The Philosophers

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

Moderator: MagsJ

Re: The Philosophers

Postby barbarianhorde » Tue Nov 22, 2016 4:27 am

media figures called to trump towers admonished say it was like firing squad.... they expected gifts lol
imagine a guy walking in front of a firing squad saying "this is like a Trump meeting

people gonna say this is fascist but there's no fascism in disciplining filthy rich media liars living off the backs of thousands of thousands suffering.... they would get firing squad in nations that pay them but they have no idea how privileged they are and how shitty.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Thinker
 
Posts: 905
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: The Philosophers

Postby barbarianhorde » Tue Nov 22, 2016 4:29 am

mofucking newyork times worse than cancer. you dont even need a diagnosis to have the news corrupt you.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Thinker
 
Posts: 905
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: The Philosophers

Postby barbarianhorde » Tue Nov 22, 2016 10:54 pm

Capable wrote:Christians secretly fantasize about the end of the world. This fantasy is the capstone of the New Testament. Christians today apply this emotional need-fantasyland in weird ways, such as conspiracies or to their political beliefs. In a deeper level a Christian is a hypocrisy of needing to act with full intensity of "Jesus-love and faith-investment in life" while also at the same time discounting the meaning of everything he does because of the coming End of the World. Everything has absolute meaning and no meaning, at the same time.

This impossibility of clear values-acting comes across as the Christian's "charm-naïveté" and veneer of innocence, a veneer that is easily pierced by forced reality contact and converted into rage, in all except the most Buddhistic Christians. Their ignorance is absolutely necessary to defend against the ever-present possibility of Rage.

What is the source of weird Christian fantasies? I think it is inherent to ideology to have this kind of thinking-feeling. When we force ourselves to state allegiance to beliefs we know are unjustified, that is bound to do strange things to a person. The end of the world is a redemptive justice and an "ah I told you so!" cop-out for those too afraid to live life. Someone said that only atheists can be Christians and only Christians can be atheists-- Lol.

New direction now: Our beliefs create conscious-subjectivity in the most literally possible way: the beliefs amass into a substance physical ground that is what "conscious subjective" really means. Individual beliefs emerge from the ground of believing which is the ground of all "beliefs" as sum. From a young age we are loaded up with "facts" (the sky is blue, 2+2=4, you spell 'cat' like C-A-T, this right here is an apple, etc.) and these pool and stick together to create a sticky ocean-swamp of believing-ness. Individual beliefs are like bubbles in the muck, they rise and pop and make us aware of them even as they break with the believing-ground. But then the belief which was the popping bubble settles its element with back into the ground and they dissolve into the muck to become just more unconscious believing-mud.

Christians operate by attempting to freeze the popping bubbles just before they pop and at maximum volume. This so other rising bubbles can be easily ignored. This is will power in the Christian sense, and Christian fantasy is the ability to see images of bubbles that aren't there anymore and to use those images to ignore real and risings bubbles. The tension in the almost bit not quite popped bubble becomes the form of Christian imagining-fantasy. A million forgotten facts tectonically articulate a mud-ground; air pressure and mud-currents force bubbles that pop; we notice the popping sounds and call that "consciousness". The Christians goes a step further and imposes vertical image-fantasies which arrest the surface of the mud, trying to freeze it in time; thus the Christian is always approaching the possibility of pure unconsciousness as mental stasis. God is "timeless" and Jesus the retroactive hero who brings winter to the mud-pit.



http://beforethelight.forumotion.com/t7 ... -fantasies
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Thinker
 
Posts: 905
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: The Philosophers

Postby barbarianhorde » Tue Nov 22, 2016 10:57 pm

C wrote:Anyone raised to be Christian will spend the rest of his life trying to destroy that Christian element in himself; namely his own childhood, which now is just memory. Philosophy is the only thing unhindered by long term smoking and drinking, for example. Only the emotions breakdown into nothingness as memory is liquidated and good feelings die, in order to remove the Christian core of childhood. But most people are too afraid to do that, they don't like pain or are too unconscious to feel it, and just become disbelieving Christian actors, "atheists" (non-thinkers).

Atheism is the antithesis of philosophy, but only because Christianity is both bullshit and shoved down the throats of children.



Sisyphus wrote:Interesting you started this discussion today because today I was visited by two Witnesses.

They are nice people so I do try to return their niceness.

One asked me about Heaven and Hell and I said I don't believe in such things. (I really don't.)

Then one wanted to read something from the Book of Revelations and I said I don't believe a single thing that is written in that book.

But fantasy is what makes up nearly all religions, not just the Christian religions. For example, Islam with the 47 or however many virgins when you die fighting for your religion.


C wrote:I have a hard time considering such people to be human.


S wrote:Hehehe. I know. We sometimes have to open our mind a little bit more when in association with those types of people. (Don't have to agree with them though.)

I did tell them that the next time they come over they have to listen to me telling them a bit about Taoist beliefs. (That might keep them away.)



there. leaving Cruxer out of this.
My goddamn back.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Thinker
 
Posts: 905
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Sun Dec 11, 2016 6:50 pm

Update.

Pezer is in Venezuela, no doubt heavily scheming.

Trump won.

no further changes to report.
Before the Light - No Country for Shrinks

Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6557
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

MASTER MORALITY VS SLAVE MORALITY IN VALUE ONTOLOGY

Postby Fixed Cross » Sun Dec 18, 2016 12:45 am

"I propose that slave morality be understood as consciousness disconnecting from the organisms self-valuing. A being can no longer rely, in its actions of acquisition of power, on what it is – it is forced to re-determine what it is in terms of the lack, the gap left by the removal of its self-valuation. Since a gap has no content, the identification is shifted to that which has caused the gap, the enemy. A moral slave determines itself in terms of what it hates, by positing itself as not-that. It posits, or attempts to posit, a self-value by establishing a sense of power over the entity that it blames for the loss of its self-value.

As it is still exerting its will to power, it still operates as an entity, a subject, so it is in fact still grounded in a self-valuing. What has been lost is the connection between self-valuing and consciousness. Consciousness has detached from nature, what results can be described as disintegration of value. As long as slave-morality persists, as the unconsciously self-valuing entity persists in its behavior of willing to power on the terms of another entity, as it tries to establish a conscious self-valuing as the negative of what it perceives as powerful (but evil), it operates directly against its natural, innate self-valuing, and this must result in decay.

I think that slave morality can not be inherited, that every new-born being has a master-morality, by which I mean that its consciousness is rooted in a self-valuing. (For example, the mother is valued in terms of the self, that is why we have the Freudian complex of interpreting the mother / parent as the self).

By the genetic passing-on and cultural / physical sustainment of forms of weakness / unhealth, it becomes more likely that a conscious being strays into slave-morality. If the being is both physically unhealthy and immersed in a culture where slave-morality is the norm, it is likely that it abandons its “child-like” master-morality and becomes a value-decaying, alike to its cultural environment. I think of the modern Islamic world, which morality is rooted in the rejection of the west (not to say that the west presently holds a master morality, but it serves as the standard of hated enemy by rejecting of which the morality is largely defined). Breaking out of this cycle, “salvation” could only occur through impulses of a freshly, life affirming nature such as is operative in children.

It seems likely that the teachings of Jesus Christ (whether this is only a metaphorical figure or if he really lived is not important) were aimed to remedy a similar condition operative in the Jews under Roman oppression – a re-establishment of self-valuing by taking on a infant-like perspective. “Render unto Caesar what is his” – his value – have for yourself what is yours – your value: “divinity” –i.e. your self-valuing

Nietzsche had good reason to say that the last Christian died on the cross, because much of Christianity as a culture was a continuation of the self-denying/ignoring against which a “spiritual rebirth” was proposed a remedy. It continued to focus on the enemy, on Evil, even if it politically overcame all enemies, and succeeded so in including in this negativity-standard against which it set its efforts, the things that naturally sustain positive valuing – beauty, strength, pleasure, the ‘good things in life’.

It seems that ultimately such a reverse valuing must come to an end, as the acting consciousness of resentment erodes the unconscious self-valuing on wich it rests to such a point that it can no longer be sustained. Physical reserves are exhausted, the psychological driving force is no longer sustained sufficiently to act aggressively-destructively, the active anti-ethics are no longer possible, nihilism is the result. Depending on the circumstances in wich the organism finds itself, this may lead to, in natural, nurturing conditions of culture, a gradual recovery of natural, positive valuation, conscious self-valuation, master morality – in less favorable circumstances, death seems the only outcome.

Now the will to power is dependent on self-valuing (the standard-setting interpreted as the root/ground of the subject), so where self-valuing is sabotaged by consciousness, as is the case where slave-morality takes hold, will to power remains operative only until it exhausts its resources, it wills the entity to death. The energy is transferred to vital subjects / structures. In such a case the will to power is not aimed at power of the subject, but rather at a transferring of power from the subject. The subject wills himself

Can the will of an entity possessed of a slave morality still be called a will to power? Can it still be called a will? What is more, can we still speak an entity? I think that the answer is: only in as far as it is unconscious. And this makes it clear how (and that, which is a departure from Nietzsches “all is blood” dogma) we may begin to dispel slave-morality" -

Capable wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:I propose that slave morality be understood as consciousness disconnecting from the organisms self-valuing. A being can no longer rely, in its actions of acquisition of power, on what it is – it is forced to re-determine what it is in terms of the lack, the gap left by the removal of its self-valuation. Since a gap has no content, the identification is shifted to that which has caused the gap, the enemy. A moral slave determines itself in terms of what it hates, by positing itself as not-that. It posits, or attempts to posit, a self-value by establishing a sense of power over the entity that it blames for the loss of its self-value.

As it is still exerting its will to power, it still operates as an entity, a subject, so it is in fact still grounded in a self-valuing. What has been lost is the connection between self-valuing and consciousness. Consciousness has detached from nature, what results can be described as disintegration of value. As long as slave-morality persists, as the unconsciously self-valuing entity persists in its behavior of willing to power on the terms of another entity, as it tries to establish a conscious self-valuing as the negative of what it perceives as powerful (but evil), it operates directly against its natural, innate self-valuing, and this must result in decay.


Yes. Consciousness detaching from self-valuing-intending and -activity, this is a great way of conceiving this. This completes the setting of Will to Power into its proper context, as now the source of the distinction between so-called slave- and master-morality comes into focus.

Willing in terms of a void, gap or negation, this thought needs further exploration, I feel. For one, I can imagine this taking place with respect to what is the perceived or intuited source of the gap, but also it seems possible that one might will in a relative vaccuum of "depleted" or "grayed" self-valuings, or that self-valuing might simply becomes more unconscious, thus pushing consciousness generally down into a more unconscious sphere, decreasing overall cognitive and perceptive capacity. This might explain how some people are relatively "zombie-like" with respect to how their thinking-feeling seems to simple and automated, like a robot, programed and largely heuristical, composed of closed "solutions" to encountered situations. They seem to lack something essential, spirit, soul, whatever we cal it. Self-valuing that is suppressed through consciousness disconnecting from it might lead to overall loss of consciousness itself, in all areas, and not just to a consciousness possessed of slavish morality.

I also wonder if it is truly impossible to will or value the gap in itself, or "in the gap" itself. It seems to me that certain phenomena, for example post-modernism, might be explanable at least partly in light of valuing-activities that have become able to value "negative as such", gap- or disconnectivity-as-such. I only wonder whether and to what extent "gap valuing" is actually possible, as opposed to simply valuing/willing at/toward/with respect to the "evil" other from which the fact of the gap is seen/sensed to have arisen.

I think that slave morality can not be inherited, that every new-born being has a master-morality, by which I mean that its consciousness is rooted in a self-valuing. (For example, the mother is valued in terms of the self, that is why we have the Freudian complex of interpreting the mother / parent as the self).

By the genetic passing-on and cultural / physical sustainment of forms of weakness / unhealth, it becomes more likely that a conscious being strays into slave-morality.


I agree, a preponderance of conditions leading to the likelihood of adopting slavish morality at the expense of self-valuing. But some of this could be inherited, at least a tendency or potential for slavishness could be present genetically speaking. But I think the large part of this influence, including of genes and their activation, would probably be entirely environmental.

If the being is both physically unhealthy and immersed in a culture where slave-morality is the norm, it is likely that it abandons its “child-like” master-morality and becomes a value-decaying, alike to its cultural environment. I think of the modern Islamic world, which morality is rooted in the rejection of the west (not to say that the west presently holds a master morality, but it serves as the standard of hated enemy by rejecting of which the morality is largely defined). Breaking out of this cycle, “salvation” could only occur through impulses of a freshly, life affirming nature such as is operative in children.

