## 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

iambiguous wrote:And then this becomes all entangled in value judgments that are equally out of whack.

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

Mitra-Sauwelios
religious philosopher

Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:24 am

### Re: The Philosophers

Mitra-Sauwelios wrote:
iambiguous wrote:And then this becomes all entangled in value judgments that are equally out of whack.

How do you know they are equally out of whack?

Well, for starters, if you don't share their own values, the objectivists will tell you.

But it's really more about a particular set of values generating a particular set of behaviors said to be either more or less in sync with an optimal set of values/behaviors. The optimal values/behaviors then said to be in sync with that which all rational men and women are obligated to embody.

Then it's just a matter [from my frame of mind] of bringing this "general description" of human interactions down out of the scholastic clouds and situating it in a particular context in which values are clearly in conflict.

How "in fact" is it demonstrated that one set of values/behaviors is out of sync with the optimal set?

In other words, is all of this situated historically, culturally and experientially [in a world teeming with contingency, chance and change], or are "serious philosophers" able to reconfigure all of this into a deontological analysis/assessment able to ascribe some measure of objectively to human interactions that come into conflict over value judgments?

Or take a discussion here regarding Nietzsche's "will to power". There are folks who argue endlessly about what he actually meant by this. What, as a matter of fact, the "will to power" is.

On the other hand, I'm far more intrigued regarding the manner in which those who claim they do know what he meant by it, attempt to situate this meaning out in the world of actual moral/political conflagrations.

How are their arguments able to effectively challenge the components of my own moral narrative: dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

The same with such intellectual contraptions as VO or RM/AO or the Generic Problem Solving Technique or Framework and System of Morality and Ethics or Satyr's Genes/Memes dogma.

What on earth do they mean substantively when folks "out in a particular world" come to value opposite means and ends?

How do the objectivists come to illustrate their texts existentially?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

iambiguous
ILP Legend

Posts: 27016
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

### Re: The Philosophers

Optimal for what? A pro-lifer may say: "For Life." A pro-choicer may say: "For Liberty." You will see that these are themselves values. The question is then: what, if any, is the ultimate value?

Taken as ultimate, Life is a slave value. A foetus is alive but not at liberty. The pro-life movement is prepared to sacrifice the liberty of the mother for the life of the foetus, whereas the pro-choice movement is prepared to sacrifice the life of the foetus for the liberty of the mother. We see the same thing if we look at euthanasia instead.

Though it's a higher value than Life, Liberty cannot be the ultimate value. Logically, the ultimate value is Happiness in some sense or another. Yet isn't happiness ultimately the feeling of freedom, and isn't this what we mean by "feeling truly alive"?

Mitra-Sauwelios
religious philosopher

Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:24 am

### Re: The Philosophers

Mitra-Sauwelios wrote:Optimal for what? A pro-lifer may say: "For Life." A pro-choicer may say: "For Liberty." You will see that these are themselves values. The question is then: what, if any, is the ultimate value?

Taken as ultimate, Life is a slave value. A foetus is alive but not at liberty. The pro-life movement is prepared to sacrifice the liberty of the mother for the life of the foetus, whereas the pro-choice movement is prepared to sacrifice the life of the foetus for the liberty of the mother. We see the same thing if we look at euthanasia instead.

Though it's a higher value than Life, Liberty cannot be the ultimate value. Logically, the ultimate value is Happiness in some sense or another. Yet isn't happiness ultimately the feeling of freedom, and isn't this what we mean by "feeling truly alive"?

Okay, you are outside an abortion clinic where there is a gathering folks engaged in a heated debate regarding what is the "ultimate value" at stake here.

Bingo: fiercely entangled conflicting goods.

Indeed, try to imagine their reaction to this "philosophical" contraption of yours.

My point then is this:

To what extent are individual narratives here rooted in dasein or, instead, rooted in one or another "philosophy of life" said to reflect the optimal obligation of all rational human beings.

And once you introduce "happiness", you are broaching a first person subjunctive frame of mind. That's the part where reason intertwines with emotion intertwines with instinct intertwines with subconscious/unconscious awareness embedded existentially in any number of combinations of genes and memes.

Out in any particular world understood from any particular point of view.

