands as a solution for this lack: what man lacks, presently, is a psychological necessity which would impel him to continue "growing up" once he has abandoned childhood and become an "adult". But this necessity would need to be of a psychological, conceptual, ideational form, and would need to draw heavily from affectation as well. Religion merely appropriates this lack, utilizing it rather than filling it in or answering it. What your new ethics here speaks of is a totally new way to fill in this lack, to give man a powerful and vital psychological necessity that would impel him toward higher degrees of self-actualizational development, growth. It is easy for us to see how religious methodology does not produce psychological necessity but rather represses this possibility, disguises and degenerates the feeling/sense of this otherwise lacking need. Philosophy can create some necessity here, but it is haphazard, insufficient, not yet fully formed. I think you have gathered these fragments and fused them together into a new ethical order and potentiality, one which now would generate in man a significant psychological necessity were it to take hold in him.

___________
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy

Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: "There can be no recompense..." Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:00 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
There can be no recompense for that mighty liberty which, bounded only by birth and death, is called Life. Not with pain, love, malice, or joy can it be rewarded, for these belong unto it, but only by the man himself. Earth claims earth, life has no end other than itself, and the heavens regard only their own: this law is what the Greeks named fate which, in great opposition to our conception of it, offers itself as a limit to man, world, and god, rather than an indifferent litany of their impending tragedies, failures, and victories. This truth cannot be realized in the visions of the saint and does not lie within the grasp of contemplation, but must be resolved in the movements of life- ethos anthropos daimon. Like all real truths, destiny confers to us no maxim of conduct, but rather that light in which the image of human life, once diffused and disunited in time, is concentrated and beheld sub species aeternitas, which is to say in its unity. All great symbols, as all great ideas which stand as representative of some portion of human existence, suggest one another in their finite number as naturally as the musical notes induce their own infinite combination and recombination in the soul of the artist, and because life offers up to us essentially the same incorruptible, indivisible experience the genius of their unity is realized only to the extent that one has indwelled in life. The beauty of a supreme work of art or philosophy is a refrain of the indivisible sum of experience that is called human life which, however much of a variation upon the eternal theme it may offer, is nonetheless equivalent to it, and recognizes its birth and death, its fate, in it. The world is a poem for the poet, a cross for the saint, a sphinx for the philosopher. There is a universal justice, but it is that which we render upon ourselves in following upon the course of thought like a dying star in slow extinction before the pale bound of the firmament. In this slow death do we finally recover something of life; that sweet dialogue which is attended to in secret between ourselves and our own soul, to speak with Plato, which is incapable of communicating itself to all but the most superficial periphery of our existence in words and deeds and is resolved silently in the drama of the ideal. The suffering of Empedoclean man, of the longing for personal immortality, and the suffering of Faustian man, that all-embracing hunger which clamors in its own pain but to taste existence, are reconciled in the heroic annihilation of being in becoming; the forgery of human happiness, the idol of virtue, all the mortal and immortal powers of the earth and heavens strike us as a remarkable fatuity when beheld against this secret and this silence, against that unfathomed peace to use the expression of Leopardi, the unknowable basis of that dialogue which is after all only the rarest species of the knowable, be it called sin by the saint, desire by the Buddhist, or death, for it must lead us into heaven, nirvana, and life, for it must lead us to that point where the transient play of appearances ceases to offer up to us vacant forms and we, at last peering into the remote fulcrum of our life for we are at last peering into the remote fulcrum of our own self, declare with Tasso, ich weib es, sie sind eqig, denn sie sind. [Only what truly is endures.] Our character is but the extremity of the ideal; our personality, only the degree of some predominant conception raised to the highest power. Every mind has its own nycht or hemera in that general nychthemeron of the soul; every personality, as the high point and the moment of greatest vitality of some conception, as necessarily only a moment of tension in the idea, can find a repulsive note and answering strain in the progress of the intellect and thereby awaken to that desire to reconcile knowledge and being, to the daemonic, and to recognize what is called fate. Philosophy is nothing less than the aspiration to complete humanity.