It seems likely that the teachings of Jesus Christ (whether this is only a metaphorical figure or if he really lived is not important) were aimed to remedy a similar condition operative in the Jews under Roman oppression – a re-establishment of self-valuing by taking on a infant-like perspective. “Render unto Caesar what is his” – his value – have for yourself what is yours – your value: “divinity” –i.e. your self-valuing


It seems like environmental construction is most important, because perhaps none or a very very small number of humans would be capable of withstanding the onslaught against their self-valuing regardless of the strength of this onslaught itself. Humans are vulnerable and impressionable, we are highly shaped by our environment. In this sense unhealth and cultural decay of values-ideals-norms rooted in self-valuing represents a very real destruction of countless individual minds who lack strength to sufficiently combat this decaying. To a large extent strength for sustaining one's self-valuings in difficult environs is a cultivated strength we build ourselves, and of course the catch-22 is that often the environs themselves prevent the cultivating of such strength, which often takes a lot of time and effort and a congruence of sufficiently beneficial life-conditions.

But before we can really begin constructing new more rational and benevolent societies, what mankind really needs now is more Christs, new and more potent (re-)insertions of 'master-ethical' principles, what it needs is images-ideals-edifices-paradigms rooted firmly in self-valuing. But not ONLY in self-valuing, also in contingent valuings as well, in an improved capacity for valuing-as-such. This is why perspectives that only focus on the individual self, at exclusion of that self's relationships to its others, are inadequate. We do not need narcissism or egoism or isolationism, we need to increase capacities for self-discernment as well as other-discernment. Man needs to see himself situated within complex and vital relations, between himself and others, between himself and societies, between himself and the environment, between himself and the/a future. Each of these, the capacity for relating-as-such, needs to be strengthened, encouraged, nurtured, made to be willed more fully and more consciously.

Perhaps we simply can begin by opposing every attempt at and encouragement to unconscious willing/intending? I will need to think on this some more.

Nietzsche had good reason to say that the last Christian died on the cross, because much of Christianity as a culture was a continuation of the self-denying/ignoring against which a “spiritual rebirth” was proposed a remedy. It continued to focus on the enemy, on Evil, even if it politically overcame all enemies, and succeeded so in including in this negativity-standard against which it set its efforts, the things that naturally sustain positive valuing – beauty, strength, pleasure, the ‘good things in life’.

Yes.

We need new, better Christs. We need Christs that affirm valuation itself, for its own sake, and not for the sake of otherworldly metaphysics. Granted, humans have only recently attained the psychological complexity and conscious awareness necessary to will affirmative values without appeal to otherworldliness - Christ had no choice but to teach from the context he did, whereas we are "luckier" as we sit in a new context where valuing absent God becomes possible.

It seems that ultimately such a reverse valuing must come to an end, as the acting consciousness of resentment erodes the unconscious self-valuing on wich it rests to such a point that it can no longer be sustained. Physical reserves are exhausted, the psychological driving force is no longer sustained sufficiently to act aggressively-destructively, the active anti-ethics are no longer possible, nihilism is the result. Depending on the circumstances in wich the organism finds itself, this may lead to, in natural, nurturing conditions of culture, a gradual recovery of natural, positive valuation, conscious self-valuation, master morality – in less favorable circumstances, death seems the only outcome.


Death, or a constant ever-present decaying that never quite leads to death. A stasis of decay and destitution, perhaps. This would be a relative loss of almost all emotional and conscious potency, imagining, will, and the adoption of a more mechanical and closed pathos that literally drowns itself in distraction and mindless, soul-less work. Corporate CEO's come to mind here, as does the typical wage-slave worker who goes every day to the factory, mindlessly performs the same tasks without feeling or hope, and returns home to drink himself into a stupor or turn off to TV or other useful distractions, only to repeat this cycle without end or fail. This sort would be an example where a relative stasis has been attained, self-valuation perhaps cannot realisticaly sink any lower, or rather the separation between self-valuings and consciousness cannot get any larger, so the body-mind effects a certain 'balance', this gap rests on the relative consistency of one's life-situations and the lack of anything which might shake or disrupt this stagnant consistency.

But I am more interested in how a master-ethics perspective might be regained after long periods of its loss to slave-morality. It would seem that society could be designed with mechanisms build-in for promoting this change. I think some such mechanisms must already exist, Yoga, self-help groups, etc. come to mind. But these are perhaps not strong or fully conscious enough, not forceful enough, not imposing enough on the "normal" status quo. Society needs to develop and further IMPOSE these mechanisms upon people. Along with this would be a way for identifying where and more precisely how these mechanisms might be best applied to people's benefit, since not all people would have need for such imposition, and those who are in need of it would have this need in varying sort of ways.

Now the will to power is dependent on self-valuing (the standard-setting interpreted as the root/ground of the subject), so where self-valuing is sabotaged by consciousness, as is the case where slave-morality takes hold, will to power remains operative only until it exhausts its resources, it wills the entity to death. The energy is transferred to vital subjects / structures. In such a case the will to power is not aimed at power of the subject, but rather at a transferring of power from the subject. The subject wills himself


Did you mean to add something here after "The subject wills himself ..." ? In any case, this perspective indeed explains willing to power, that some willings are more self-oriented and leading to health than others. An even subtler take here on this relationship and explanation of self-valuing activity goes further to explain how narcissistic and ego-driven perspectives that lack proper appreciation and cultivation of relations-to-otherness also fail to lead to more powerful, comprehensive and healthy willing.

Can the will of an entity possessed of a slave morality still be called a will to power? Can it still be called a will? What is more, can we still speak an entity? I think that the answer is: only in as far as it is unconscious. And this makes it clear how (and that, which is a departure from Nietzsches “all is blood” dogma) we may begin to dispel slave-morality.


Yes, absolutely. This insight is crucial. Nietzsche's approach is hereby rescued and resuscitated.

Capable wrote:Willing in terms of a void, gap or negation, this thought needs further exploration, I feel. For one, I can imagine this taking place with respect to what is the perceived or intuited source of the gap, but also it seems possible that one might will in a relative vaccuum of "depleted" or "grayed" self-valuings, or that self-valuing might simply becomes more unconscious, thus pushing consciousness generally down into a more unconscious sphere, decreasing overall cognitive and perceptive capacity. This might explain how some people are relatively "zombie-like" with respect to how their thinking-feeling seems to simple and automated, like a robot, programed and largely heuristical, composed of closed "solutions" to encountered situations. They seem to lack something essential, spirit, soul, whatever we cal it. Self-valuing that is suppressed through consciousness disconnecting from it might lead to overall loss of consciousness itself, in all areas, and not just to a consciousness possessed of slavish morality.

Yes, this is a plausible explanation. Also in combination with the examples you give later on, this calls to mind the fact that the lower functions of the organism are not what one would necessarily call conscious. Eating, drinking and sexuality are in fact means to engage in a state of being where consciousness can be suspended. In these states, it is possible, even with a completely defective morality/mentality, to life as a self-valuing. And we see that such activities are in fact often considered as the highest goods by such automatons.

I also wonder if it is truly impossible to will or value the gap in itself, or "in the gap" itself. It seems to me that certain phenomena, for example post-modernism, might be explanable at least partly in light of valuing-activities that have become able to value "negative as such", gap- or disconnectivity-as-such. I only wonder whether and to what extent "gap valuing" is actually possible, as opposed to simply valuing/willing at/toward/with respect to the "evil" other from which the fact of the gap is seen/sensed to have arisen.

It seems to be very difficult. Recently I've been attending a few museum- and gallery openings, where of course the art was post-modern in nature, and I am consistently appalled by the dry-ness of the objects on display. These seems to be no sap in them whatsoever. As hard as one tries to value what is placed in the space that has come into our field of consciousness as forbidding subjective/positive/affective valuation, what one values is ones own interest, ones own brave efforts to 'make sense' out of nothing. This is perhaps what is most admirable about out present art-scene -- the critics. They, when neither the artist nor the passive audience is capable, are the ones who give, bestow meaning. In them we perceive that not all is lost, that there is still a will to value-as-self-value.

Postmodern art comes very often in the form of 'criticism of society', which to me is a lower form of criticism, a more resentful, judgmental, pathetic form than the criticism of the artwork that is the criticism. Perhaps through this by-way, criticism of criticism, valuation finds a way to be possible in the context of art.

I think that slave morality can not be inherited, that every new-born being has a master-morality, by which I mean that its consciousness is rooted in a self-valuing. (For example, the mother is valued in terms of the self, that is why we have the Freudian complex of interpreting the mother / parent as the self).

By the genetic passing-on and cultural / physical sustainment of forms of weakness / unhealth, it becomes more likely that a conscious being strays into slave-morality.

I agree, a preponderance of conditions leading to the likelihood of adopting slavish morality at the expense of self-valuing. But some of this could be inherited, at least a tendency or potential for slavishness could be present genetically speaking. But I think the large part of this influence, including of genes and their activation, would probably be entirely environmental.

We agree, environment is very likely the greatest influence here, but it is indeed thinkable that there is a genetic derangement possible, where people are born without the tendency to self-value. That the miracle/accidental genius of the code of self-valuing is undone by an enduring onslaught of dissociative permutations.

It seems like environmental construction is most important, because perhaps none or a very very small number of humans would be capable of withstanding the onslaught against their self-valuing regardless of the strength of this onslaught itself. Humans are vulnerable and impressionable, we are highly shaped by our environment. In this sense unhealth and cultural decay of values-ideals-norms rooted in self-valuing represents a very real destruction of countless individual minds who lack strength to sufficiently combat this decaying. To a large extent strength for sustaining one's self-valuings in difficult environs is a cultivated strength we build ourselves, and of course the catch-22 is that often the environs themselves prevent the cultivating of such strength, which often takes a lot of time and effort and a congruence of sufficiently beneficial life-conditions.

But before we can really begin constructing new more rational and benevolent societies, what mankind really needs now is more Christs, new and more potent (re-)insertions of 'master-ethical' principles, what it needs is images-ideals-edifices-paradigms rooted firmly in self-valuing.

I feel that this is true. In a sense, philosophers have to become "actors" -- we must not only be communicators, but also examples. How different this is from Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche -- we can simply not permit going insane (at least not finding our end as such), or isolating completely from all social realms -- as much as these realms "suck" in more than one meaning of the word, they suck because there are no true signifiers.

But the point is of course that there should be a kind of small multitude of such "Christs", which means that we may have to do the work of making it possible to become such a figure. Possibly there are parallel processes, in ways similar to this one, in other parts of the world, where the cultivation of an attainable master morality is in progress. But we must take seriously the notion of spreading this idea in several forms, accessible to different minds, and inspiring to action.

But not ONLY in self-valuing, also in contingent valuings as well, in an improved capacity for valuing-as-such. This is why perspectives that only focus on the individual self, at exclusion of that self's relationships to its others, are inadequate. We do not need narcissism or egoism or isolationism, we need to increase capacities for self-discernment as well as other-discernment. Man needs to see himself situated within complex and vital relations, between himself and others, between himself and societies, between himself and the environment, between himself and the/a future. Each of these, the capacity for relating-as-such, needs to be strengthened, encouraged, nurtured, made to be willed more fully and more consciously.

Yes!
Perhaps here we may begin to speak concretely of isometries.

Perhaps we simply can begin by opposing every attempt at and encouragement to unconscious willing/intending? I will need to think on this some more.

Let us not begin by opposing, but by proposing.
Opposition breeds too much rebelling, too much stubbornness.
We must propose new means at conscious willing, for which indeed notions pertaining to "isometries of the soul" as they exist between humans may be necessary.

We need new, better Christs. We need Christs that affirm valuation itself, for its own sake, and not for the sake of otherworldly metaphysics. Granted, humans have only recently attained the psychological complexity and conscious awareness necessary to will affirmative values without appeal to otherworldliness - Christ had no choice but to teach from the context he did, whereas we are "luckier" as we sit in a new context where valuing absent God becomes possible.

Indeed, it is crucial to realize that time has progressed, that circumstances are more favorable. Nihilism is unable to do this, so is pessimism, and these two account for the great majority of thinkers these days. It is true that there is much foulness and danger in our time, but this only overshadows the surplus value when this value is not 'capitalized' on. And nihilism/pessimism prevent from capitalizing -- in short, power is left for those without a social conscience, because power is regarded as corrupting. A more dangerous belief than "power corrupts" is hardly thinkable. In fact, real power (not an automatons place in the hierarchy of a machine) cultivates responsibility.

It seems that ultimately such a reverse valuing must come to an end, as the acting consciousness of resentment erodes the unconscious self-valuing on wich it rests to such a point that it can no longer be sustained. Physical reserves are exhausted, the psychological driving force is no longer sustained sufficiently to act aggressively-destructively, the active anti-ethics are no longer possible, nihilism is the result. Depending on the circumstances in wich the organism finds itself, this may lead to, in natural, nurturing conditions of culture, a gradual recovery of natural, positive valuation, conscious self-valuation, master morality – in less favorable circumstances, death seems the only outcome.