Are "serious philosophers" then able to pin down the definition/meaning of such things as Values or Liberty or Justice or Happiness here?

All I can do is to invite those who claim to have accomplished this to integrate their technical/theoretical/conceptual assumptions into a context that most here are likely to be familiar with.

Can they impart an epistemologically sound argument true for all of us or, instead, as you do above, impart a "general description" of human interactions encompassed in Capital Letter Words defining and defending other words to impart what I would construe to be a particual political prejudice.

In other words, if you were charged with reconfiguring your "analysis/assessment" above into an actual set of laws in which certain behaviors are prescribed and certain behaviors are proscribed what would that consist of?

We can then take that to the fiercely entangled folks outside the abortion clinic.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

iambiguous
ILP Legend

Posts: 27016
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

### Re: The Philosophers

Mitra-Sauwelios wrote:Optimal for what? A pro-lifer may say: "For Life." A pro-choicer may say: "For Liberty." You will see that these are themselves values. The question is then: what, if any, is the ultimate value?

Taken as ultimate, Life is a slave value. A foetus is alive but not at liberty. The pro-life movement is prepared to sacrifice the liberty of the mother for the life of the foetus, whereas the pro-choice movement is prepared to sacrifice the life of the foetus for the liberty of the mother. We see the same thing if we look at euthanasia instead.

You don't sound like you relate to Nietzsche.
Freedom from anything is a slave value. The mere wish of a bitch in chains.
Freedom to accomplish certain noble feats can be a master-value.

To be free from ones own progeny is the ugliest slavish value I can think of.

Though it's a higher value than Life, Liberty cannot be the ultimate value. Logically, the ultimate value is Happiness in some sense or another. Yet isn't happiness ultimately the feeling of freedom, and isn't this what we mean by "feeling truly alive"?

Happiness taken as a value is another slave-value.
Happiness is to be taken as a mere residual side product -- of the exertion of strength, which is a masters-value regardless of any results.

Fixed Cross wrote:URUZ
A Great Beast (dutch association: oer-os)

Archetype: STRENGTH

Pure masculine power. Raw energy, completely unconditioned. Unacceptable standards of strength. A mans maximal capacity for lust. The drive that causes murder and war. Blindness of losing oneself in what one is without goals.

Digging downward-forward. Ploughing through life and leaving fertile chaos and upheaval as a trail. Mammoth strength. Marching barbarian army. The synchronized heartbeats of a million soldiers. Drums in the deep.

Roar of a monstrous predator already too close to see. Encroaching darkness. Male Earth. Pillars being drilled into the ground. Pillars being raised. Primordial phallic strength. Brute rhythms.

Excess force flows back into the Earth. The kundalini turned downward.

The need for resistance. Powerful jaw. Raging bull. Walking the Earth in search of pain to grow by. To know oneself the hard way.

Titanic determination. All or death. The force that blindly enslaves. Strength that builds empires.

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=190163

For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals

Jakob
ILP Legend

Posts: 5974
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

### Re: The Philosophers

And now for something completely different.
This made me laugh so hard it hurt my ribs.

Ah fucking olden days. I love Montreal.

For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals

Jakob
ILP Legend

Posts: 5974
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

### Re: The Philosophers

Toxic masculinity.

For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals

Jakob
ILP Legend

Posts: 5974
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

### Re: The Philosophers

For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals

Jakob
ILP Legend

Posts: 5974
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

### Re: The Philosophers

"The first time I felt all sorts of things. Things I didn't want to feel again. Ill admit that. I didn't vomit. But its sort of the same thing. Feel, something inside you you wanna get out of there. In this case it wasn't poison but a kind of a blackness, and emptiness I wanted to puke out. But I didn't, because I knew I couldn't, so I just swallowed it. And well surprisingly enough, when I had a good steak dinner afterwards, I remember very clear, the taste of it was almost the best steak I ever had except one time in Argentina."

"You should be in prison if you're if you're a homosexual"

"Worst are pedophiles. You have a lot of people in prison who have fantasy about things you wouldn't think a man has fantasies about. And they tell you. They insist on telling you. Can you understand that? Can you explain to me why people try to confess their perversion in prison..."
"Yes, its about a sense of normalcy. A man cannot feel he is normal if - "
"He is - he isn't normal. He shouldn't be normal. What is it - I don't feel normal. Im fine with that."
"No but a man does not need to feel normal but at least he wants to be perceived as abnormal. It is not I a mans ability to feel himself simply separate"

"When I walk into a room, I can smell their opinions. I learned to not care for those things, because you know what, opinions don't cause what people do."