-- Hamartia, Essays Toward A Speculative Ethic, Afterword.

___________
A sik þau trûðu

For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals

Jakob
ILP Legend

Posts: 6131
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

### Re: The Philosophers

James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to... Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:32 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Is value-ontology to be associated with;
A) all people should seek to assess value as defined by their own Self/Existence/Soul,
B) some people should submit themselves to the value defined by society or evolution (inherently the Nobility - Socialism),
C) all people should cognitively define their value-system for themselves to be applied as they wish?

Once that decision is made, Value-ontology can have a basis for deducing ethical standards and morality and thus gain social significance. Until then, from my perspective, it will remain merely more noise.

View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to... Mon Feb 13, 2012 11:22 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
From my understanding, what we call value-ontology here is a reversal of the classical philosophical paradigm. Philosophy has first studied the nature of being, ontology, then built a morality on top of that. What we think is that ontology, that being, can only be discovered after valuations have been made, after a value system has been established. The primary ontological factor then, for a morality of this kind, must be that entity which empowers and makes the valuation possible in the first place: the valuing and creating self. The study of ontology then becomes the study of what is theoretically possible, conceivable, for the valuing subject in terms of experience, it becomes the attempt Adorno pointed towards in this quote, "Perspectives must be produced which set the world beside itself, alienated from itself, revealing its cracks and fissures, as needy and distorted as it will one day lay there in the messianic light."

Morality (value) as primary, ontology as secondary, that is the basic premise. Following it through would eradicate the distinction between essence and appearance, noumenon and phenomenon, that Nietzsche often criticized and which had stifled philosophy by the 19th century.

This value before ontology notion I would sum up with this quote by Athanasius: Ει ουν φιλοσοφητέον είτε μη φιλοσοφητέον, φιλοσοφητέον. [Man, by virtue of his daemonic nature, must be a philosopher, rather he wants to or not, rather he philosophizes or not.]

The corruption of philosophy, morality's loss of its primary quality, goes as far back as Plato.

Traditional ethical philosophy and morality have phrased the Good in a language quite distinct from the language that traditional philosophy uses to phrase the True. The true has always been purely representative. The truth, in the old Platonic sense, as the Ideas, are not positive specifications of knowledge. They are conditions of possibility of knowledge. Like the law of identity, a thing is what it is and no other thing. That is not itself a positive piece of knowledge, but is rather a representative kind of knowledge: it merely represents the transcendental object by which the empirical consciousness holds itself in existence and sustains the process of thought. I want to begin a new ethical philosophy that treats the Good in just this way, as purely representative, as a condition of possibility for the empirical, lived, finite, meaning-seeking consciousness. Our morals do not accomplish such a representative act, they do not represent to us a transcendental object. Our moral and ethical philosophies have tried to be merely positive designations of knowledge. Do this or do not do this. This is a virtue, that is a vice, etc. This owes itself to the primal error by Plato, who spoke of the good in a different language than he used to speak of the true. The true was spoken of as a representative idea, whereas the good was discovered within Eros' loving gaze, was born of this gaze, and because it was related only to Eros, only to the lover and not the beloved object itself, not the transcendental order to which truth belonged, which truth represented, this "good" served for Eros as a merely positive objectification of knowledge rather than as a representative of the transcendental. The foremost goal of a new ethical philosophy must be to re-imagine "ethical ideas," that is, purely representative goods. In the way in which the idea sustains the process of thought and holds the empirical consciousness in existence, "ethical ideas" must sustain a process that I call the "erotic-daemonic," and that new ethical philosophy which engenders them must hold the transcendental objects and those truths which represent these objects in existence, must hold the "ontological" philosophy in existence, by continually recovering those conditions of limitation within the empirical consciousness from which such truths were born.

View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to... Tue Feb 14, 2012 10:07 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sooo...
Was that A, B, or C ?
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to... Tue Feb 14, 2012 10:55 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
A) all people should seek to assess value as defined by their own Self/Existence/Soul,
B) some people should submit themselves to the value defined by society or evolution (inherently the Nobility - Socialism),
C) all people should cognitively define their value-system for themselves to be applied as they wish?