Death, or a constant ever-present decaying that never quite leads to death. A stasis of decay and destitution, perhaps. This would be a relative loss of almost all emotional and conscious potency, imagining, will, and the adoption of a more mechanical and closed pathos that literally drowns itself in distraction and mindless, soul-less work. Corporate CEO's come to mind here, as does the typical wage-slave worker who goes every day to the factory, mindlessly performs the same tasks without feeling or hope, and returns home to drink himself into a stupor or turn off to TV or other useful distractions, only to repeat this cycle without end or fail. This sort would be an example where a relative stasis has been attained, self-valuation perhaps cannot realisticaly sink any lower, or rather the separation between self-valuings and consciousness cannot get any larger, so the body-mind effects a certain 'balance', this gap rests on the relative consistency of one's life-situations and the lack of anything which might shake or disrupt this stagnant consistency. [/quote]
Another useful insight, applying value-ontology to understand the dire state of things we seek to improve. The subconscious self-valuing persists on an animal/reptile level, the superior faculties of awareness are exhausted, sabotaged, or put to use against the interests of the entity.

But I am more interested in how a master-ethics perspective might be regained after long periods of its loss to slave-morality. It would seem that society could be designed with mechanisms build-in for promoting this change. I think some such mechanisms must already exist, Yoga, self-help groups, etc. come to mind. But these are perhaps not strong or fully conscious enough, not forceful enough, not imposing enough on the "normal" status quo. Society needs to develop and further IMPOSE these mechanisms upon people. Along with this would be a way for identifying where and more precisely how these mechanisms might be best applied to people's benefit, since not all people would have need for such imposition, and those who are in need of it would have this need in varying sort of ways.

This is an extremely interesting suggestion.
We might do well to put some work in developing such programs conceptually.

Now the will to power is dependent on self-valuing (the standard-setting interpreted as the root/ground of the subject), so where self-valuing is sabotaged by consciousness, as is the case where slave-morality takes hold, will to power remains operative only until it exhausts its resources, it wills the entity to death. The energy is transferred to vital subjects / structures. In such a case the will to power is not aimed at power of the subject, but rather at a transferring of power from the subject. The subject wills himself


Did you mean to add something here after "The subject wills himself ..." ?

Ah yes, I was going to say "The subject wills himself into oblivion" but actually meant to erase the entire phrase, because it presents some un-clarities.

In any case, this perspective indeed explains willing to power, that some willings are more self-oriented and leading to health than others. An even subtler take here on this relationship and explanation of self-valuing activity goes further to explain how narcissistic and ego-driven perspectives that lack proper appreciation and cultivation of relations-to-otherness also fail to lead to more powerful, comprehensive and healthy willing.

Exactly. The difference between "stealing" / isolating power versus investing / sharing-reaping power is made clearer.

Can the will of an entity possessed of a slave morality still be called a will to power? Can it still be called a will? What is more, can we still speak an entity? I think that the answer is: only in as far as it is unconscious. And this makes it clear how (and that, which is a departure from Nietzsches “all is blood” dogma) we may begin to dispel slave-morality.


Yes, absolutely. This insight is crucial. Nietzsche's approach is hereby rescued and resuscitated.

Let us work on this angle, vis a vis the idea of communicating value-ontology on different levels, besides directly/conceptually also indirectly/symbolically.

"a comment on the occupy movement as (yet) dominated / signified by slave-morality, but representing desire for a master-morality. Taken from here.
__________________
The problem the Occupy movement is facing is a classical case of slave-morality versus master-morality.
Holding a slave-morality means to not have ones natural self-valuing produce a conscious notion of self-value self-value. It means to adopt a conscious self-value by the negative valuation of the/an Other.

The Occupy movement has a lot of vitality and good will, but is not able to formulate its values beyond "away with the evil X". It is not able to posit a value in its stead. It does not have its own value, for its value it is entirely dependent on the thing it is protesting against. As long as this is the case, it will have no effect, it could not possibly have an effect.

There is of course a lot of self-valuing going on within the movement, i.e. people, organisms. But all these are subjecting themselves to what is, thusfar, a slave-revolt. Nothing wrong with a slave revolt, but it will not see any of its demands realized if these demands are not formulated as positives, meaning formula's capable of replacing the "evil" ones.

This is the finest tip of the iceberg of what can be said of Occupy in terms of value-ontology. The bulk of it would come down to actually formulate a (possible) philosophy for it, to forge it into a "Master Signifier" - an authentic, original voice. Of course value-ontology pertains quite acutely to the financial world and what is wrong with it. To begin with, all of the disasters and exorbitant payments to the masters of these disasters, are based on disregarding, or rather violating, the concept of value. In short: speculative value has replaced functional value. That which is of value to value-determining institutions (Moody's, etc) does not have anything whatsoever to do to what is of value to a human.

Value needs to be restored in its definition. The speculative market will have to be dramatically curbed and reformed, rationalized. Without joking, we now have the tools to do this. A thorough understanding of the concept value was lacking. This is how it could be diffused through focusing on very conditional/context bound derivatives as if they are the actual concept, thereby gradually disconnecting the notion value from its conceptual root, which is actual, real-world value, i.e. that which is valuable to (a) (human) life.

This is where the Occupy movement may look for its signifier (instead of bloody-faced idiotic grins) - to collect/assemble around it those things which are of real value to the participating people. To create/build a "mountain of wealth" in human terms -- that is to say not hummers, prostitutes and dollar bills, but -- the diversity of real-world value coming together wherever many people are assembled for a long time, which translates into 'culture'." [src]
Before the Light - No Country for Shrinks

Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6557
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

SCIENCE AS MORALITY

Postby Fixed Cross » Sun Dec 18, 2016 12:53 am

is this true?

"Science must have originated in the feeling that something was wrong." (Thomas Carlyle)

I worked on a bit on this here.
I wrote the following:

Leaving behind us (behind me at least) now the de debate over whether or not value ontology holds water / is "superior" to the will to power, on to an indication of its uses. For this I introduce this topic:

"Science must have originated in the feeling that something was wrong." (Thomas Carlyle)

If this is so, and this is no rock solid fact, but at the least a tempting thought, scientific thought would be the result of a valuing the world negatively in terms of self-value. To realize this is of course useful. It gives us the suggestion that science, if we do not radically deviate from our approach to it, and question the nature of its analyses, will keep on trying to negate, which means level.

Science does not permit inequality. Its logics are based on standardizing al value. What remains is value that van be standardized against the ground-value of science, which is not mans self-valuing per se. Science after all arose out of the minds who had to arm against nature, not in those who were "fit to it".

Philosophy, this is at least the tast that I see now as possible, would have to bestow a new, affirmative morality onto science. Science may, as further understanding into in the future be employed to invest in the world as it is (grows, becomes, emerges, stands forth), instead of trying to subdue this becoming.

A further study of the theme Nietzsche opens with, in the Birth of Tragedy, would be useful. Because the Greeks, in creating Apollo / the Apollonian did the same thing as what the scientist / inventor does - arming against the terribleness of nature -- but they did so by positing their own aesthetics against it, rather than to simply submit their judgment of nature to what was possible as a functionality of dominion. In other words, they created something that they could value higher in terms of self value, than they could value nature herself.

This is the genius of the Greeks, their noble genius, set against what must have arisen as the all-too-human genius which Carlyle describes. We must look at this dichotomy, science versus the Apollonian, to recognize in our own culture these two different types of valuing, for they both exist next to / intertwined into each other. In order to 'heal' our culture, to truly improve it, we have to make it possible first to distinguish what is Greek, and what is, in short, "nature-hating-ape"."

"From Nietzsche's Nachlass, summer 1872-begin 1873:

19[24]

Es handelt sich nicht um eine Vernichtung der Wissenschaft, sondern um eine Beherrschung. Sie hängt nämlich in allen ihren Zielen und Methoden durch und durch ab von philosophischen Ansichten, vergißt dies aber leicht. Die beherrschende Philosophie hat aber auch das Problem zu bedenken, bis zu welchem Grade die Wissenschaft wachsen darf: sie hat den Werth zu bestimmen!

19[25]

Nachweis der barbarisirenden Wirkungen der Wissenschaften. Sie verlieren sich leicht in den Dienst der „praktischen Interessen“.


"We are not concerned with a destruction of science, but with controlling it. She is in all here goals and methods through and through dependent on philosophical perspectives, but forgets this easily. The controlling philosophy must concern itself with the problem to which degree science may grow, she must determine the worth."

"Proof of the barbarizing workings of the sciences. They lose themselves in the service of "practical interests".

Capable:
Fixed Cross wrote:I worked on a bit on this here.
I wrote the following:

Leaving behind us (behind me at least) now the de debate over whether or not value ontology holds water / is "superior" to the will to power, on to an indication of its uses. For this I introduce this topic:

"Science must have originated in the feeling that something was wrong." (Thomas Carlyle)

If this is so, and this is no rock solid fact, but at the least a tempting thought, scientific thought would be the result of a valuing the world negatively in terms of self-value. To realize this is of course useful. It gives us the suggestion that science, if we do not radically deviate from our approach to it, and question the nature of its analyses, will keep on trying to negate, which means level.


I think this forumulation must be for the most part a correct one. Science digs in where it sees need for imroved understanding, it addresses reality in terms of "problems", sees every situation as a problem as such, a problem of thus-far unrealized knowledge-utility. Over time this problematizing becomes so given that we do not even see it, it becomes entirely normal to look at reality and the situations in reality with which we find ourselves confronted and see these problematically, as things to be "negated" ("solved"), at least in part.

Sinec this solving takes place with respect to the platforms which have come before and over-determine the methodologies and intentions involved, we can indeed state that this negation is also a leveling.

Science does not permit inequality. Its logics are based on standardizing all value. What remains is value that can be standardized against the ground-value of science, which is not mans self-valuing per se. Science after all arose out of the minds who had to arm against nature, not in those who were "fit to it".

Philosophy, this is at least the task that I see now as possible, would have to bestow a new, affirmative morality onto science. Science may, as further understanding into in the future be employed to invest in the world as it is (grows, becomes, emerges, stands forth), instead of trying to subdue this becoming.


Absolutely! Heidegger does a wonderful job outlining the "nature of technology" as schematization/control/leveling, an essential closure-ing (that is also nonetheless and often despite itself a disclosing of precisely the 'human element', if we know how to look for this). As Nietzsche also understood, science (or, with Heidegger, technos) needs to be submitted to a broader encompassing human will (valuing), and the extent to which we fail in this task is the extent we are co-opted by these processes and subdued within them, over-determined by their own logics and functionalities. Man developed as a product of these, this is very true, we are as much a product of technology-science as technology-science is of us. Yet at some point we must rise and take control, assert our own HUMAN will against the essentially inhuman will governing science/techos and its productions.

A further study of the theme Nietzsche opens with, in the Birth of Tragedy, would be useful. Because the Greeks, in creating Apollo / the Apollonian did the same thing as what the scientist / inventor does - arming against the terribleness of nature -- but they did so by positing their own aesthetics against it, rather than to simply submit their judgment of nature to what was possible as a functionality of dominion. In other words, they created something that they could value higher in terms of self value, than they could value nature herself.

This is the genius of the Greeks, their noble genius, set against what must have arisen as the all-too-human genius which Carlyle describes.


Yes this is plausible. In "arming ourselves against nature" we posit "otherness" as the threat of raw uncontrolled nature as the higher value, the only thing above which is our ability for resisting this uncontrollability. Science continues to operate on the assumption that endless control of nature is ideal, to not have essential control is ruin.

Some control is of course required, as goes without saying, since man itself is indeed a controlling-nature, in large part. This is what we ARE as a species, a being. But what else resides within, what other potentials exist? As you say we cannot continue to posit values only negatively, against the other, what are needed now are affirmative, positive valuations. The negative valuations of the past may form part of our platform going forward into the future, and indeed these essentially closed forms are necessary for what is build upon and after them, in the same way that our own imaginative-creative thinking is dependent on the regular and entirely restrictive-closed organic-biological processes composing our physical body.

We must look at this dichotomy, science versus the Apollonian, to recognize in our own culture these two different types of valuing, for they both exist next to / intertwined into each other. In order to 'heal' our culture, to truly improve it, we have to make it possible first to distinguish what is Greek, and what is, in short, "nature-hating-ape".


Yes, but even the Greeks posited from an essentially negative position when they proposed aesthetic "solutions" (Gods) to the fury of nature (and of human nature, their internal experiences of affects-desires-drives). If viewed in this way we first see what appears as a digression from Greek to scientist. But this must also represent a progression, an evolving: the valuing negatively with respect to and against "nature" (uncontrollability/unknowability as such, externally and internally) moving from an early stage to a later stage. I can see science as representing very much a more "authentic" or honest negative valuing, the Greek form of this negative valuing being an early pre-cursor or crude beginning positing form, less refined, less "itself". Science becomes a monster precisely because it takes the internal "contradiction" (to affirmative valuation as self-value, i.e. this contradiction being the negative valuing supplanting a more affirmative valuing potential) and exposes it, welcomes it openly, develops it further and brings it more fully in/to itself.