"What you should worry about is whether people feel fear about you. Thats not an opinion. If they do, thats important to take note of. And then there is some other stuff that they won't discuss among themselves, that you can see in peoples movements or in their eyes, if you look at them that are important - things like fear but that I won't mention."

For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals

Jakob
ILP Legend

Posts: 5974
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

### Re: The Philosophers

Jakob wrote:
Mitra-Sauwelios wrote:Optimal for what? A pro-lifer may say: "For Life." A pro-choicer may say: "For Liberty." You will see that these are themselves values. The question is then: what, if any, is the ultimate value?

Taken as ultimate, Life is a slave value. A foetus is alive but not at liberty. The pro-life movement is prepared to sacrifice the liberty of the mother for the life of the foetus, whereas the pro-choice movement is prepared to sacrifice the life of the foetus for the liberty of the mother. We see the same thing if we look at euthanasia instead.

You don't sound like you relate to Nietzsche.
Freedom from anything is a slave value. The mere wish of a bitch in chains.
Freedom to accomplish certain noble feats can be a master-value.

To be free from ones own progeny is the ugliest slavish value I can think of.

Though it's a higher value than Life, Liberty cannot be the ultimate value. Logically, the ultimate value is Happiness in some sense or another. Yet isn't happiness ultimately the feeling of freedom, and isn't this what we mean by "feeling truly alive"?

Happiness taken as a value is another slave-value.
Happiness is to be taken as a mere residual side product -- of the exertion of strength, which is a masters-value regardless of any results.

It's paradoxical. What most fundamentally distinguishes a master from a slave is that the former prefers death as a freeman over life as a slave.

To relate to Nietzsche: the terms "freedom from" and "freedom to/for" are not from Nietzsche; they are abstractions from something Zarathustra says:

"Free, dost thou call thyself? Thy ruling thought would I hear of, and not that thou hast escaped from a yoke.
[...]
Free from what? What doth that matter to Zarathustra! Clearly, however, shall thine eye show unto me: free for what?" ("The Way of the Creating One", Common trans.)

The thing is, it's the same freedom to and fro. One is free from certain things so one is free for other things. Strauss speaks of "freedom from" and "freedom for" in the context of Rousseau: if I remember correctly, he speaks of a freedom that is not a freedom for anything but only a freedom from (in Natural Right and History, "The Crisis of Modern Natural right"), meaning Rousseau advocated freedom without determining in advance what that freedom was to be used for. Strauss then adds that Rousseau was aware of this but considered it so much the better, because it meant complete freedom, without being already confined to certain uses. Still, Strauss suggests that Rousseau was also aware of the rightness of Nietzsche's and Strauss's criticism of this, longing back as he did for Plutarch's heroes.

As for happiness, I was careful to add "in some sense or another". Happiness in the sense I understand it is the feeling of freedom, and this feeling is indeed only a negative feeling--the feeling of an absence--without a "for". Freedom is power, the feeling of freedom is the will¹, and both are indeed nothing without a "to": the will to power (or might: Macht), and the strength to its own exertion or effusion:

"Willing: A pressing feeling, very agreeable! It is the accompaniment of every effusion of force [or strength: Kraft]." (Nietzsche, Nachlass Frühjahr-Sommer 1883 7 [225], my translation.)

I think our disagreement here again comes down to the consciousness question. I can see how VO can work without consciousness, but I can't see how there can be value without it. I mean, might a VO-system without consciousness not just as well not exist?

¹ Or at least the essence of will, the affect of command.

Mitra-Sauwelios
religious philosopher

Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:24 am

### Re: The Philosophers

Ahahahahaa
EIHWAZ PERTHO NAUTHIZ

ANSUZ

URUZ
Philosopher

Posts: 2049
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: The topoi

### Re: The Philosophers

Omfgggggggz
EIHWAZ PERTHO NAUTHIZ

ANSUZ

URUZ
Philosopher

Posts: 2049
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: The topoi

### Re: The Philosophers

This Chekov improvisation method is the best thing ever.