The questions you posed are irrelevant. All people already do seek to assess value as defined by their own self. It's a psychological fact and reality, not a point of debate. That's why Christians cherry pick what they like out of the bible and ignore the rest. Some people submit to the value defined by the society they live in because they're weak and they like order, they like to be ordered and to take orders. Here they are still valuing on the basis of their own self and what they are. And I am pretty sure the only way to define a value system is "cognitively" and the only way to apply it is "as we wish."
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to... Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:10 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
So "Value-Ontology" represents (C).
Is that the consensus?
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to... Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:39 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
http://images.starcraftmazter.net/4chan ... if_srs.jpg

http://images.cheezburger.com/completes ... 77e794.jpg

View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to... Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:00 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
So value-ontology means, "life and reality are whatever you want them to be" -the motto of the anarchist and solipsist.
"Truth (ontology) based on want (value)"?
Hmm.. a bit disappointing.

View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to... Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:30 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
First of all, that has nothing to do with anything I said, second of all, want is not value, third of all, see above.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to... Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:16 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Parodites has answered the question of a value-ontological morality as far as it can be answered directly, which means that he already took the step from "pure" value-ontology to describe the sort of ethics that derives from it. But such ethics have nothing to do with the type of commandments you (James) seek. The simplest answer to your question is: An ontology does not describe what should be, but what is. Value ontology does not prescribe anything to man that man does not already prescribe to himself. It is at first a means to un-prescribe impossible, nonsensical and useless prescriptions, and therefore enables/opens up, rather than that it imposes on man any limitations or laws.

The only commandments/prohibitions that can be seen as following from value ontology directly are those that can be imposed on external rule, government. The individual can not be effectively commanded except by manipulating the commanding that he himself is. He can not be directly, unconditionally commanded except by threatening him with suffering and death, and this does not produce any allegiance, reliability. He is best commanded by manipulating his perception of his own commanding nature (manipulating his self-perception), so as for it to suit the type of commands one wants to give him. One can only precisely and enduringly command an individual by making him think that he is being commanded in name of himself -- in terms of his self-valuing. In this light I can address the three options.

"A) all people should seek to assess value as defined by their own Self/Existence/Soul,"
People, and al beings, inevitably do this, whether anyone says they should or not. Value ontology explains this inevitability. If tere is any "should" here it id that we should give up the effort of trying the change this tendency, and aim for a flexible society with no direct commands, except for a few "thou shalt nots" (kill, etc) and a few provisions from which one can only benefit (roads, clean water, etc).

"B) some people should submit themselves to the value defined by society or evolution (inherently the Nobility - Socialism),"
Society represents the social terms in which a human can see his own self-valuing reflected. An individual simply can only submit himself to a rule/law that something in his being agrees with. If there is nothing to agree with, he will rebel or allow himself to be imprisoned / killed.

There are weaker and stronger self-valuings (beings), just as there are more and less stable elements. The weaker a self-valuing is, the more it will tolerate of society and the less it needs of society to conform to him. A being of maximum strength/stability is able to exist either alone or commanding whatever is around him. Society may try to regulate self-valuings interactions with each other so that a strong beings tyrannnical influence (what Nietzsche calls "bestowing virtue") is only exerted on those who benefit from this rule/standard-giving.

A society based on value ontology can have no central value-prescribing command, it can only limit what strong entities do to weaker entities who do not voluntarily submit, as well as provide for goods/values that are of general benefit. It would follow that ideally, government is sustained not by taxes but by voluntary contributions.