You are right we must learn to distinguish the Greek from the scientist -- in this distinction we can find a relief, a topography emerges wherein we begin to grasp precisely what it is about these valuing positings that is so detrimental and restrictive, so harmfully self-destructive. Of course if we employ Hegel here, it might indeed be possible that mankind must move through these stages dialectically in order to emerge at the other side, the inverse of all negative values-positing. In the present stage we then must work at forging the synthesis. [src]
Before the Light - No Country for Shrinks

Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6557
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

ISOMETRIES OF THE SOUL

Postby Fixed Cross » Sun Dec 18, 2016 12:59 am

Capable:

Value-ontology might show us a pathway through the winding, twisting sinew-like birthings of straying and new identities of forms -- and as we shall see, a point of arrival at Heidegger also marks the point of our next departure. What links derivations of difference to derivations of sameness? One emerges from the other in sequential patterns, as ideas give birth to precisely their own novelty-in-thought where pursued diligently to (an) end. This novelty emerges as an Identity to itself, being a fully-formed (completely derived) with respect to its incipient foregrounds. This 'with respect' extends into whatever merges into/alongside/with these foregrounds, and decreases to an comparable extent as does this element of association. Being an Identity, or a 'count-as-one' to employ Badiou, this emergence confounds exegesis and disseminates haphazardly on the basis thereof. To be sure, mechanisms exist which seek and succeed at limiting or outright blocking this dissemination. Analysis now raises to a new level, the level of meta-exegetical concerns which subordinates analysis to analysis-as-utility. This 'as-utility' is more properly defined by its "as-utility-for" which first falls within the purview of systems-management and containment-as-closure. This is containment as control. To the extent that methods of control have been raised out of the unconscious and into consciousness a lessening of the strictures of this closure may occur, where disseminated implications of identities are allowed increased freedom of movement to alter and set their own trajectories. It seems at about the point where this movement reaches a sufficient auto-regulating-as-utility-to-analyses that a new threshold of thinking emerges, a new possibility for a new sort of thought-engendering.

It is here where isometries begin to be seen. We get glimpses of strange samenesses of form lurking beneath outward appearances, we are told these are archetypes or some reference is made to genetics or to common cohort-like effects. What is really going on here? To what extent can we state that creation dictates form if we merely fill in our own perhaps largely arbitrary contents upon always and everywhere prescribed forms? This quickly appears as the relative impotency of creatiion, which has yet to extend its influence into the more form-al. A certain condition of this extension clearly being a growing unwillingness for influence-qua-content, for influencing and being influenced by content/s. At an even higher peak threshold this unwillingness becomes inability, blindness. Even higher still, a willing blindness. Zarathustra stood on the mountain top and willed form, but he did not will UNDER form -- his willing was not itself a form. Even Zarathustra still willed under content, as a content/s, making use of possibility rather than making of use itself a new possibility as such.

Valuing might shed light here. What is the hand-rail along this pathway that winds and climbs up from the soul of whence to the soul of when to the soul of where-fore? Is the substance of this hand-railing composed of valuations and valuings? Here novelty seemingly aporiatic results from this insertion and we get what seems to be a new identity, a new count-as-one, incomprehensible, impenetrable even here. Even here, value is the ground from which ever-new questions and questionings spring. Heidegger's "Man is a question" might be as close as we come to a filled-in content-qua-abstraction, but value gives us the form after which we follow these contents questioningly.

It would appear we can ground the isometries of the soul in a values-ontological platform. Set therein we see these isometrical configurations as the still too silent guardians of our valuations, configurations which enable values and the valuings which produce them, isometrical as allows for the possible communication and transmission of these and their conditions from one level to another as well as from one individual to another. We might therefore make even the boldest claim and leap yet: that of isometry being the form-as-such of valuation, its most sufficient (self-)actualization. Does this make sense? Concerns here seem placated when we understand how self-valuing interact, how these valuings must co-occur to be said to have occurred at all. Herein opens forth a new space, unexplored and uncharted. Yet it seems, and even necessarily so, that we nonetheless already possess a certain familiarity with this space, itself still so alien to our consciousnesses! And is this not more precisely what Heidegger was reaching for with his notions of averge-everydayness, ontical proximity and the pre-ontological understanding of being? The point of further productive departure here, the way to continue forward seems to be a further analysis of Heidegger's meanings and terms/grammars from the position of a value-ontological perspective sufficiently configured so as to include essentially its own isometric conditions of possibility.


Fixed Cross:

Here the next necessary step has been identified. It rises from the proper identification of the locus to which the first step, of formulating / understanding value-ontology, has brought us -- the aporia of completely renewed / stripped naked awareness of what existing means to a conscious being. We can no longer take consciousness as the thing that separates us from the non-rational, the animals and the stones, but we now see it, and with it ourselves, in a much sharper light, which illuminates us-as-consciousness, as still infant-like, as a seeming chaos of affects, with as the only consistency this one given, our valuing activity.

Where before, superstition gave us a sense of inner order, now we have the clear perception of an inner turmoil, revolving around itself much like the activities in an atmosphere, unpredictable and too complex to be rational in its interrelating, but to which self-valuing is the Earth and Sun, by which certain revolvings much of the weather-at-large can be predicted

Identifying/creating isometries to the rudimentary cause of these pre-rational conditions to which even our use of rationality must be counted, means creating a grid by which the axiom of self-valuing can be procreated, furthered as a logic, expanded while maintaining its structural integrity.

I propose that the notion of circularity / periodicality must be central to any such isometry. Thereby I mean that no entity may exist as a "block", with a number of "facets" but always as a coming-back-to-itself, whereby on every cyclus "it" may have acquired new contacts and therewith substance.

It is not a sign of weakness that much of what will be formulated will sound familiar, refer to aspects of known mathematics, physics, common sense, mysticism, perhaps even all other fields of thought, as what we are doing is newly arranging what is already known / been observed. We may be the first to attempt to logically systematize in a fluid, non-exclusivist way. Indeed it would be wise to look at what Heidegger has already done. He did not yet propose such an order as is made possible by value-ontology, but he did outline the conditions of this new type of logic, so much greater in scope and more benevolent to man / nature than the binary method of definition by exclusion.

All is included. But how can we understand this myriad of contradictions, as one system? The key to this is given, the turning of it is requires that we formulate isometries, and establish a grid wherein this particular type of sameness can be reproduced.


Capable:

Additional related commentary:

Fixed Cross: It just occurred to me how fast and uniform things would go if time were in fact linear. It occurred to me that time is obviously spiraling, periodic. It moves "forward" in two directions at once: the curve of the spiral itself, and the consecutive levels of periodicity. Synchronicity then means that occurrences in the two levels of progressions are at positive interference with each other , due to ---

This then would be the way to further enlightenment: to find ones own periodicity. It is perhaps here that we maky speak of isometries of the soul.


Capable: I have heard somewhere before of how it is possible to learn one's own "periodicity" with respect to creative-productive energy, positive vs negative flows or cycles of mood and intellect. What you posit creates a possible rational basis for this idea.

Might we perhaps understand the curved nature of the 'forward' progression in the sense of this motion's impossibility for being totally linear? Linearity would seem to imply a flat medium/space, which appears never to be the case. So we get non-linearity as the possibility for motion, on even (and especially) the "smallest", most micro levels. Thus: curved traces, arcs cutting through "mediumistic space" (whatever happens to be that through which this particular or other movement moves) that would tend, after the manner of attraction/will to power/self-valuing (however we might conceptualize here), to organize around each other, forming arcs or loops.

What is most interesting to me, then, based on this model, is to try and see how such activity becomes circular, spiraling. As this seems to allow for an augmenting of the influence/s of that particular motion, maybe a simple evolutionary selective principle fills the gap here?


Fixed Cross:

Capable wrote:maybe a simple evolutionary selective principle fills the gap here?

In general this is how I tend to interpret origins in the logic of causality, but it just occurs to me perhaps the very notion of linearity is misplaced, by its application of it to the physical world. Parallel with overcoming the belief that the Earth is flat, we may be headed towards overcoming the idea that linearity exists at all.

Every straight line is a segment of an ellipse, an energy-path (energy may have to be defined as a path, instead of a quantity-form following a path, being now here then there ). Any lineair demarcation of the wold seen as an uprooting of the physical world into a non-physical paradigm upheld only by learning of certain codes, methods. Linearity not as metaphysical, which I take to mean an unconditional definition, an astracted essence, but actually anti-physical, antithetical to 'nature', being.

How science cuts into life; blindly. Why it is always fundamentally wrong in predicting its effects, why the "side effects" are aways at least as significant as what is deliberately attained. There is not yet an experience of precision, the general method of science is a blunt instrument, designed to cut off, to uproot, to detach from self-valuing and submit. It is therefore a means to misunderstand, to remove understanding from the utilized, to dis-identify with the course of flux in which the object arises.

It is a powerful means - but to what? The notion of linearity has made it possible to dislocate self-valuing, to eliminate being.
If we know this, then we have a criterium to set a limit to what science may offer us -- the elimination of space-time.
As Aldous Huxley observed in a psychedelic vision, "speed provides the one genuinely modern pleasure". It may be the only thing that science is worth to us -- transportation and communication. All physiology may be dealt with by the mind.

To link the mind to the root of matter, energy-paths, is to overcome the adolescent will to know it all, to directly apply mind to form.
The well adjusted mind knows its periodicities instantly; the immediate mind, actuality. One can not solve a problem by destroying the context wherein it exists, the problem will live forth in the mind of the destroyer. The problem must be understood as an opportunity. This is the will to power in a political sense - power to interpret the other as oneself, oneself as the 'master' of the other - as being at root of the new other.
Real power makes the subjected stronger by subjecting it - it makes of the subjecter and the subjected one triumphant entity.
Last edited by Fixed Cross on Sun Dec 18, 2016 1:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
Before the Light - No Country for Shrinks

Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6557
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

Re: The Philosophers

Postby The Golden Turd » Sun Dec 18, 2016 12:59 am

Wow, that's a lot of bullshit that matters to nobody.

Pezer is in Venezuela, no doubt heavily scheming.


Fuckhead choose a hell of a retarded time to return. See if he can get me a stack of those 100 Bolivares. I'll hand them out as novelty presents, each one is worth 1.5¢, not even worth counterfeiting at this point, and they are technically not Eben legal currency at this point.

Image
Support "The Angels of East Africa" on smile.Amazon.com it is free to do, they donate 0.05% of your purchase cost to them, or give donations directly via:

http://www.machinegunpreacher.org

Image

Recently hidden post:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=192227&p=2649513#p2649513
User avatar
The Golden Turd
Fucking Unflushable
 
Posts: 9450
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:37 am
Location: Apparently Well Up Manical Mongoose's Ass

THE DAEMONIC

Postby Fixed Cross » Sun Dec 18, 2016 1:06 am

PARODITES:

I'm a fairly long time friend of aletheia. He has directed me to this forum, and a good first post would be a message I sent him comparing value-ontology with my own project. The self-quotes are all from a book I am writing, Hamartia: An Essay Toward A Speculative Ethic.

-------------



I want to offer a brief comparison between my project and your own. We both, to my mind, are attempting to recover the valuing subject.


I will begin with a sentence from Fichte.


"The positing I, through its most wondrous capacity, holds fast the diminishing accident [an emotion or experience] long enough to have compared it to that which displaces it. [ a succeeding emotion or experience.] It is in this almost always unrecognized capacity that knots together unity out of perceptual oppositions, that intervenes between moments that would cancel each other out, and thereby preserves both; it is what alone makes life and conscious possible."


The positing I, or what I call the empirical ego, or empirical self-consciousness, is the self which consists in the consciousness that there is something that endures through time and experience, as opposed to the transcendental ego or self, which is that which endures. This capacity for the empirical self-consciousness to hold an emotion or experience in memory long enough to be able to compare it to the next emotion or experience is, for Fichte, that which makes the totality of experience conceivable, ie. the transcendental ego. But this capacity, this wondrous capacity as Fichte refers to it, is only possible if the empirical consciousness originates in a passive state, as opposed to an active one: it's capacity relies on a more fundamental incapacity.



I speak of this here:

" Plato and Aristotle agree that philosophy begins in a passive state, as opposed to a creative state, of the soul. This state they call wonder, thaumazein. This word, however, does not simply imply sublime awe, but rather the capacity to intimate the unknown and strange, to recognize some obscure connection between one's self and the foreign. It is in this sense that the Greek poets use it to refer to the gods, for they could intimate something of their divinity, and still further, realize in the image of this divinity something of their own humanity. This obscure relationship between the self and the world, the ego and the cosmos, man and his gods, is the essential relationship which all philosophy has explicated over the centuries. The passivity, then, is not one of impotence, but of pregnancy.


Man can only sustain himself as man by delving into that obscure relationship, which must necessarily silence him, or set him aflame, as was the fate of the Gnostic angel upon re-entering the world of mortals. He is like a character designed by a poet and thrust into the scene of some play, and can hold his personality and identity in existence only by continuing to engage in the play, even though this grants him an incomplete personality and identity, powerless to shape its own fate. In a certain sense he, like the tragic actor, can only maintain his identity by continually denying it. This disturbing quality of the passivity in which genuine consciousness originates, Kierkegaard spoke of in his conception of despair.


