Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 5478
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom
PostSubject: Also on affluence and justice Wed Sep 30, 2015 4:51 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
What too is interesting is how technology and machines generally add more time into our lives by replacing work with “magic” (non-work), by making some dumb machine do it. Innovation was quite slow for a long time not only because of a natural exponential growth curve of progress but also because the affluent didn’t have much need or really any need for technology and progress; they only required that a general level not exist which they themselves could not refashion into a system that kept themselves in the top. But the average person strives for more time and space, like all good Being, and thus even in the deep heart of the wealthy there are seeds of “curiosity” that sometimes, as in the case of men of genius, flower up. After all one eventually gets bored of all that time and space.
Men are trying to push up toward their estranged justice with thei technologies while the elite try to tighten control and keep themselves ahead of the curve. That’s why things like the federal reserve exist, as circuits in the social machine acting as control mechanisms. Like a class of priests we have today’s “experts” as media, scientific, political or pop culture figures (interesting the new Pope is trying to be all of these at once… there is still a powerful lust in the Catholic soul) who act as gatekeepers to keep the rest out, capitalism being the genius device of realizing one doesn’t need absolute control or even very much control at all, that it’s more effective to cede control and keep a small bit out of view. It is important to note that if the elite or affluence classes are pushing for development and technology it is only as a reaction to development and technology that is somewhat out of their own hands. Everyone is fighting an unconscious arms race to be on top of the dung pile or at least as high up as possible. “One big anthill society” or however Valery put it.
Affluence doesn’t really justify anything, except on some metaphysical level, which doesn’t matter anyway except probably to the affluent themselves. Since communism in all its possible forms is a failure we will continue with consumer society becoming more “nice” over time, niceness that only exists to compel more forced compliance by undercutting possibility to state one’s objections. Like if you make the jails nice enough maybe people will choose to live there.
Anyway, I predict the seemingly endless upward spike in technological innovation and scientific development is going to stop. If only because the upper will gain measures success against the lower through increased Christian subtleties and economic tricks, like in Rome we simply won’t care anymore but to stare at the screens, and whatever geopolitical, environmental or economic situations unfold in the coming century to “cause” scientific progress to stall on a global scale will not in fact be causes at all, but only will be outward excuses and images that mask the deeper reality. It is almost impossible to imagine scientific progress stalling like that since research and application are like capital, they flow wherever there is least resistance and most profit, and because application especially represents nation-state and cultural power. So what does it require for it to arrest? “Peace”.
Message
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar
Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves
PostSubject: A Thought on The Consequences of Negativity as Science Sun Oct 04, 2015 5:24 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Science - Concience
Or in Spanish
Ciencia - Conciencia - ser - ecencia
When we find a reason to drop everything and chase the void, we must know that there is nothing waiting on the other side. We must put it there ourselves: the void will simply spit us back out with the drive that took us to it being the only thing left from it.
This is hard… Say a little girl in a satanic feast. She uses the ritual to free herself from the magic of life: what magic of life is waiting on the zenith to take with her back to life?
This is the building nature of humans. If we don’t put something there for negativity to seize, it will seize whatever the fuck the random bestial drives that took us to the something wanting nothing want and thus dissipate inmediately into a disappointing return to the same somethings, the same consciousness that had already overcome this bestiality.
Negativity as method demands that nothing be thought to await. Magic requires a landing point: this is where the negative science comes in. It neglects its origins at the risk of negating whatever brand new effects it can and will effectively produce. This method has the ability to make an ever climbing ladder for consciousnes.
Consciousness negatively: what isn’t there? All the things that are there have to be traced back to a point where they weren’t there, and then something joyful can be produced from other negative inquiries that reveal things which can serve the drives of consciousness as discovered by negative regression. Parodites, meet Nietzsche.
Last edited by Pezer on Sun Oct 04, 2015 5:43 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
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: A Thought on The Consequences of Negativity as Science Sun Oct 04, 2015 5:38 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This is very fucking hard, forgive the chaotic style and blinding mistakes.
Negativity is a kind of absolute reversal of life, a benjamin button kind of trip. We see ourselves coming from death onto life, words and abstractions are more real the more abstract they are, and more abstract the more rooted in concrete life: concrete life in reverse, but forward at the same time.
Back to top Go down
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: A Thought on The Consequences of Negativity as Science Sun Oct 04, 2015 5:40 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
So, the more something sounds like life, the more it leads to death, and the more it sounds like death (say… Homer), the more it leads to life.