For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals

Jakob
ILP Legend

Posts: 5974
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

### Re: The Philosophers

Code: Select all
EXT. PERPENDICULAR STREET - SNOWDOWN                 Ambulances pull up. A corpse is being dragged onto a                 stretcher and men in white masks wheel it in. Smoke                 billows over the scene. Lights flash.                 Some distance to the ambulance and the smoke is a man,                 pacing around impatiently. He wears a beret, blond hair,                 blue eyes and a cigar between his jaws. His is HARPER,                 40.                                        HARPER                           The fuck are they...                  He swallows the rest, chewing on his cigar. A younger                 black man in a grey camouflage uniform appears by his                 side, sunk through his knees, operating some wire close                 to the ground. This is EDLEE, 28.                                        EDLEE                           Sir.                  Harper looks down and observes.                                        HARPER                           Edlee, make the trucks ready to                           pull in.                                         EDLEE                           Yes sir.                 He disappears. Harper goes back to staring over the                 scene. He checks his watch. He punched a few buttons and                 an EXPLOSION goes off in the distance.                  CHAOS --- the scene in the smoke and the ambulance pull                 off as men scrimmage around to collect instruments and                 rush off to another vehicle.                 OVER SHOULDER Harper, who has seen enough and waves with                 three fingers. Three DARK HUMMERS pull up and Harper gets                 in the middle one. Slowly they drive in the direction of                 the smoke.                                         HARPER                           Wait.                  The caravan stops. A shot of the three cars as seen from                 the smokey scene.                                         HARPER                           Lights.                  The lights of the cars go out.                 Harper steps out of the vehicle and approaches the                 smoking object, which appears to be a car. Two armed men                 in uniform get out of the third hummer and stealthily                 take his flanks while the one from Harpers vehicle takes                 his back.                  Harper walks into the smoke. A moment of suspense on the                 face of one of the drivers.                                         DRIVER                           Shit.                 We see his POV, to the left of the smoking scene, police                 cars are approaching. About half a mile to go.                  The driver presses his ear and starts talking.                                        DRIVER                           Law enforcement vehicles engaging,                           three, strike, four in number,                           north northwest, approximately...                           75 seconds out. Confirm copy.                 We cut to the face of one of the men backing Harper,                 CURT. He calls out.                                        CURT                           Chief!                 No response.                                         CURT                           The fuck.                                 (hesitant)                           Moving in. Repeat moving in.                                         DRIVER                           Engage.                 The three men move forward into the smoke and wheels come                 into motion on the dirt as the Hummers start rolling                 towards the scene. Their lights flash back on and we cut                 to the smoke.                 The smoke is dazzling, it moves very quickly as in lots                 of turbulence, a disrupted magnetic field of sorts,                 something is awry. Curt comes closer.                                        CURT                           Chief!                 Suddenly, Harper appears. His face is sweaty and radiant                 and he has what seems to be an animal in his hand.                                         CURT                           What the -                                         HARPER                           Hahahahahaaaaaa!!!!                 Curts face, bewildered.                 Cut to Harper, who is jumping up and down in glee, with a                 rabbit in his hand.

For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals

Jakob
ILP Legend

Posts: 5974
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

### Re: The Philosophers

I do think I posted that before.

For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals

Jakob
ILP Legend

Posts: 5974
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

### Re: The Philosophers

What is the most esoteric philosophical text of all time?
As a pillar of rising smoke did my angel condescend and appear, standing without reserve on the exhausted banks of infinite sorrow.

http://knowthyself.forumotion.net/f6-agora
perpetualburn

Posts: 140
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 3:57 am

### Re: The Philosophers

perpetualburn wrote:What is the most esoteric philosophical text of all time?

I'm thinking.. something old.

MagsJ
The Londonist

Posts: 17505
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

### Re: The Philosophers

Esoteric... I think it must be some of my own.

At least, something posted on BTL, by me, Parodites or Capable.

But excluding ourselves, I find "The Chemical Wedding of Christian Rosenkreutz" a good contenter.
Before the Light - Tree of Life

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

Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper

Posts: 7857
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

### Re: The Philosophers

Sauwelios wrote:Good stuff, Zoot! It certainly seems like a genuine attempt to understand my signature. In complete accordance with VO, this must always mean reconstruing it from one's own point of view.