Kierkegaard conceives of the self as a synthesis of the infinite and finite, though an incomplete synthesis: he essentially presents a form of Kantianism which lacks the idea of a final synthesis which would inform the unity of the self and moreover serve as something analogous to the categorical imperative by which an absolute basis of the self and of human action could be determined. This lack of an absolute basis for the self and human action is the source of Kierkegaard's despair: for him it is only in god, not within the self, that this basis can be found. He thus stands among all of those beautiful but innocent mystics, granted that his mysticism is articulated in a purely philosophical language and thus serves as a healthy curiosity for all philosophers. We have here, with Kierkegaard, rejected the hope of a completed synthesis, but we have also rejected the hope that in God there could be found any absolute basis for the self and an active power, since only in that obscure relationship between the Gods and man, self and world, can consciousness be maintained, and we cannot degenerate into mystical self-oblivion: the ego, the self's reflexive and empty self-image, the psychological expression of the principle of identity, lives and takes on shape, and becomes pregnant, through the reconciliation of the ego and non ego, through their co-extension along the fundamental spheres of though; the living consciousness in which the ego indwells is eternally bent toward the self's true being, which cannot be absorbed into any dialectical system and stands always outside of thought. The fact that consciousness thereby exists as an endless determination of this true being of the self, not suspended between two infinites as Pascal would lament, but embodying their eternal conflict, and out of joint with himself just as much as the world, is the source of that disturbing quality of the passive state in which man finds himself." - Hamartia





So the empirical ego thrusts itself into a process of reconciliation with regard to its fundamental principles, the ego and non-ego, the infinite moral will or potency and finite time and reality, freedom and necessity. The deeper it thrusts itself into this process, the more powerfully it is able to sustain itself, nonetheless as something incomplete, so that it most posit something not involved in this process of reconciliation: the transcendental ego, the self as such. The empirical self can only exist by the positing of something beyond it, that exceeds it. Men have called this something God, have represented it with different ideas and philosophical systems, but it is simply the absolute subjectivity. This part of my philosophy came to me when reading of a concept elaborated by Schleiermacher and Feuerbach called absolute subjectivity. The former said "Emotions are significant not simply because they are ‘felt’, but because they are inward witnesses and responses to realities other than the self." They used the concept to explain religion in the following way... Man objectified in his Gods these inward witnesses of his own sensations and qualities; they represented the omnipotence of feeling. They represented aspects of human nature freed from time, place, nature.

This "self as such," the transcendental ego, belongs to that transcendental order which values, philosophical and moral ideas, and Gods represent. These values and ideas are not positive objects of knowledge, but merely representative, representations of this order:




"Kant's philosophy is essentially an attempt to relate transcendental and empirical apperception; to unite the original consciousness of man as a particular subject, as a being in possession of a soul, as a self, to the consciousness of this self enduring throughout many changing experiences. He attempted to do what Aristotle had failed to do, namely extrapolate from the conception of the universality of experience the universality of knowledge. This concept of the universality of experience, which is the basic insight of Kantian philosophy; the concept of a totalizing power on the part of human reflection, which realizes its objects in synthetic union, is however antithetical to the form which philosophy must assume. These two consciousnesses cannot be united, but only inter-related, for the simple reason that the former cannot be positively designated as an object of knowledge. " - Hamartia





Philosophy, beginning with Plato, has understood itself as only a representative knowledge, while ethics and morality have in a sense degenerated, in the attempt to be positive objects of knowledge- facts, or sets of particular knowledge, particular virtues and vices. As the ideas of philosophy represent the transcendental order, so I want to establish a new morality wherein values represent the process of analogy by which the empirical and transcendental egos might be and are related to one another. Philosophy is the revelation of the transcendental order to which the self belongs and by virtue of which it has existence, while morality must be a system of relations which allows the empirical ego to grasp its own nature as analogous to the transcendental ego. Morality would thus exert a transformative power rather than a prescriptive one.

This analogizing or transformative power, I call the "daemonic." A Daemon in Greece was a half-god, between man and god, which carried humans from the mortal to divine sphere. Eros or love was, itself, referred to as a daemon. I take this term from Bruno. I offer some formulations of the daemonic, what I conceive to be the fundamental moral reality, here:





"The life of the self is a continual ascent and descent through these different modes of existence, [egoic and nonegoic, freedom and necessity, etc.] a continuous articulation between these two different spheres. Giordano Bruno regarded the self in this way, namely as a kind of expectant disquietude which must continuously articulate itself amidst opposing forces; between the ego and non-ego, freedom and necessity, spirit and flesh, in his concept of love. In love's attempt to spiritualize itself, to overcome finitude, the limitation of bodily existence, mortality, and necessity, it is deceived by the image of beauty and falls only into sensuousness, in which its spiritual ecstasy is annihilated. Thus love is committed to a cyclic process of ascent toward the spiritual and descent into sensuality, which Bruno calls the heroic frenzies. Through love, it is as though the seed of the eternal takes root in time, the seed of the spirit takes root in flesh; the attempt love makes to make itself spirit is not paired to a desire, for desire is already directed toward beauty, nor to a state of inebriation, but rather to the disunion within the lover himself, which expresses itself not through a synthesis of the contrary forces which war within him, but through a continual division of these forces into objective relations between freedom and necessity, truth and beauty, spirit and flesh.


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
pterois opadous' hupnou keleuthois.’




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? 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.


9.


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.] 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.


Making use of Bruno's account of love, I call the resolution of the disquietude of the self the heroic, and it's return into itself, the daemonic. The daemonic leads to a polarization of the individual through a series of subjective transformations, as he is led to find his place anew in each of the oppositions which have been established between the principle of the ego and that of non-ego. This concept of the “daemonic” I venture as the perfect articulation of the incongruous position of the Pascalian man, as well as that disunion which lives from within man himself." - Hamartia.




Thus I have recovered the conditions and fundamental reality behind the valuing subject, the empirical ego, which Nietzsche failed to do, but without any reference to his philosophy, and outside of any Nietzschean framework. Though, to speak like him, my philosophy/morality is "beyond good and evil" in the sense that all the virtues and vices and systems of value are equally representations of the transcendental order.




"Philosophers have proved incapable of conceiving of good and evil, freedom and necessity, the finite will and infinite creative power invested to man at the same level of moral reality, although Spinoza should be commended for making a brilliant attempt at doing so; one is always the negative expression, or lack, of the other. The fact that the empirical, lived self-consciousness can only preserve itself as an incomplete process, with no final synthesis of its contents which would allow it to grasp its freedom, not as the disparate extension through various transformations in life, but as a singular will and imperative, a categorical determination of its character, in the language of Kant- that is the source of "evil," that is, what the Platonists formulated in the proto-moral conception "akrasia," acting against ones own ethical and rational principle. Insofar as man's fundamental experience as an ethical, moral, or meaning-seeking being is one of limitation and finitude, his fundamental experience as a free being in possession of a will must be one of "sin," of corruption. In the first case man takes freedom as a representative idea, as a representation of the transcendental self-consciousness and ideal ego, but in the second case he must realize this "ethical idea" in some objective specification of knowledge, in order to exercise his will and moral potency; he must realize it in a particular canon of virtues and vices. But as was shown in the previous essay, his moral potency does not truly belong to the will, to his free agency, but rather to his capacity, as an empirical or lived ego, as a daemonic being, to be stimulated by the transcendental ego, that is, to preserve himself as an empirical self-consciousness, as a living ego and in the spirit of daemonism, by positing an ideal representative of the transcendental, toward which he must direct himself, even though the preservation afforded to him in this process is a preservation, a being held in existence, as only an incomplete being, a sinful being, a corrupted and limited being. " - Hamartia
Before the Light - No Country for Shrinks

Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6557
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

the daemonic II

Postby Fixed Cross » Sun Dec 18, 2016 1:14 am

Fixed Cross:

A rich injection of value into this young venture. I will formulate a quick overview of the immediate identifications my mind makes.

Where value ontology works as an abstract logic, wherein fundamental processes may be formulated, here is a concrete psychological approach, already beset with explicitly human meaning.

I already see the framework of a bridge to be built between these logical and psychological paradigms. Your work, what is here, coincides with the theme I have not yet dared to address, I preferred to keep grounding my logic by challenging it over and over. Behind my arrogance there is of course a fear - that what I say might at any time be broken by a superior logic or worse, a flaw in my own. But it has survived and in the meantime the question has remained: if the definition of the verb 'being' is 'self-valuing and valuing in terms of self-value', then what precisely constitutes self valuing, and what valuing in terms of self-value?

Yesterday night it occurred to me that self-valuing must be entire invisible. It can only be inferred from everything one does, and it can not be stimulated directly. (Self-help therapy - "you-are-worth-it!" does not work, as the will to make such a statement departs from the premise that one feels that one is not-worth-it. "Is that all you've got?" should be the exclamation. The acknowledgement of disappointment is crucial.)

The instinct to self-valuing can however be trained, indirectly, it first appears as faith. A more advanced clarity as to how matter stand between the empirical self-consciousness and the transcendental self exists in the state of zen not typically seen in monks as much as in the strong and morally dominant people of an ascending race; the pure clarity of deliberate good expectation. What might be seen as a third stage of mastery is play. From this, art, but also science, and in general the manufacturing good fortune by interpreting the chasm between the reality man and mans sense of reality as 'opportunity' as positive, as real, as working.

Forgive this bland term opportunity (opportunism stands to honor as valuing in terms of self stands to self-valuing), as it is very closely related to value -- it designates the bridge across the abyss of knowledge of good and evil, as taken in the irreconcilable terms you have described. The "product of faith" is a formulated will to rationally/morally arrive at what one irrationally/immorally desires.

The daemonic leads to a polarization of the individual through a series of subjective transformations, as he is led to find his place anew in each of the oppositions which have been established between the principle of the ego and that of non-ego.

This accounts well for the paradoxal nature of consciousness, which seeks certainty in unification but stabilizes as the realization of an unbridgeable gap. And this realization is the bridge - as it posits the gap as a lack of moral dynamism.

You have already made clear that morality must be an activity, and activity is per definition creative, making use of actual conditions, sharp, observing -- the first words abstracted from the playful flux must have begun by sharp, actual minds catch-grunts, and down the line, such actualizations of the immediate context into a centralized sense of identity, have evolved into philosophies, all the way up to the scientific paradigm.

We are now at the point of realizing this 'catching' for what it is - its perimeter is secured, truth-creating has arrived at a definition of itself as the opportunistic business of reproducing life itself. Where nature had before only (though already a feat of cosmic proportions) posited itself as good, it now is able to observe that it has done this -- and admire it- now her-self for it all the more! As perhaps nature made beauty because it wanted to reward itself for creating herself against all odds out of her unnecessary absence, thereby making herself even more likely to exist, so now philosophy can ornament itself, reward itself for having produced the concept "truth".

This has been the central task of art - to make nature appear to man, man to himself, as true, viable, likely to exist, in the terms that are closest to honesty.

In general, what is man - that which knows truth, or that is truth? Can one be truth and know it? This knowing-being must go by the exclusive name of philosophy.


Parodites:

You are quite right, self-valuing cannot be stimulated directly. The instinct for it can however be indirectly trained, the ancients did just this.



One of Holderlin’s most beautiful pieces of poetry may be found in the sentence, “If once the divine succeeds through the poem so near to my heart, then I welcome the grave’s eternal silence.” The recognition of something beyond the sphere of the poet’s individuality and experience is the necessary precondition for his flourishing, and the Greek pantheon served in just this way for Holderlin himself as well as for the ancients. Through such a recognition the mortal act is prevented from being closed, and the possibility of the divine announcing itself through it can be entertained indefinitely; through the great symbols of their mythology the ancient Greeks succeeding in transforming the mortal sphere, the domain of “eternal silence,” into a genuine depth, into which one might venture in the hope of discovering some new datum of experience yet to be formulated. Mortality and finite, lived experience for the ancients became a womb, the “secret birth of things,” to cite Schiller, into which they willingly entered when the light of their ideas no longer bore enough of itself to kindle the heart of the poet. It is with this piece of poetic wisdom that Holderlin wrote his tragedy about Empedocles. What I have called the “daemonic,” then, finds its most poignant expression in the birth of poetic inspiration. The light of our ideas has faded as well, and yet we do not know how to conceive of our mortal life in this way, as a depth- only through the recognition of something beyond our individuality and experience, only through the refusal of hypostasizing experience as an absolute, can the circle of mortal life remain opened.

It is not only in a religious sense that one should understand this for indeed all of our truly philosophical ideas, comprehended not as positive objects of knowledge and hypostases of experience, but as representatives of this transcendental order- that order of things exceeding the sphere of individuality and experience, have equally allowed the finite and transitory ego to exist as an open rather than closed circle. The Gods as representatives of this order were imagined when the continuity between the language of ideas and experience had not been precisely delineated through a philosophical vocabulary. We must, now armed with such a language, realize the “transcendental unity of ideas,” through a new morality that aims, not to hypostasize experience and grasp in positive knowledge a series of particular virtues and vices, but rather to fully explicate this continuity; where philosophy exists to represent this transcendental order, morality most exist to mediate the two spheres, the spheres of experience and ideality.