"C) all people should cognitively define their value-system for themselves to be applied as they wish?"
In as far as an individual has the need or desire as well as the capacity to cognitively define at all, they might benefit from defining their value system so. But since a value system is already implicit in anyones being, it works whether it is cognitively defined or not. What should be cognitively defined is a philosophically sound model for the interactions/exchange of values. The absence of this is the only real problem of our current world. This is the void from which all modern evils (such as the ones you are predicting will bring the end of the homo sapines) are spawned.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to... Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:33 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross has pointed out what I did, my rationalist meta-physician friend. Your questions are irrelevant. The point of debate is how values are actually created and defined, how they should be defined and created. Value ontology is a method for creating values, as opposed to the other methods that exist.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to... Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:59 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The errors of ontology have been manifested in morality, because man's existence as an ontological subject has taken primacy over his existence as an ethicizing subject. For example, free will is a major basis for modern morality, when it is in fact nothing more than an error of ontological philosophy. Inverting ontological and moral philosophy would eventually help us realize a philosophically accurate and rich concept of experience, something that eluded Kant and for which he has been criticized, as I said:

The primary ontological factor then, for a morality of this kind, must be that entity which empowers and makes the valuation possible in the first place: the valuing and creating self. The study of ontology then becomes the study of what is theoretically possible, conceivable, for the valuing subject in terms of experience...

Value ontology would be a method for refining a self-consistent, internal vision of life which, objectively specified, would provide such a "philosophical concept of experience." The philosophy that emerges out of it would deal, even in the extremity of its ontology, with things rooted in perception and experience, (and therefor the truth) since everything must first pass through the refining, self-consistent, internal conception of the world and the self, established through a cultivated valuation(s).

A quote by Nietzsche seems fitting:

This ridiculous overestimation and misunderstanding of consciousness has the very useful consequence that it prevents an all too fast development of consciousness. Believing that they possess consciousness, men have not exerted themselves very much to acquire it; and things haven't changed much in this respect. To this day the task of incorporating knowledge and making it instinctive is only beginning to dawn on the human eye and is not yet clearly discernible; it is a task that is seen only by those who have comprehended that so far we have incorporated only our errors and that all our consciousness relates to errors.

View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to... Wed Feb 15, 2012 1:02 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James S Saint wrote:
One must always point the way to others in accord with where they stand.
..assuming that one isn't interested in merely talking to himself.

Assuming that none of the options in the OP were applicable, an appropriate response would have been something like;
"None of the above, but instead,
D) Value-ontology should be associated with...."
rather than the somewhat egotistical and nonsensical response, "your [OP thread topic] questions are irrelevant"

I seriously have no need for a lecture from any of you about how reality or a mind functions nor the errors of society's mental acrobatics. You expose how you think with every statement you make, for example your blindness to the connection between "want" and "value".

Parodites wrote:
Fixed Cross has pointed out what I did, my rationalist meta-physician friend. Your questions are irrelevant. The point of debate is how values are actually created and defined, how they should be defined and created. Value ontology is a method for creating values, as opposed to the other methods that exist.
In that very short quote (compared to all you have written), you point out the exact reasoning for the question (the ONLY question that is relevant in THIS thread). You state that value-ontology is a method concerning how ethics "should be defined". That is exactly what the "irrelevant" OP question is about. It is not about how everyone throughout history has been inferior and all of the foolish errors those pathetic people in the past have made. If you want to lecture about that, at least provide an example of such an obvious error, but on a different thread.

As implied in the OP, until you can get your mind out of the dark cloud that you seem to have labeled, "value-ontology" and relate it to something other people can see clearly (as well as clarify it better to yourselves), you will not be able to sensibly define any morality or ethics and the entire notion will remain in the eyes of society as "some Nietzschean nonsense that a few guys were babbling about".

And btw, a physicist is not a physician.

View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to... Wed Feb 15, 2012 1:20 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I didn't notice your sub-name was "rational metaphysicist." I always glanced at it and read it simply as "rational metaphysics," because my brain tends to just ignore things that either don't exist or don't make any sense, like "metaphysicist."
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to... Wed Feb 15, 2012 1:31 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Look, fuckhead, I told you what value ontology was to my mind, others have no doubt done the same before. The only dark cloud I have my head in is my reason for still talking to you. Don't tell me about being egotistical, either. I don't much enjoy talking to other human beings in the first place, I'd prefer to just bury my head in a bottle of pills and listen to music all day, and I consequently don't have any qualms about speaking to those human beings that fail to amuse me, provoke me, or give me something to think about in any way I see fit. I said your OP questions were irrelevant because they're irrelevant. I defined very specifically what I see value ontology as. I'm not going to reduce either it or myself to fit into the cloistered sentence-long verbal turd of one of your stupid fucking questions. Anything else?
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to... Wed Feb 15, 2012 1:36 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
"All people should cognitively define their value-system for themselves to be applied as they wish?"