Zoot Allures wrote:Value Axiology: Valuation is a rational value, as its disvaluation would disvalue itself, too.

If we find that it is rational to disvalue this axiom, then we are demonstrating that it is valuable to be rational, even if that means a disvaluation of the rationale itself. Therefore, value is first, what is rational or not is secondary. There is always a valuing when a judgement is made, in other words, and analytical judgements are a result of a long evolutionary investment.. N says something about the prehistory of logic that is interesting:

Origin of the logical.-- How did logic come into existence in man's head? Certainly out of illogic, whose realm originally must have been immense. Innumerable beings who made inferences in a way different from ours perished; for all that, their ways might have been truer. Those, for example, who did not know how to find often enough what is "equal" as regards both nourishment and hostile animals--those, in other words, who subsumed things too slowly and cautiously--were favored with a lesser probability of survival than those who guessed immediately upon encountering similar instances that they must be equal. The dominant tendency, however, to treat as equal what is merely similar--an illogical tendency, for nothing is really equal--is what first created any basis for logic.

The selection of this error demonstrates that it was valuable to the survival of the human being. The deductive and inductive reasoning, the reasoning in analytical judgements, is an ability that developed because the logical errors which led to the capacity to do so increased the fitness of the human being. From an evolutionary perspective then, the life of this fundamental logical error in epistemology (that things are equal) is hardwired into the genome and menome (don't use my new word without my permission), and proved to be a valuable characteristic of human beings.

So, in the value axiology we get value precedes rationale (because the negation of this truth itself would be valuable to the negater), and we get a demonstration of the value of our errors in reasoning from an evolutionary point of view (this mistake is calling equal what is not).

Great choice of quote--very relevant--, and a worthy purport to it in my view. Still, I will explain what I meant by my axiom first and foremost.

If we disvalue valuation (a.k.a. valuing), i.e., if we consider it of little or no positive value or of negative value, then we logically must also consider this disvaluation of ours of little or no positive value or of negative value, as it is itself a valuation--namely, a relatively or absolutely low positive valuation or a negative valuation.

Now this need not mean, however, that valuation is an absolute value, a.k.a. a noumenal value. All it means is that it's a rational value. "Rational" here refers to reason, or at least to human reason, or at least to the reason of most or some humans, or at least to my reason... Truth values, including those of the axioms of logic, are pre-logical--as I basically say in my signature's next axiom:

Value Logic: Logic's self-identical "A" is a value, and not necessarily a fact.

Because it is possible to create a language game in which arguments could be made against the absolute rule of Aristotle's law of identity, and because our shared agreement on what the word 'fact' means, any epistemological certainty regarding the truth of this axiom is not available to us. On the other hand, we still use and value the rule in our reasoning, so whether or not it is true is beside the point. There is always a preceding pragmatic principle in praxis and a principled precedence of praxis pragmatically. Therefore, the very foundations of logic need not be true in order to be useful. We have fixed up a world of planes, lines, etc., etc.

Exactly. And it is indeed very apt what you say about language games, as that is exactly what we (or at least I; I will not keep saying this, but I mean it) lapse into as soon as we start arguing against, or trying to break, that law or its complements (the law of non-contradiction and the law of the excluded middle). In fact, my axiom may itself be an example of that, which may be why a serious objectivist like James would object to it like that. He won't admit he's just playing the "my business is serious" game.

::

Value Ethics: It is just to consider things just, and unjust to consider things unjust.

Because absolute moral relativism is not only a glorious oxymoron but also a conclusion we are led to by a rigorous criticism of objectivist reasoning, we are left with only an amoral affirmation of the whole. We must replace the absence of morality and loss of god with our own legislative artifices; we no longer sit idly on the problem of moral relativism and assert our value system on the world as if it were objective. We cannot not do this, though, because we cannot not value what we value.

Exactly. Even though logically all things are just, including considering things unjust, in practice we must stil consider some things unjust. This axiom is my best attempt at a reconciliation of these facts. It posits an order of rank ranging from those who consider all things just to those who consider all things unjust; and, supposing that things are considered unjust as often as they are considered just, it places oneself modestly in the middle.