Self-valuing is the correspondence between these two spheres. Holderlin enacted this correspondence when writing about the death of Empedocles (Empedocles wanted to prove he was an immortal God by jumping into mount Aetna, and as he did so, he perished.) One can only accomplish this by recognizing something that exceeds one's own personal existence, (for Nietzsche, eternity) an excess which represents an order to which the self that is bearing recognition actually belongs. Nietzsche had to recognize an eternity beyond the sphere of his own empirical, lived existence in order to finally recognize himself as an eternal being, in order for the empirical and transcendental aspects of his ego to finally correspond.


But everything about our modern world and the direction that science and philosophy have taken seems bent on “closing the circle” of mortal life, on annihilating any possibility of mediating the transcendental and empirical spheres of the ego.

::

What real domain can the human being claim for itself, when its most vital existence is found in the correspondence between the finite and transcendental spheres, when- to speak with Hippocrates, it finds in all men something divine, and in all divinity something of its humanity? This daemonic nature is the alien intelligence with which the will operates and is not itself a master; the symbols of myth and the host of philosophical ideas, as the most profound exertion of the human will, have not evolved by some merely inventive poet to represent an arbitrary reality of his own design, but have evolved rather out of this daemonic nature, in the pre-reflective state in which the poet recognizes something outside the border of his own experience and is in this way opened up to the deeper life. These symbols and ideas, like the eternity of Nietzsche, or the Prometheus of Aeschylus, are not linguistic in the same way that our common speech is linguistic, for they originate in the daemonic nature which is the precondition of human self-consciousness, and as such represent things not yet able to be fully articulated by the self-conscious human being; the myths and philosophical ideals are all true, for there is a human being to debate rather or not they are true. They are the precondition of human self-consciousness, the mere fact that we can debate them signifies their truth.


The contradictions and disputes among philosophers arise from a spirit philosophizing out of something other than the spirit of daemonism, something other than that middle-position and pre-reflective state which opens up the sphere of the mortal being to the immortal sphere.


The ancient philosophies were all spontaneously engendered through the daemonic, they served as a horizon through which the self-consciousness could take shape. They served as a limit to what could be expressed in human tongue.



And this is one of the greatest of mysteries. Language can only evolve when something has placed a limit to what can be expressed; there must be a limit placed upon language before language can evolve. Language only makes sense when it begins through a passive state, that of the daemonic being which has been opened up to "the deeper life." I can only speak the word "man" when the word "god" has served as a limit to the former conception. So on and so on, down to the first word, so to speak.


Philosophy, as that essential thing which a daemonic being does, as the fundamental nature of a daemonic being, (the only one we know of is the human) is the ground of this mystery.



Capable:

Parodites wrote:I'm a fairly long time friend of aletheia. He has directed me to this forum, and a good first post would be a message I sent him comparing value-ontology with my own project. The self-quotes are all from a book I am writing, Hamartia: An Essay Toward A Speculative Ethic.

-------------



I want to offer a brief comparison between my project and your own. We both, to my mind, are attempting to recover the valuing subject.


I will begin with a sentence from Fichte.


"The positing I, through its most wondrous capacity, holds fast the diminishing accident [an emotion or experience] long enough to have compared it to that which displaces it. [ a succeeding emotion or experience.] It is in this almost always unrecognized capacity that knots together unity out of perceptual oppositions, that intervenes between moments that would cancel each other out, and thereby preserves both; it is what alone makes life and conscious possible."


The positing I, or what I call the empirical ego, or empirical self-consciousness, is the self which consists in the consciousness that there is something that endures through time and experience, as opposed to the transcendental ego or self, which is that which endures. This capacity for the empirical self-consciousness to hold an emotion or experience in memory long enough to be able to compare it to the next emotion or experience is, for Fichte, that which makes the totality of experience conceivable, ie. the transcendental ego. But this capacity, this wondrous capacity as Fichte refers to it, is only possible if the empirical consciousness originates in a passive state, as opposed to an active one: it's capacity relies on a more fundamental incapacity.



I speak of this here:

" Plato and Aristotle agree that philosophy begins in a passive state, as opposed to a creative state, of the soul. This state they call wonder, thaumazein. This word, however, does not simply imply sublime awe, but rather the capacity to intimate the unknown and strange, to recognize some obscure connection between one's self and the foreign. It is in this sense that the Greek poets use it to refer to the gods, for they could intimate something of their divinity, and still further, realize in the image of this divinity something of their own humanity. This obscure relationship between the self and the world, the ego and the cosmos, man and his gods, is the essential relationship which all philosophy has explicated over the centuries. The passivity, then, is not one of impotence, but of pregnancy.


Man can only sustain himself as man by delving into that obscure relationship, which must necessarily silence him, or set him aflame, as was the fate of the Gnostic angel upon re-entering the world of mortals. He is like a character designed by a poet and thrust into the scene of some play, and can hold his personality and identity in existence only by continuing to engage in the play, even though this grants him an incomplete personality and identity, powerless to shape its own fate. In a certain sense he, like the tragic actor, can only maintain his identity by continually denying it. This disturbing quality of the passivity in which genuine consciousness originates, Kierkegaard spoke of in his conception of despair.


This passivity I would call an essential unknowability unto oneself, the disappearing self within oneself. We might call that passive which is not yet capable of harnassing its own indeterminateness toward some projected and protracted end-use. That this 'obscure relation' between finite and infinite, constrained and limiteless objectification and perception is that middle-ground wherein, necessarily, the play of forces surfaces to condense, distill out a more or less common element, a 'summational movement' deriving from the movements both up and down, in and out, yet wholly reducible to neither. And due to the unknowability, the void of self-disappearing which arguably is the impetus for the emergence of the transdendental sense itself, this summational movement also cannot be reduced to the supposed union of empirical with transdendental.

The incapacity of the 'empirical', the inability for an erected structure of total self-enclosure necessitates, where this inability comes to directly and sufficiently inform the more central functionalities of consciousness in its multitude of manifestations and modes - in other words in man, who has become a consciousness sufficiently conscious of, responsive to, itself in terms of itself - the fabrications of exteriorities into which displaced machinic operations may be put, failing as they do to find anything tangible, "empirical", substancial to couple with/in.

So not only have we traced the origins of the trancendental fabrication, but we (you) have also posited this as the medium-framework by which the sustaining-maintaining of inner experiences ("an emotion or experience") is made possible; i.e. if the empirical consciousness lacks the incapacity for grasping-holding sensations long enough to effect sufficient comparison to what came before and what comes after, then the transcendentality can find no point at which to hook into this empirical relationality, the middle ground is obliterated. Man's consciousness grew up from ape to the extent of becoming self-definitive and self-sensing enough that the void of unknowability became know to man; when this void came to be known to consciousness it fractured the unity of this consciousness, broke open the (superficial semblance of) connective-temporal continuity of conscious experience/s. This created the possibility for the transcendentality to take over the role as "connective tissue" via positing an-other exteriority. Additional to all the other utilities of this positing, of central importance here is that we get a increase of the empirical capacity to relate across time without sacrificing its awareness of the void. Void is sustained because temporality effected and becomes that by which positions are more essentially posited and projected (of course this transcendentality always ultimately wraps back onto the "empirical consciousness", onto the affective-intensive conditions and environmentally-interposed movements comprising the psyche in its actuality).


Kierkegaard conceives of the self as a synthesis of the infinite and finite, though an incomplete synthesis: he essentially presents a form of Kantianism which lacks the idea of a final synthesis which would inform the unity of the self and moreover serve as something analogous to the categorical imperative by which an absolute basis of the self and of human action could be determined. This lack of an absolute basis for the self and human action is the source of Kierkegaard's despair: for him it is only in god, not within the self, that this basis can be found. He thus stands among all of those beautiful but innocent mystics, granted that his mysticism is articulated in a purely philosophical language and thus serves as a healthy curiosity for all philosophers. We have here, with Kierkegaard, rejected the hope of a completed synthesis, but we have also rejected the hope that in God there could be found any absolute basis for the self and an active power, since only in that obscure relationship between the Gods and man, self and world, can consciousness be maintained, and we cannot degenerate into mystical self-oblivion: the ego, the self's reflexive and empty self-image, the psychological expression of the principle of identity, lives and takes on shape, and becomes pregnant, through the reconciliation of the ego and non ego, through their co-extension along the fundamental spheres of though; the living consciousness in which the ego indwells is eternally bent toward the self's true being, which cannot be absorbed into any dialectical system and stands always outside of thought. The fact that consciousness thereby exists as an endless determination of this true being of the self, not suspended between two infinites as Pascal would lament, but embodying their eternal conflict, and out of joint with himself just as much as the world, is the source of that disturbing quality of the passive state in which man finds himself." - Hamartia





So the empirical ego thrusts itself into a process of reconciliation with regard to its fundamental principles, the ego and non-ego, the infinite moral will or potency and finite time and reality, freedom and necessity. The deeper it thrusts itself into this process, the more powerfully it is able to sustain itself, nonetheless as something incomplete, so that it most posit something not involved in this process of reconciliation: the transcendental ego, the self as such. The empirical self can only exist by the positing of something beyond it, that exceeds it. Men have called this something God, have represented it with different ideas and philosophical systems, but it is simply the absolute subjectivity. This part of my philosophy came to me when reading of a concept elaborated by Schleiermacher and Feuerbach called absolute subjectivity. The former said "Emotions are significant not simply because they are ‘felt’, but because they are inward witnesses and responses to realities other than the self." They used the concept to explain religion in the following way... Man objectified in his Gods these inward witnesses of his own sensations and qualities; they represented the omnipotence of feeling. They represented aspects of human nature freed from time, place, nature.

This "self as such," the transcendental ego, belongs to that transcendental order which values, philosophical and moral ideas, and Gods represent. These values and ideas are not positive objects of knowledge, but merely representative, representations of this order:




"Kant's philosophy is essentially an attempt to relate transcendental and empirical apperception; to unite the original consciousness of man as a particular subject, as a being in possession of a soul, as a self, to the consciousness of this self enduring throughout many changing experiences. He attempted to do what Aristotle had failed to do, namely extrapolate from the conception of the universality of experience the universality of knowledge. This concept of the universality of experience, which is the basic insight of Kantian philosophy; the concept of a totalizing power on the part of human reflection, which realizes its objects in synthetic union, is however antithetical to the form which philosophy must assume. These two consciousnesses cannot be united, but only inter-related, for the simple reason that the former cannot be positively designated as an object of knowledge. " - Hamartia


The passive state as the inability to more fully reconcile two opposing spheres of conscious experiencing, an essential incapacity for unification. This strikes me as perhaps nothing more than a necessary distancing of organic parts from each other, being as they are separate and incapable of becoming-one. The necessity of time-space separation between those which are other than each other, regardless of the extent of their mutual co-relationality, being, particularly with respect to the vastly deep and intricate relations attained between these spheres of consciousness, perhaps the sufficiency of these very spheres themselves. As you write later, language must be limited, subject to limitation in order to grow. So it is with all things, no form can attain to a limitlessness, and where it is not cognizant, influenced by its limits it swims in a sea of ineptitude and arbitrariness, disconnected from its actual conditions (and the conditions of its own possibilities) in reality.

Unlike Kierkegaard I do not lament the separateness of the "consciousnesses", the fact that man is a being-machine composed of separate functionalities and spheres of experiencing-determining. As the immediate knowledge of man's own essential unknowability penetrated into his consciousness it became necessary to posit with respect to this void, this incapacity. Why? Because to not have done this would have been for man to stagnate at the pre-self-conscious level, for knowedge of void to have acted as an absolute barrier to further growth. Man ingeniously (naturally) found a way (adapted) around this problem, found a means to continue growth in the face of the severe implications steming from the direct knowledge of the void. We can understand and appreciate this adaptive process which has given birth to man as he is, to the "schizophrenized" "bi-polarized" consciousness that divides functions among the various parts of itself, not sparing any function from this division, even the highest (most emergent-summational). Philosophy needs to learn to function within this intermedial space, learn to exist as the possibility for a bridge across the otherwise (with respect to otherwise transcendental visions of absolute unification) incommensurate.





Philosophy, beginning with Plato, has understood itself as only a representative knowledge, while ethics and morality have in a sense degenerated, in the attempt to be positive objects of knowledge- facts, or sets of particular knowledge, particular virtues and vices. As the ideas of philosophy represent the transcendental order, so I want to establish a new morality wherein values represent the process of analogy by which the empirical and transcendental egos might be and are related to one another. Philosophy is the revelation of the transcendental order to which the self belongs and by virtue of which it has existence, while morality must be a system of relations which allows the empirical ego to grasp its own nature as analogous to the transcendental ego. Morality would thus exert a transformative power rather than a prescriptive one.


Yes, morality as the "philosophy" (the self-experience) of the empirical ego, where traditional philosophy serves as that of the transdendental ego. You see this as a bringing-down-to-"earth" (to the actual lived reality of the subjectivity) of philosophy? Ethics serving as the anchor by which philosophy is grounded to "the world"?