No, man. They should define it lymphatically, or testicularly, or with their pituary gland. What other way is there to define it besides cognitively?
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to... Wed Feb 15, 2012 1:59 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
By the way, looking through all of your posts, I am convinced you are either suffering from some form of dementia, or you are out of your mind.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to... Wed Feb 15, 2012 2:22 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
If the intention behind the OP is to acquire a morality in the form of a "thou shalt" (to humans) then value ontology should be ignored. It should indeed be considered irrelevant to the traditional moralist (the "thou-shalt"-sayer), as it reveals the cognitive void underneath such moralities.

Untranslated, the OPs points are very far away from having to do anything with value ontology. However, efforts have been made to relate value ontology to the intention suspected behind the OP. It seemed that the intention was to find out what type of morality can be won from value ontology. These efforts have apparently been wasted on you, yet you confirm the suspected intention by quoting "method concerning how ethics "should be defined"" as what the OP is about. Why then have you ignored answers you have received, and say that you have gotten no answers?

The only reason I can think of is that the answers you have received are not simple enough for you. If this is the case I have to disappoint you -- indeed, there is no simple, swift and conclusive way from value ontology to a formulation of a morality. We've just begun the work, and since it is philosophical work, which means that it runs deep and moves slowly, we will not be finishing it anytime soon. Panicky calls about the end of mankind are not going to speed up the process.

The only effort you could make that would speed up this particular process is trying harder to understand what value ontology is, and trying harder to understand the replies you get and the posts you respond to. If the OPs point was simply to discredit value ontology as "vague" or "a dark cloud" to provoke the authors to change it, then it is fortunate that it has been misunderstood and caused some useful replies.

"As implied in the OP, until you can get your mind out of the dark cloud that you seem to have labeled, "value-ontology"
It is convenient to know how you really stand toward this thinking.

"and relate it to something other people can see clearly"
It has proven perfectly understandable to a good number of people already, all of them (how coincidental!) of highly refined intelligence. It has met some resistance from people who want to use it in a way for qwhich it is not designed (you) and those who feel threatened by it (certain Nietzscheans)

" (as well as clarify it better to yourselves),"
Presumption. That you fail to see clearly it does not mean that this unclarity exists outside of you.

"you will not be able to sensibly define any morality or ethics and the entire notion will remain in the eyes of society as "some Nietzschean nonsense that a few guys were babbling about"."
Ignoring for a moment that we are sensibly defining already, such a prospect is delightful compared to the prospect of scrambling to mutilate the thought to fit the urge to be subjected to "thou shalt" like commandments.

It may take one year, ten years, or a thousand years for this thought to take hold on a large scale. It may never take hold. In any case it will not be compromised by its creators to suit fearful urges or anti-philosophical demands.

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to... Wed Feb 15, 2012 2:47 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Let him hodgepodge some more random math and science concepts together and call it a ToE.

Why are you even on this site Saint? You have more posts than any member of this forum and you aren't even interested in value ontology, you're here to rant about how you discovered a Theory of Everything.

I am going to offer the absolute briefest explanation of value ontology which I can:

Value ontology is a way of philosophizing that grants ontological primacy to the human agent (the valuing subject, named many things by many people- for Nietzsche, will, for Heidegger, Dasein, for me, the daemonic, for Kierkegaard simply the self or that which despairs) rather than ousia or being. It gets beyond, in this way, the distinction between truth and appearance and deals with questions of being in a language derived from a philosophically accurate and rich concept of experience rather than an abstract, Aristotelian table of categories, something which Kantian philosophy has always lacked.
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom

PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to... Wed Feb 15, 2012 12:45 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Parodites wrote:

Value ontology is a way of philosophizing that grants ontological primacy to the human agent (the valuing subject, named many things by many people- for Nietzsche, will, for Heidegger, Dasein, for me, the daemonic, for Kierkegaard simply the self or that which despairs) rather than ousia or being. It gets beyond, in this way, the distinction between truth and appearance and deals with questions of being in a language derived from a philosophically accurate and rich concept of experience rather than an abstract, Aristotelian table of categories, something which Kantian philosophy has always lacked.