Back to top Go down
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: A Thought on The Consequences of Negativity as Science Sun Oct 04, 2015 6:28 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Full disclosure because this idea is as dangerous as it is powerful: it came to me while half awakening from a half sleep, fully formed and beautifully concrete, and dissolved as I hurried to get it down.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 5478
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom
PostSubject: Re: A Thought on The Consequences of Negativity as Science Sun Oct 04, 2015 7:48 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I remember being focused a lot on the insight that philosophy is death, this was about a year and a half ago. These realizations come to us in strange ways. Only by following the impossible track will we ever know that we have arrived at something certain, and then only in relation to that whole scope against which and precisely not in terms of which we acted. So, do that enough times over a wide enough scope of experiences and ideas, and one begins to build up a picture of what makes the most sense, if only because one has already therefore verified so much that doesn’t make sense, then subjected all that negative verification to overlap of cross-analysis and seat that analysis firmly in the most sure world we know-- ourselves, our own experiences.
But as you say this leads through death. I don’t know how I made it through and out the other side, well I do know but I’m not gong to say. But every man who wants truth must fortify himself “unconsciously” and allow himself o be held by those worlds as render health not possible, but needed. Then the task becomes either to continue in pure truth or to act out truth in the world. Maybe both are possible at the same time but even if so one must retain absolute, categorical priority over the other. And I don’t really know too well on what basis one makes these choices, only that they are made.
“Be clever, Ariadne! …
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
Back to top Go down
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: A Thought on The Consequences of Negativity as Science Sun Oct 04, 2015 7:58 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
In any case my insight here, if one can be discerned, is that there are numberless such threshholds. Negativity is in fact the only real basis of building.
Nietzsche was deeply negativistic, and it was thus that he produced such a life affirming thing as will to power. To come out of Nietzsche unscathed, one must dare one’s self to be as negative in every respect of one’s life: the whys and the wherefores, dug into like an oil rig in Texas. Or turn it back on him, as I see Sawelios and Parodites have done, which inevitably blows back into one’s life. Perhaps more violently and effectively, but less personally. I see philosophy as a deeply personal thing, which comunal aim is only to allow others the same level of personal depth and allow for a higher level of discourse. So, I need them as much as they need me. Maybe this is the line you are talking about, the choice: to be deep or to dig depth. I don’t see it as a choice, but as two sides of a comunal striving: the violent, creative side is the same thing as the personal side.
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 5478
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom
PostSubject: Relativity and magnetism Mon Jun 20, 2016 9:37 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Electrons move in a copper wire. The electrons are negative charges, the wire is made up of positive charges (because the electrons in the wire are now free-floating within the wire as the “electrical current”). The electrons move at a very high velocity and so are subject to Relativity: from the point of view of the wire the electrons are length-contracted in the direction of their motion, which means that per unit of wire there is an increase in density of negative charges of the electrical current, due to length contraction of those elections resulting in more electrons per unit of wire. This creates a charge imbalance between the current (negative) and the wire (positive). Note that this also works if you look at the frame of reference of the electrons, which from their own vantage are stationary and the wire is moving: the wire is positively charged and so experiences length contraction from the perspective of the electrons, therefore the positive charges of the wire are compressed together creating a charge imbalance of more positive charges per unit of negative charges. It is this charge imbalance or differential that produces the electromagnetic effect, and is the same no matter if you take the frame of reference of the electrons or the wire.
So Relativity is the reason why a free flow of moving electrons in a wire creates an electromagnetic effect. The “magnetic” aspect is the electrostatic force between positive and negative particles: electrons in other nearby objects to the wire will be drawn to the net positive charge of the wire, since the electrons in other objects share a reference frame with the electrons in the wire (they are all moving at the same speed) and therefore experience the wire as net positively charged. Protons in other nearby objects also share a reference frame with the protons in the wire, therefore the protons in nearby objects experience the electrons in the wire as net negatively charged, and will attract to them. In any case, objects near the wire will attract to the wire.
Any objects made of protons and electrons will feel some attraction to the wire with electrons flowing in side it. But many objects seem to have no net attraction to the wire, whereas certain metals do. In most objects the molecules are stuck in place in such a way that the strength of the chemical bonds between molecules is stronger than the pull of the electrostatic attraction, especially since the molecules are not lined up and thus the electric field of each atom tends to cancel out the field of another atom. So the potential to be attracted to the wire doesnt extend beyond the scope of the individual atoms or molecules really. In metal, the molecules are all lined up in geometric rows, so the electrons are all in sync with each other. Being in sync in this way means they do not cancel out each other’s charged directions, and can add up to larger potential scope of being drawn to the wire.
Electrons in the wire do not move at the speed of light, but the “charge” or force of the moving electrons does move at the speed of light. The example I found was of a long tube stuffed with golf balls: if you push a new golf ball in one end then a ball will pop out of the other end; the balls themselves are not moving at nearly the same speed as is the “force” that moves along the entire tube since the ball pops out the end at the same moment that you push the new ball in the other end (because the tube can only hold X number of balls). Electrons are the same way.
