Thanks. And: I don’t see how it implies that, but it would mean that the whole is still finite compared to man–meaning to him it is a whole–enclosed by “nothing”…
Yes, I ‘should’ do that, but for the time being that’s too much of a secretarial task for me to actually do. I might be able to do it at work, which is pretty much a secretarial job, anyway. This night, I’ve been going through my ILP “Sent messages” and “Inbox” folders, deleting what was not worth keeping.
Well, even though I may still be underground, I have already felt like I was flowering several times while making my videos, and in between: this Sunday night, I plan on making one on erôs, will to power, and self-valuing. And episodes 11 and 12 are already online, though I’ve still to post them here. But now I have to go to bed.
I do think it implies it, as if the universe is infinite, and man relates to it directly, which he does, he must relate directly to infinity, so he must also be infinite.
A finite thing can not be brought in the same context as an infinite thing.
similar approach: man is a result of his environment, if his environment is infinite, he must be conditioned by an infinity of factors, at least indirectly - which makes no difference.
There is, to my mind, simply no way of separating the notion Man from the notion Universe, at least not as fundamentally as defining them in terms of irreconcilable contexts.
But man to himself also appears infinite to me. I see no limit to a human being. Wherever we investigate it, either by roots or by consequence, it appears infinite.
And yet defies Aristotelean ogic, as it refers to that which we cant measure - it thus defies the law of identity.
and I think that is what we always have to accept when using that term: Infinity is not an identity, and doesnt belong to any identity -
man thus also is unidentifiable - we can indicate a man, but we can never fully circumscribe him - as he is infinite, and thus circumscribed, indeed, by nothing and no one.
Yes, it’s a big hassle, I agree.
This is great to hear.
You produce content far quicker than I ever did, so I can only assume an well that wants to overflow is being tapped.
In the meantime, I noticed that sharevid.com is going offline in a few days, I just saw this in time to salvage Zoots videos, which would have been lost forever if I hadnt downloaded them just now.
I’ve uploaded four of them to youtube so far, I’ll post them below.
Good work with the Zoot videos. I agree about the infinity thing and indeed mention that in episode 14. But first, episode 13, in which I was really far out, so it isn’t very good as an episode but it was great as an experience, leading up to even greater things. I will not post the first six parts here.
i have just hauled down the stairs the couch that Pezer first owned, then was in the studio, and then in my own apartment served as comfort to the most beautiful woman in the world.
Sauwelios, I may need your help here - my Latin turns out to have gotten a little rusty.
I could look for a translation online but wheres the fun in that.
-Descartes:
: Principiorum, Philosophicorurn Part. 3,
Articulo 47, his verbis : " Atque omnino parum refert, quid hoc
pacto supponatur, quia postea justa leges naturae est mutandurn.
Et vix: aiiquid supponi potest ex quo non idem effectus, quanquam
fortasse operosius, deduci possit. Cum enim illarum ope materia
formas omnes quarum est capax successive assumat, si formas istas
ordine consideremus, tandem ad illam quae est hujus mundi pote-
rimus devenire, adeo ut hie nihil erroris ex falsa hypothesi sit
timendum."
Descartes appears to state here the same suggestion you made to me recently when you were trying to penetrate my thinking on self valuing.
You asked me if not everything could possibly exist, whereupon I answered: no, only the best can exist.
The same dialogue appears to have occurred between Descartes and Leibniz. That is to say, Descartes proclaimed, in the above, that the world can and must take any shape, due to its infinity, but Leibniz, who is like I am a monadologist (Impenitent was early in identifying this), discerns the absurdity in this - though his terms are not nearly as sound as mine, as all this was before Nietzsche, he has requirement of the term God, his underlying deduction is based on the same understanding of necessity. “God” is merely the ultimate meritocrat.
Yes, it is just like those people who claim that given infinite time a group of monkeys pounding on keyboards would produce Hamlet. That is simply false. Just as it is false to assume that given an infinite amount of time, frogs would eventually build a space shuttle and reach the moon (assuming they remained frogs, rather than evolving into something else).
It is an analytic mistake. Just like in quantum physics where they make a similar mistake by misinterpreting statistical probability curves as if that were ontology.
And equally Nietzsches projection of the infinite recurrence of the exact same states given infinite time and a finite amount of ontos.
This is not how time and being compute.
Being is not a passive variable that responds to the magnitude of time. It is being that pushes forward time by cohering in entirely particular, specific and maximized forms.
I can agree.
Quantum Mechanics is not making a mistake, as it makes no ontological claims. It only pertains to degrees of certainty of knowledge. It is thus indeed epistemology.