::

Lastly I wish to point out that not just the last three axioms of my signature are my own. The second, though the exact formulation is mine, is Jakob's; the first, however, is mine. First off, let me say something about the names. Value Ontology is what the person known here on ILP as MechanicalMonster first called Jakob's elaboration of willings to power as self-valuings. I think it has a really strong and catchy ring to it, even though it's not entirely accurate. I call it Value Metaphysics instead, because "metaphysics" is more comprehensive than "ontology", often even including epistemology--and VO, like the doctrine of the will to power, explodes the difference between ontology and epistemology. Now "philosophy" is even more comprehensive than "metaphysics"; and while metaphysics has traditionally been considered First Philosophy, I think even that is preceded by the positing of a metaphysics. Still, the two cannot be absolutely distinguished, as even the view that metaphysics are posited, as values, is itself a value, and not necessarily a fact.

Note, by the way, that I came upon the ideas expressed in "my own" four axioms quite independently from Jakob's coming upon the ideas expressed in "his".

Most recently, I've come to think of a way in which my five axioms may get to form a circle. For I now think that political or moral philosophy, far even from being a specialisation or specification of natural philosophy (cosmology, metaphysics), as I previously thought, is really philosophy proper. For natural philosophy is necessarily anthropomorphosis--or rather, "automorphosis": for even the concept "man" is already an "automorphism". A man's idea or ideal of man, a valuing's idea or ideal of self, determines even his most "abstract", "theoretical", "purely contemplative", "objective" notions.

"The philosopher does not seek the truth, but the metamorphosis of the world into man: he strives to understand the world with self-consciousness. He strives for an assimilation: he is satisfied when he has construed something anthropomorphically. As the astrologer regards the world in the service of single individuals, so the philosopher regards it as a man." (Nietzsche, Nachlass Herbst 1872-Winter 1872-73.)

He thus seeks to embody the truth.
Before the Light - Tree of Life

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

Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper

Posts: 7857
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

### Re: The Philosophers

Jakob wrote:Now that I've given up on idealism, attempts to elevate, suddenly the reality on ILP has become murkily clear.

I did not see your faces as I stood alongside, you pointing the way. But as I turned to look at myself I saw you as well. You saw the general direction I was pointing in, but what did you see? Certainly not it.

But you saw something. What it was I can only guess from your faces.

Who is that guy looking sideways? Who are those gossipers sensually talking in the back?

So much to see!

A penetrating stare without eyes.

Look at this manly lust.

And how could I ever get angry at these good folks.

God bless you all. So sorry about that.

But as long as a single man sees what I'm pointing at...

Or as long as I can believe that.

Reminder
Before the Light - Tree of Life

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

Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper

Posts: 7857
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

### Re: The Philosophers

Reading back, I realize I owe Pezer a public apology, as I realize I did actually slander him here.
Not my finest moments. I should know how to handle his stings of disappointment a lot better.

Well this will have to do.
Before the Light - Tree of Life

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

Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper

Posts: 7857
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

### Re: The Philosophers

By Zeus, Sagittarius has no patience and does not compromise.
Last edited by Fixed Cross on Sat May 26, 2018 5:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Before the Light - Tree of Life

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

Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper

Posts: 7857
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

### Re: The Philosophers

Fixed Cross wrote:Reading back, I realize I owe Pezer a public apology, as I realize I did actually slander him here.
Not my finest moments. I should know how to handle his stings of disappointment a lot better.

Well this will have to do.

Do you think that this apology could be improved upon ~~ just a tad?
“How can a bird that is born for joy
Sit in a cage and sing?”
― William Blake

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

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

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

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

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

“No bird soars too high if he soars with his own wings.”
― William Blake

Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker

Posts: 15284
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

### Re: The Philosophers

I don't know, its good to owe someone something sometimes.

Work is to be done on the planet.
VO kicks in like what kind of engine?
Before the Light - Tree of Life

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

Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper

Posts: 7857
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

### Re: The Philosophers

Fixed Cross wrote:By Zeus, Sagittarius has no patience and does not compromise.

This is true. Most of the time.
EIHWAZ PERTHO NAUTHIZ

ANSUZ

URUZ
Philosopher

Posts: 2049
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: The topoi

PreviousNext