Moving electrons in the wire carry a physical force, so that when they are made to impact something they pass on some of that force in the form of a “voltage”. Electronics work because the electron flows in copper wires are imparting physical force that can be used to do things.
Next I will work to connect electrostatic attraction and repulsion to self-valuing and to the pure logical view that philosophy must take in order to describe occurrences in physics. All physical phenomena must be described and understood first in terms of pure logic, which I think Value Ontology can help with. Also Parodites’ Daemonic and the excess are logical understandings that can help construct a true explanation for physical events and laws. We are probably a ways away from such a complete explanation, but now we at least know the direction in which to progress toward it.
endyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar
Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home
PostSubject: Value: Intrinsic, Contingent, Both/Neither? Wed Jun 22, 2016 4:31 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
“Barbara Herrnstein Smith (born 1932) is an American literary critic and theorist, best known for her work Contingencies of Value: Alternative Perspectives for Critical Theory.”-Wikipedia
What is the “nature” of value? Is value obvious? Where does value fit into the framework of logic? In other words, is it predictable?
“val·ue
ˈvalyo͞o/Submit
noun
plural noun: values
1.
the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something.
“your support is of great value”
synonyms: worth, usefulness, advantage, benefit, gain, profit, good, help, merit, helpfulness, avail; More
2.
a person’s principles or standards of behavior; one’s judgment of what is important in life.
“they internalize their parents’ rules and values”
synonyms: principles, ethics, moral code, morals, standards, code of behavior
“society’s values are passed on to us as children”
verb
3rd person present: values
1.
estimate the monetary worth of (something).
“his estate was valued at $45,000”
synonyms: evaluate, assess, estimate, appraise, price, put/set a price on
“his estate was valued at $345,000”
2.
consider (someone or something) to be important or beneficial; have a high opinion of.
“she had come to value her privacy and independence”
synonyms: think highly of, have a high opinion of, hold in high regard, rate highly, esteem, set (great) store by, put stock in, appreciate, respect; More”-Google
Message
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar
Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home
PostSubject: Sciences Failings: Is Philosophy Responsible? Wed Jun 22, 2016 5:03 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
1.) Science has become a numbers game, a game of probability, which kills possibilities.
2.) Science only considers potential within the confines of applied logic and the precedent of established scientific structures.
3.) Dynamism is unorthodox, therefore discounted by established, authoritarian sciences.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 5478
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom
PostSubject: Re: Sciences Failings: Is Philosophy Responsible? Wed Jun 22, 2016 3:54 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Science is a method more than anything, and methods are inclusive and exclusive, and become used for purposes beyond their mandate: for example scientific method is used to discount anything that scientific method hasn’t bothered to apply itself to, or cannot apply itself to, thus becomes a principle of preemptive exemption and denial, a psychological function. But before science this principle was thriving under religion and doxa, so science has done a little good at pushing back those two.
Science has always resisted the real progress that appears within science; as you said, it basically sticks to what it already thinks it knows. Empirical method pays lip service to openness to possibilities but without philosophy it cannot see how its own program reproduces a certain kind of closed consciousness. But I would take science over religion most days.
Science is simply a servant to philosophy, which means to human being and to truth. Yet since philosophy has been slowly killing itself and making itself irrelevant in the world, science has come to think of itself as master to no one. And since science cannot operate without a master, it simply became mastered by capital-- as scientific rationality, technological reason, materialism, positivism, utilitarianism. Again, I would still take these over religion, but really they are just a more modern form of religion; a form that is at least slightly improving on its original substance, usually in spite of itself.
Maybe philosophy will assert itself and science will regain its soul. If it does, human being would be freed. But philosophy’s task has become much larger: not simply one city-state, one culture or one nation anymore, but the whole earth is its proper object and context now. To this end it would cultivate many means into the depths of the earth, even non-philosophical means-- just as philosophy cultivated itself through and as its antithesis of religion, it is doing so again through and as science. All it may take is one man to seize the reigns once the ground has been sown. Philosophy will make the global scientific-political apparatus respond to a truth-status. This is inevitable, because time only moves in one direction.
“Be clever, Ariadne! …
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
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar
Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home
PostSubject: Re: Sciences Failings: Is Philosophy Responsible? Wed Jun 22, 2016 6:17 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Shared understanding is a precious commodity it seems. Thought my words had lost their English-ness and were being read as if spoken in tongues or something.
So we are agreed that philosophy has dropped the ball? And science must be checked and perhaps checkmated in which case a complete overhaul of its methodology. Logic as it stands now is aggregious, but trying to pinpoint the crux of the problem will be plaguesome. Prepare for loads of questions. Will you give me your best definition of logic formal and then its applied structures and let me pick it apart? To me, it’s limiting in its nature.