Quantum Physics on the other hand makes claims to ontology, but based on a known uncertainty (the epistemic certainty about ontic uncertainty) and is thus fallacy.
All supernaturalistic theories about being based supposedly on the uncertainty principle are missing the point of QM entirely, and they do so much like Leibniz sees Descartes as missing the point of statistical probabilities.
What is needed is a third frame of reference: the coherence of the structure of knowledge with the strategy of its application. This is truly advanced philosophy, pro-active thinking.
QP as opposed to QM does indeed make the error of ascribing to ontology what are actually epistemically attributes. Reality itself isn’t “statistical” simply because when we posit what we know in the absence of sufficient information we must use statistics as a guide.
We must remember that physics is an empirical science and is not philosophy.
The last thing you said really strikes me as crucial. I had a similar thought yesterday regarding locating the perfect ground-seed of an idea in order to perfectly expose the error in that way of thinking. Thought expands and grows but if you can identify and elaborate the seed of error as such within that thought, then the whole structure reconfigures instantly. We could think of it like entanglement: every thought-form is entangled with its errors, and every structure of thoughts is entangled with the totality of its errors. If you locate the center of gravity, the universality of those errors and express it to the structure itself then you instantly change the structure as it communicates instantly with itself in a new way. This is, I think, what all philosophy is always trying to do.
The logic was making all possible steps from its own center, exploding all the error in the fundamental assumption of a specific direction and thus the negation of another, and is now unfolding in a downward direction that Pezer has conceived back in 2015 in our discussions on BTL and that we are now revitalizing. He has basically found a proper element to be reified qua synthetic self valuing, so that a centre of a world can be conceived. You should get back in touch with him and we should work on this together in more discrete environment.
Yes, VO not only identifies a universal ground-seed but shows in method how other such seeds within more individual structures such as in thought can be found.
Self-valuing is a ‘positive’ such seed, not an error. But I also want to locate the seeds of errors so that individual thoughts and thought structures can be reformatted more properly. For example there is in “leftism” such a seed of error, probably more than one, that if we found it and successfully expressed it to the whole of leftist thought structure then that structure would simply decohere. I’m working on finding the seed, the notion of anti-individuality you mentioned gets close, but isn’t quite exactly there yet.
I would see as the bone marrow of such types one fundamental error, which is failing to rout ones self valuing through the empirical world, as giving rise to all “slave mentality”, i.e. inclination to not be structurally responsible for ones weight in the equation. It is impossible in this world-science to fully establish a rational centre of cohesion of action and thought, until such a centre has been radically implemented, as a primordial crime if you will at the outset of a paradigm of law. This law birthing truth must relate to the most earthly of realities though, that funk Pezer brought into the equation to stabilize it.
In any case I agree that the path to wisdom is largely the discernment of error. To that end, there is a beauty to error, as it becomes a simple path, a reality along the outlines of which the light of truth gives opportunity to navigate and be -
perhaps truth would simply not allow us to navigate, to explore, to be truthful - truth might compel us to err, and that is what might have happened to Nietzsche - at least in this way we can understand the Birth of Tragedy as turning to the Will to Power.
To this end, this grounding particle so to speak, I now see the breakdown of great orders into small chaoses as useful, as they would eventually just end up becoming the highest type of meritocratic capitalism.
I think we should think about reinforcing the religious thinking around capitalism, that is, if we want to restore to it its proper excess. Money is always been the blood of god, and a load of it was spilled into the dank urf.
Haha, yeah. I have also been working on the polarity between “good” (useful) religion and “good” (useful) scientific/philosophical atheism as it pertains to the strength and structure of culture. This daemonic polarization is very strong in the US, I think it is part of the US cultural strength. And that cultural strength translates via economy and politics into societal and military strength.
The “right” (at least the old right) wants to collapse the scientific/philosophcial atheistic side into the religious side, while the left wants to collapse the religious side into the scientific/(non)philosophical atheistic side. Both of those approaches are erroneous. The polarity must be preserved, and it maps out a space wherein those on the right cannot go too far toward science and philosophy without decohering their own paradigm and personality, likewise for those on the left with how they cannot go too far toward the “religious” (non atheistic) side.
Two dominant personalities here, in tension. Most people somewhere in the middle.
To break apart the neoliberal centralized-monopolized capital into more micro-units for release of meritocracy would be tremendous. I think Trump and the phenomenon and movement around him represents this idea, perhaps at the unconscious level. Since centralized communist-neoliberal monopoly capitalism doesn’t work, we can assume that as it continues to suffer breakdowns the system is slowly being naturally reconfigured back toward a more proper meritocracy, where money has true value again. Currently money has only false value, as debt and mere invention of unreality (often no actual real values produced).