This analogizing or transformative power, I call the "daemonic." A Daemon in Greece was a half-god, between man and god, which carried humans from the mortal to divine sphere. Eros or love was, itself, referred to as a daemon. I take this term from Bruno. I offer some formulations of the daemonic, what I conceive to be the fundamental moral reality, here:





"The life of the self is a continual ascent and descent through these different modes of existence, [egoic and nonegoic, freedom and necessity, etc.] a continuous articulation between these two different spheres. Giordano Bruno regarded the self in this way, namely as a kind of expectant disquietude which must continuously articulate itself amidst opposing forces; between the ego and non-ego, freedom and necessity, spirit and flesh, in his concept of love. In love's attempt to spiritualize itself, to overcome finitude, the limitation of bodily existence, mortality, and necessity, it is deceived by the image of beauty and falls only into sensuousness, in which its spiritual ecstasy is annihilated. Thus love is committed to a cyclic process of ascent toward the spiritual and descent into sensuality, which Bruno calls the heroic frenzies. Through love, it is as though the seed of the eternal takes root in time, the seed of the spirit takes root in flesh; the attempt love makes to make itself spirit is not paired to a desire, for desire is already directed toward beauty, nor to a state of inebriation, but rather to the disunion within the lover himself, which expresses itself not through a synthesis of the contrary forces which war within him, but through a continual division of these forces into objective relations between freedom and necessity, truth and beauty, spirit and flesh.


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
pterois opadous' hupnou keleuthois.’




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? 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 we can never reach a state where one "half", one side of the equation of self-subjectivity - world or heaven, finite or infinite, real or imagined - is annihilated, being as they are each conditions of and for the other, man thus far fluctuates between these as his desires lead him now up, then down. It does seem centered around desire, longing, but we might conceive of the more essential-foundational movements (e.g. love) as being derivative from a less developed "desire" and more so a direct manifesting of structurality itself, of the conditions of this internally-divided (two-part) consciousness. If so then love becomes not only the most powerful attempt at unification but also the best way inside the divide, in terms of direct sensing. So the task of philosophy, and of your ethical project, is to further delimit this inner divide and objectify its conditionalities toward the end of effecting new couplings between empirical and transcendental "egos" (qualified-aggregate form/s of constancy of experiencing/s) such that we begin to develop representational understandings (analogies, metaphors) of these spheres of consciousness - of the conditions of the empirical ego - rather than, as ethics (and an unfortunate amount of philosophy as well) has tranditionally been known to do, arrogantly and arbitrarily impressing artificial impositions from without which have little or no substantive bearing upon that which is actually being impressed-upon?


9.


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.] 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.


Making use of Bruno's account of love, I call the resolution of the disquietude of the self the heroic, and it's return into itself, the daemonic. The daemonic leads to a polarization of the individual through a series of subjective transformations, as he is led to find his place anew in each of the oppositions which have been established between the principle of the ego and that of non-ego. This concept of the “daemonic” I venture as the perfect articulation of the incongruous position of the Pascalian man, as well as that disunion which lives from within man himself." - Hamartia.


Yes, this is all beautifully said, and how you define the opposition is wonderously useful and inspiring. We have a platform from which to grasp these transformations of sorts which are the basis of an evolving and expanding subjectivity. The condition of the eternal for such expansion-growth - the direct manipulation of the horizons and substantive fabrications of this eternality therefore the condition of the possibility for self-grasping and self-directing one's own transformations of consciousness. This is very "occult" at heart: we set the limit of ourselves, against ourselves, in order to generate resistances productive of new evolutionary potentials; we explore further definition along the edge/s of certain horizons of our being in order to effect better representational analogies between the internal mechanics of these limits and that which is most limited by them. This is philosophy as powerful, conscious utility.




Thus I have recovered the conditions and fundamental reality behind the valuing subject, the empirical ego, which Nietzsche failed to do, but without any reference to his philosophy, and outside of any Nietzschean framework. Though, to speak like him, my philosophy/morality is "beyond good and evil" in the sense that all the virtues and vices and systems of value are equally representations of the transcendental order.




"Philosophers have proved incapable of conceiving of good and evil, freedom and necessity, the finite will and infinite creative power invested to man at the same level of moral reality, although Spinoza should be commended for making a brilliant attempt at doing so; one is always the negative expression, or lack, of the other. The fact that the empirical, lived self-consciousness can only preserve itself as an incomplete process, with no final synthesis of its contents which would allow it to grasp its freedom, not as the disparate extension through various transformations in life, but as a singular will and imperative, a categorical determination of its character, in the language of Kant- that is the source of "evil," that is, what the Platonists formulated in the proto-moral conception "akrasia," acting against ones own ethical and rational principle. Insofar as man's fundamental experience as an ethical, moral, or meaning-seeking being is one of limitation and finitude, his fundamental experience as a free being in possession of a will must be one of "sin," of corruption. In the first case man takes freedom as a representative idea, as a representation of the transcendental self-consciousness and ideal ego, but in the second case he must realize this "ethical idea" in some objective specification of knowledge, in order to exercise his will and moral potency; he must realize it in a particular canon of virtues and vices. But as was shown in the previous essay, his moral potency does not truly belong to the will, to his free agency, but rather to his capacity, as an empirical or lived ego, as a daemonic being, to be stimulated by the transcendental ego, that is, to preserve himself as an empirical self-consciousness, as a living ego and in the spirit of daemonism, by positing an ideal representative of the transcendental, toward which he must direct himself, even though the preservation afforded to him in this process is a preservation, a being held in existence, as only an incomplete being, a sinful being, a corrupted and limited being. " - Hamartia


The valuing subject then being that which exists in terms of the conditions of its own self-valuing, the conditions imposed upon itself by itself. Clearly this occurs most in the most "developed", internally complex being, e.g. man. The "void of unknowability" representing the ultimte threshold for self-valuing in that self-valuing can never truly (directly) value ONLY in terms of its "just itself", being as it is both essentially unknown (closed) before itself in its being as well as being a largely contingent manifestation of its embedded situatedness within "the world". Neither can this self-valuing get control of this world nor of its own eternally escaping mnemosyne. In man then we see the highest synthesis of the possibility for self-valuing projecting from within the constraints of these world-conditions. As man continues to operate within the intermedial space between his projected-imagined self-valuings and his concrete-actual self-valuings (valuing with respect to either the cohesive-interpositional fabrication/s of images of unity or the emergent structural-architectural embodiments of his more functional-reactionary biological-psychological being) he experiences his own expansion, his own "controlled schizophrenization" that can never stray too far too fast just as it can never cease expanding altogether.


Parodites:

I will write out a longer response to you soon, for at the moment I am withdrawing pretty badly from opiates. I have been here before, when my seemingly faithful muse, opium, shows me its graver aspect. But all pain surges up from within one's self, and is never, nor can ever be, the product of a merely external influence... so nothing can prepare one for it, for pain. In pain there is an alien presence which everything in your nature tries to reject, to push away, but it cannot, for this alien presence is someone connected with you, its life is in fact your own life.


You are quite right, my ethics is aimed at rooting philosophy in the element of genuine experience. To let my book speak for itself:



"... The only man that has ever appeared before the eyes of the philosophers is the man in a sickly, diseased state, the man enraptured with idealities, upon whose imagination plays the whole throng of human fancies and manias. The man who has cloistered himself up beyond the influences of such things never enters into their considerations, for it could only be a philosopher who had been spared such a fate, never a man. We lack any concept of a true and vital struggle with illusion, of a vital and human struggle in which philosophy may perhaps at one time have found its origin. "


This vital struggle with illusion... is what morality should have been.


::


"So the task of philosophy, and of your ethical project, is to further delimit this inner divide and objectify its conditionalities toward the end of effecting new couplings between empirical and transcendental "egos" (qualified-aggregate form/s of constancy of experiencing/s) such that we begin to develop representational understandings (analogies, metaphors) of these spheres of consciousness - of the conditions of the empirical ego - rather than, as ethics (and an unfortunate amount of philosophy as well) has tranditionally been known to do, arrogantly and arbitrarily impressing artificial impositions from without which have little or no substantive bearing upon that which is actually being impressed-upon?"
----

Yes, precisely.


And now, I venture to the modest servants of the God Asclepius. Doctors....


Fixed Cross:

I am tempted to use this for a reversal of values 'certain' and 'potential'. Now that the real-world, experientially human definition of potentiality has been given as the space between the divide of transcendent and empirical, we may consider this invisible field of potentiality as the certainty, and the limits between which this space exists as the potential. In other words, we suspend the visible and the seeing, in favor of the primacy to a synthetic experience as the benefactor of the entire delineated spatiality - in this a sense of natural ethics is acquired -- first incidentally, through cultivation and writing, formulating creating sediment. This works as a penetrating influence both on the transcendent experience and the empirical ego, who now find a limitless space to experiment, rooted in a new meaning -- no longer the basis of certainty, but the means to experience.

Where we have always sought experience, we will be able to cause it. Our influence on the empirical world as directly on the cognitive process, no longer via 'verification' through a model of objectivity.

This experience is at first assumed, as in strictly postured mediation - it is in any sense not a given. This is how it is alike to morality - it is active, flows forth from posture of the organism to its experience, in which two principles that may go by a thousand names are observed: rootedness/balance/endurance, and openness/willingness/ concentration. I think that these two refer to respectively the transcendental and the empirical.

We agree then, that morality can only be trained indirectly, as an instinct, a "tendency to be in the position to judge".


::


"Where we have always sought experience, we will be able to cause it. Our influence on the empirical world as directly on the cognitive process, no longer via 'verification' through a model of objectivity."



Yes, exactly!


I have been trying to connect my two separate projects. My theory of consciousness and my ethical project. This causing of one's own experience I formulated in the following terms:







" The great pregnancy.-- Primitive life which could only respond in an immediate way to stimuli would have remained on the earth for only a short while, for a more refined life endowed with what we call "consciousness" had to arise. These new forms of life gained the capacity to react, not immediately to an external stimulus, but mediately, to an internal world, by engendering a mental affect, a "thought" which, in this context, is only a kind of reflex. "Thinking" is only this mediation carried to further and further extents. With this consciousness, behavior was rigidified into instinctual organizations of mental affect, what we call impulses or drives. What we call a behavior, a reaction, is only the reconstitution of certain mental affects, by means of a reflex- namely, that reflex or fundamental schema of consciousness introduced by the development of primitive sensation in response to primitive stimuli: it is the induction of a certain chain of mental causes and effects which nature, experience, and memory have rigidified into hierarchy and organization. This reconstitution is the basis of all consciousness, which is to say, of all stimulation. Egoic consciousness, however, that self-consciousness peculiar to man, has emerged out of this reflexive organism, as its highest power, in accordance to which a new means of organizing the affects has been realized.


The qualia of an experience is directly analogous to a quanta of consciousness, that is, of reflexivity. The instincts, or "drives," to use the language of modern psychology, are not really singular affects, affects with an immediate character. They are organizations of a kind of primordial sensation, a character-less affect, which have been produced by the reflexive coordination of this primitive sensation. In the lower forms of life this reflexivity endows the affect with character, in the form of pleasure and pain, attraction and repulsion, and the character of the affect becomes more nuanced in higher life, and in relation to the development of a more complex sensory apparatus. In man, the reflexive organization of mental affect led to his awareness of enduring states of emotion, of sense, and eventually of enduring things, and of himself as an enduring entity. Language and self-consciousness here emerges, as the highest degree of reflexivity. In accordance to this new self-consciousness and language, which eventually became reason, man has begun to organize the affect in a different way, a non-reflexive way. He is organizing it in accordance with his reason. This marks the beginning of modern consciousness, an active organization of the affects, in accordance no longer to the primeval schema of consciousness, but in accordance to conceptions, ideas. Two different modes of consciousness are, as it were, existing side by side in man: the left-over of the older, reflexive consciousness, and this new, active one. To enlarge itself, the active consciousness must decompose the reflexive one. Reason introduced into that structure of man's drives which nature, over the thousands of years, had produced, a disharmony, a breakdown. This turmoil and war among the drives is what we have called our "unconscious." The completely active consciousness has yet to emerge.... An applicable metaphor to describe the reflexive consciousness is memory. Memory relies on the capacity to perceive similiarity among objects; an animal, after eating a fruit that has a particular smell and falling ill, realizes in another fruit that also possesses this smell a danger. The sensuous element, the smell, is endowed reflexively with a qualia, in accordance to the organization of characterless affect or sensation. Once a suffienct store of this affect has been organized, an instinct is produced ... Consciousness itself possesses a metonymic structure informed by this principle of similarity. It produces similarities to establish the contiguity of experience through the reflexive organization of affect until it reaches, in man, the abstract and linguistic, the archetypal. In accordance to these types, the new consciousness, the active consciousness, then decomposes similarity, realizing differences in objects, collapsing the contiguous or metonymic structure of temporal and spatial relationships. Further, it's affects are no longer organized reflexively, but with relation to the various producible types. The human capacity to regard futurity, to plan, and to reason, is essentially a differentiating, a distortion and reintegration of the contents of the metonymic consciousness, its work being essentially the reverse operation of memory. It involves, ultimately, discoordinating the structure of the drives established by the older consciousness. It has not yet gained sufficient power to endow the characterless affect with quality; this new, active consciousness, is incapable of producing passions and drives in accordance to its own principle, that of differentiation. Man does not "feel" through this active consciousness, all of his passions still belong to the reflexive or metonymic consciousness. The structure of reflexive consciousness, of the metonymic consciousness, along with the instincts and various passions which it produced that continue to live through man, are of course erroneous, are of course constituent of a false consciousness, however beneficial they were for animal existence- for the concept of similarity is erroneous. Language, reason, and the active consciousness function on a very different principle, and that human in total possession of this later consciousness has not emerged yet. The passions and drives which live through and exercise themselves upon me, are only so many memories passed down from animal life, which are structured in accordance to a principle, namely that of the similar, which is contradictory to the principle which informs the very language and reason with which I regard the work of these passions and drives.