Philosophy has to broaden it’s horizons. If I can re-interpret and redefine logic, will that help?
“Maybe philosophy will assert itself and science will regain its soul. If it does, human being would be freed. But philosophy’s task has become much larger: not simply one city-state, one culture or one nation anymore, but the whole earth is its proper object and context now. To this end it would cultivate many means into the depths of the earth, even non-philosophical means-- just as philosophy cultivated itself through and as its antithesis of religion, it is doing so again through and as science. All it may take is one man to seize the reigns once the ground has been sown. Philosophy will make the global scientific-political apparatus respond to a truth-status. This is inevitable, because time only moves in one direction.”-C
Everything above has romanticism and sexism all over it. Science having a soul is news to me. What does “human being would be freed” mean? By all means start a thread for this undertaking over in Logic.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 5478
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom
PostSubject: Re: Sciences Failings: Is Philosophy Responsible? Thu Jun 23, 2016 3:00 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Human being is enslaved to its illusions and to its need for illusions, to what is sometimes called false consciousness, or what I usually call psychopathology. Religion, politics, science are all domains in which this pathology appears and exerts a regulating, necessary influence: it is important to grasp that every being must struggle up through falsity and untruth in order to reach beyond these and to attain to truth, clarity, sanity and reality, and only what we have born within ourselves and overcome within and as what we are is ever understood, to paraphrase something Parodites wrote once. Truth is a process, reality is a process, these are not givens.
For human being to be freed would mean for it to cast aside not only illusions/falsities but also the need for these. The entire history of human thought and culture is this gradual progress of overcoming illusions and the need for them. So philosophy needs to be asking in what sense does human being need illusions and falsities? This requires direct examination of illusions and falsities within science, religion, politics and economics, ethics, philosophy of mind, and just about anywhere pertinent to human consciousness and the world. A real philosophy jumps right in and starts doing the dirty work. This “dirty work” is what you’re going to find on this site here.
Yes science has a soul, every established human discipline or methodology had a soul, its being an abstraction and extension of human being generally, and a condensation of and collapse around particular aspects of human being. We equate ourselves with our experiences, and the more so when these experiences are methodological and rooted in the phenomenology of being striving upward upon the existential climb of consciousness. The soul of science is tempered by other soul-elements not commonly associated to science, namely those relevant to philosophy or to shared existential-social subjectivity. The tendency for science to trend into materialism, reduction, positivism and technological rationality (think the Holocaust, for example, the scientific program of nationalism qua genocide and racism) has been well noted many times (see my signature quote also).
efenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 5478
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom
PostSubject: Money as value-void Fri Jul 22, 2016 12:45 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Money does not exist. Money is ‘frozen’ value: values are created and exchanged for money, which money in turn is then used to exchange for more values.
Step 1: Values are created, then get transacted to someplace other than their creation-point. The value moves somewhere else, leaving a “value vacuum” behind it. That vacuum is filled in temporarily by money.
Step 2: That money that filled in the vacuum is then pushed out to cause new external values to flow into the vacuum, thus filling it again.
Values themselves are not money, nor is money value, or even valuable. Money is the stand-in for the transactable nature of values. Money is a placeholder, like the “0” in mathematics. “0” is not a number, but a placeholder for orders of magnitude. Money acts like this, although there is an imperfect relation between money as placeholder and the values-vacuums it attempts to temporarily fill; namely, the eventual values that come to fill the vacuum are usually not a perfect match for the values that left and originally caused the vacuum. Also, vacuums overlap, and change all the time, and are nebulous.
Marx and Adam Smith noticed that values are either used or exchanged (use value or exchange value). A value is “used” when it is exchanged for something one wants, a direct values transaction without the need for money; a value is exchanged when it is simply traded out for a value-vacuum into which some quantity of money comes. I would re-interpret Marx’s terms in so far as the only time values are truly “exchanged” is when it is for money, and any other time there is a value-to-value exchange this is technically use value going on.
Surplus value is what happens when values are put to use to create more value than was originally there. This happens traditionally in labor, where workers create values that pile up and eventually contribute to enough values-exchanges to where new additional values are acquired, and/or these created values are exported from the value-creating point in order to produce a huge value-vacuum into which money flows. Surplus value is also created with increases in efficiency, in technology, and in acquiring new resources, since these things either refine the value-making process or reach out and grab values-to-be that were laying around and not yet converted into true (human) value for use or exchange.
Bottom line: money does not exist. Only values exist. We think money exists only because we already know that values exist.
“Be clever, Ariadne! …
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
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path
Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida
PostSubject: Re: Money as value-void Wed Aug 10, 2016 12:04 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Your point is well taken but I’m still not going to give you my money.