As an absolute briefest explanation, I'd say that's not bad.

___________
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom

PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to... Wed Feb 15, 2012 1:36 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James S Saint wrote:
As implied in the OP, until you can get your mind out of the dark cloud that you seem to have labeled, "value-ontology" and relate it to something other people can see clearly (as well as clarify it better to yourselves), you will not be able to sensibly define any morality or ethics and the entire notion will remain in the eyes of society as "some Nietzschean nonsense that a few guys were babbling about".

This sums well the core of your critique here: value ontology cannot produce anything which can be related/relevant to "other people", it is a unclear "cloud" with insufficient (or at least insufficiently demonstrated) substance.

Unfortunately, I guess for you, as you may have noticed here much is being written and worked on with respect to this, the supposed unclarity of the thought, as well as its supposed irrelevancy to the world at large. Thinking back to when this site was created, about 3-4 months ago, what we call "value ontology" (remember this is just a label, the content is always much more than a label can capture, and the collection of this content/s under a single name is more of a regrettable necessity than anything else, at least for me) was something barely in its infancy compared to what it has become now. Which is not to say that it is presently "very much", with respect to what it could be, must become, will become. It is a work-in-progress, and as Fixed Cross noted, such works as these philosophical projects take much time and the progress tends to be slow. The thought has become much clearer, more defined and delineated. At times this takes a form of declaration and explication, at other times a more negative form of "what it is not". Both are acceptable, of course. Also important is to note that defining a thing is never as clear-cut as "this is that", "x=y", that sort of thinking finds a home in mathematics, perhaps in some sciences, but has little home in philosophy. To believe that a thought, any object of thought or philosophic inquiry -- indeed any subjective experience or "will to" subjectivity at all -- can be absolutely defined in this manner is nothing short of idiocy. To believe such reveals that one fundamentally misunderstands what it even is that is going on when we say we are "thinking" or "philosophizing" or "seeking truth". Experience is not black and white, no matter how much you (think you) want it to be.

Value ontology largely precludes truth/s as closed-impositional constructs, "thou-shalt"'s, solely positive-empirical or -nominal declarations. Rather the truths of what can be gathered under the heading "value ontology" are far more phenomenological, subjective and applied-direct. Their borders extend outward and vanish from sight behind horizonal lines, and inwardly these continue to vanish ahead of themselves, always hinting at what later begins to more fully and substantially disclose itself. Space/s are mapped, terrains marked, but no absolute boundaries are discovered.

As has also been pointed out already, failure to see clarity cannot be assumed to result from without alone. You must factor in the possibility that such unclarity is arising as a consequence of you yourself, for whatever reason. To circumvent this possibility it would be necessary for you to construct a sufficient and precise critique that would show where and how value ontological thought/s are inadequate, miscalculated or incorrect. What I find unfortunate is that you have not seemingly attempted any such precise critique, not generated of such a counter-position a substantial content and possibility for exploration, but have rather only stagnated at the most basic polemical level, interjecting occasional implied hints toward your own ideas as if this sort of vague inference constituted an actual argument, much less a rebuttal.

I for one would love to see a detailed critique of "value ontology", which would mean you first define its core concepts as they seem to you and then proceed to demonstrate their partial or total invalidity. I am serious, I really wish you could provide such a demonstration. As a young and still-developing thought, value ontology desperately needs such attacks -- but they must be good, useful attacks, of course. Potent, powerful, specific, forcing change/s upon the attacked object. In short, drawing blood. My main problem with your critique/s is they entirely fail to even bruise, let alone draw any blood.

___________
You have little ears; you have my ears:

For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals

Jakob
ILP Legend

Posts: 6131
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

PreviousNext