Perhaps what separates man from the animals is not his intellect, but the fact that he needs this intellect; the fact that, in relation to the other animals, whose various drives have been carefully organized into succession, rhythm, and functional hierarchy, man's inner life is characterized by a contrary state of turmoil, of contradiction and war amongst the drives. It is thought that man could carry on as he does not, purely instinctually, that his "self" is somehow a superfluity of nature. That is not possible. Consciousness arose only to make sensation possible, for the mediation of the inner world which is essentially what consciousness consists in is necessary for sensation to take place, and self-consciousness in the human sense of the word is only this same mediation carried to the highest power. As a result of developing this self-consciousness, man's attempt to accomplish an active as opposed to reflexive organization of the drives in accordance to his language, ideas, and reason, implies the destruction of everything formerly "conscious," implies the destruction of this pre-existing reflexive consciousness, and induces the conflict among the drives.


It is only now that the various impulses of man's nature (the impulse to truth, to justice, etc.) have been isolated and delimited to the extent that their universal turmoil, the universality of the war amongst the drives, and the complete annihilation of this former consciousness can be grasped by those new philosophers in whom it must find expression. Above all else one must keep in mind that it is a superficial conception of the unconscious to regard it as merely a store-house for repressed or forgotten objects of experience, for in fact it is constituted by this conflict among the drives, and is pregnant with a new, as yet unforeseen consciousness, a consciousness developed through the active organization of mental affect and wholly opposed to the reflexive consciousness through which man has to the greater extent operated in the course of his history- a creative, as opposed to “re-creative” consciousness, so to speak. Where it was the task of the older consciousness to organize mental affect reflexively, it will be the task of the new consciousness to exploit the basic schema in accordance to which the reflexive consciousness has transformed the uncoordinated and formless affect- that is, to “think” into this formless affect, producing that effulgence of new passions and unremitting sensation, which flourishes and dies in the same breath, which will one day be called the “self”.


Reason, fundamentally, disqualifies the affects, it disrupts the structure of the affects which qualifies them as drives, as passions, which gives them quality, be this quality pleasant or unpleasant. Spinoza accomplished the most systematic disqualification, reducing the affects to one basic quality, passion, and emotional state, namely joy, and considering all the "bad passions" merely corrupted qualifications of joy. He is an example of what I called the active consciousness. An imperfect example, but an example. Not to disqualify the affects through the hypothesis of a fundamental quality, (for Spinoza, joy, for Nietzsche, power) but by their complete reduction to quantities of consciousness.... (consciousness is only the metonymic structure which qualifies them, which endows them with quality by configuring them as single passions and drives, more consciousness equals more sharply defined affects.) Who has done that? I've elected it as one of my tasks. A truly active consciousness could arise only after this total reduction was accomplished."

::

And in another place:




"The musical animal.-- The development of human language only becomes comprehensible when one proposes some purely representative language out of which it evolved and eventually adopted the power of communication. It is probable that the first man Adam did not comprehend things in name, but in song. Music is just such a kind of purely representative language, when one regards it in its most essential sense, as an art whose own medium or manner of depiction serves as the depiction itself; music is the primeval nature out of which man first began to take cognisance of the world through his intellectual, abstracting power, rather than his brute sensibility, in which all things first suggested to him their “meaning,” in which every being stood frozen in a moment of revelation and betrayed its form to him, rent open by the entry of his voice. The dream of all poets has been to realize this purely representative language in words rather than in tones, but unfortunately the instinct or need for communication, which grew up within man much later, only after the utility of form was realized, and has thereby been insolubly bound up with words, always makes itself known, and renders this goal unachievable. In music itself this instinct has been exerting a retroactive influence, imbuing mere tone and sound with communicable significance, so that rarely even in this domain does man attain to that state of complete suggestibility which is called "inspiration." We cannot discover this primeval consciousness by realizing it through the analysis of our own music, but in the terms already ventured here one could imagine it as that point at which the consciousness, in its reflexive organization of the affects, first achieved that degree of reflexivity necessary to produce self-consciousness in our human sense of the word, when the enduring forms out of which our experience is constituted began to appear as such, as enduring, as form. That power which has transformed and has been transforming consciousness, that power for actively constituting the mental effects rather than reflexively, in accordance to our language and reason, in accordance to our more refined self-consciousness and the real utility that we find in the apprehension of form, namely logic and communication, will one day be controverted, as the last remnants of the older consciousness are annihilated through the new means of organizing the affects, so that the new state in which man might one day find himself, a purely active consciousness, will be quite analogous to that “musical consciousnesses,” to that absolute suggestibility before the world, in which all things intimated to man their being, which we cannot now imagine. But this new consciousness shall not represent, it will not represent at all, but only create, only declare; this consciousness of absolute communication, of absolute expression and engendering, will be more similar to the older consciousness of absolute representation than it is to our present one, to our now chimaeric nature."


::


You may notice that I have succeeded in equating consciousness with sensation. Sensation emerges as affect without character, affect yet endowed with quality by the reflexive operations on which consciousness is founded. As I put it here:



"The inevitability of consciousness.-- Why did nature see fit to endow us with a consciousness whose only use, at times, seems to be in allowing us to apprehend our own pain? Why could we not have been slightly more ethereal beings, as whisks of smoke which this world might have stirred for a moment and in the next instant wafted into nonentity? Why must this consciousness preside over us, cleaving to the remotest tremor of hunger or pain, and so needlessly torturing us? Why could we not have been as but images cast in the waters? All would be as it is now, only without this consciousness which convinces us that it is we whose images have been so cast. These questions are attractive in their naivete, yet sensation and consciousness cannot exist without one another, in fact they are simply two aspects of a single faculty. The peaceful, insensitive, oblivious life which nearest approached a merely mechanical existence could not have abided long upon the earth- nature does not rest. These more fortunate creatures, possessing no sense as we understand it, were soon educated with that primeval formulation: Pleasure and Pain. Here consciousness arises. For, rather than behaving out of pure mechanism, as did their ancestors; rather than reacting in an immediate way to the world about them, nearly blind, these new beings could now react reflexively to secondary affects produced upon their inner conception of the world, they could entertain a sensation of alluring or repulsive character. A noxious odor, a sound, an image, a memory; these all became ripe with meaning for the new creatures. This is of great import to the living being, and it is also why, in giving to us those supreme tools of pleasure and pain, we were inevitably cursed with consciousness; consciousness is simply the reflex itself, or is constituted by it at any rate. Sensation and consciousness are fundamentally identical, they are two words describing a single faculty. "


::


To actively think into the formless affect of sensation, producing new passions, new qualities of affect, endowing the formless affect with quality through reason, qualifying it in accordance with reason.... Is the future of philosophical method. An actual production of experience, rather than impotent reflection on it. This can only take place after the reflexive consciousness, its remnants at any rate, are completely dissolved. We are in a privileged position to do this, seeing as how the reflexive consciousness with all its various passions, with all its various qualifications of affect, as the impulse to justice, knowledge, morality, etc... has been fully delineated by our philosophical predecessors.


::


As I say in the 291st aphorism of my first book, "Towards the good conscience."



"Toward the good conscience.-- It is probable that the greatest human beings were in actuality the most child-like, but also the most courageous; who, by virtue of their courage, found the greatest beauty in emblazoning all their lives with hope's plaintive colors, their greatest happiness in the bountiful enthusiasm of desire. The misfortune is, that in time one of their hopes must be realized, one of their desires attained, in which case their good conscience about things becomes poisoned by reality, which forms only the lowly dregs of a wine that has long since run dry and, in relation to their ardent dreams about life, must always corrupt them. Hence, the great commandment of Epicurean morality to throw off all the dregs of reality, which of course means to throw off reality itself, to dwell silently in one's little garden all life long. A Stoic, possessed by an opposite nature, and perhaps also by an opposite courage; incapable of hoping and desiring with a good conscience, without the birth and death pangs of expectation and dissappointment, aims to so wholly indwell in reality that he forgets how to desire and to hope completely, but with the same final aim as an Epicurean: to maintain a good conscience, only with respect to bearing the truth. These are both quite violent methods toward securing a peaceful breast; have we developed no subtler means of reconciling the ideality and actuality of man, of taming the heart than- Epicureanism and Stoicism?"


::
Before the Light - No Country for Shrinks

Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6557
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

THE DAEMONIC III: THE HEROIC

Postby Fixed Cross » Sun Dec 18, 2016 1:18 am

Fixed Cross:

I want to think more about the daemonic and the heroic. For now I address those things which point directly to the possibility of creating new methods, whereby a fully active consciousness can be made to emerge.

Parodites wrote:To enlarge itself, the active consciousness must decompose the reflexive one. Reason introduced into that structure of man's drives which nature, over the thousands of years, had produced, a disharmony, a breakdown. This turmoil and war among the drives is what we have called our "unconscious." The completely active consciousness has yet to emerge....

If I understand correctly: The subconscious not as "nature" or simply the un-self-conscious, but as the battleground in which reason tries to kill "nature". I interpret this is a reversal of the traditional approach, which has things emerge from the subconscious to be grasped by reason - here reason submerges itself, as a weapon, into the animal consciousness and ravages it, much like industrial man does to his surroundings.

Further, it's affects are no longer organized reflexively, but with relation to the various producible types.

Yes, an important point here (you have made many) - the human organism is organized by itself teleologically - its instincts are arranged to serve an abstract purpose. The nature of this purpose differs. Religions are invented to the end of setting a cultivating purpose, commerce works to arrange instincts in another way - no generalized goal/method so far, in our time, has proven to arrange the affects in a way that produces a truly happy creature. But man is capable, in some cases, to set for himself such a goal, to arrange his own affects, on an individual basis. These are "free men", in command of themselves. Corresponding with what has been covered above such successful command is indirect. In this case it works by strategically projecting a goal, the attainment of which is not important. The goal serves to arrange the affects in a certain way.

its work being essentially the reverse operation of memory.

Another practically useful definition. I have before attributed to the human the capacity to re-write memory. The "faculty" doing this is what you describe.

this new, active consciousness, is incapable of producing passions and drives in accordance to its own principle, that of differentiation. Man does not "feel" through this active consciousness, all of his passions still belong to the reflexive or metonymic consciousness.

I suppose that this is true, yes. To a large extent, perhaps there are already some small exceptions. Perhaps in some humans, the new consciousness is able to produce, momentarily a kind of proto-affect. For the most part you are right, it seems - I notice in myself that the great passion of triumph that should come (that I would expect) from creating a new rational philosophy is entirely absent. It leaves me cool, calm, simply more conscious. We must perhaps actively create, forge such passions as what came before us has forged the instincts.

As a result of developing this self-consciousness, man's attempt to accomplish an active as opposed to reflexive organization of the drives in accordance to his language, ideas, and reason, implies the destruction of everything formerly "conscious," implies the destruction of this pre-existing reflexive consciousness, and induces the conflict among the drives.

This appears as a very dangerous idea when put raw like this, to which defense I propose that it need not be antithetical to the old consciousness, and its 'ingredients'. Rather, the new, active consciousness will have to make use in every possible way of what presents itself to it as the material of his former nature, the technical possibility of drives, conditions of organic life, chemistry. The only thing that is fundamentally changed is the order of determination - science has to do away with its false modesty, what may also be called its unjustified claim to objectivity. What "is" in man-as-animal is no longer ground, 'canvas', but rather 'paint', material. It need not be erased in order for its hegemony to be broken and its powers placed under the rulership of the new consciousness.

Above all else one must keep in mind that it is a superficial conception of the unconscious to regard it as merely a store-house for repressed or forgotten objects of experience, for in fact it is constituted by this conflict among the drives, and is pregnant with a new, as yet unforeseen consciousness,

This is a crucial insight. From here on new methods can be devised, and the methods that work the best in what has been considered "treating the subconscious" (imaginative re-creation of the interior world) can be explained, and expanded.


::


Parodites wrote:The logic of the daemonic demonstrates how to actually do this, and paints the new morality as precisely this process and task, while the logic of value-ontology indicates what can be accomplished through it, what the potential horizon of this new self-created, self-experiencing being, this new human, is. When these two projects, these two philosophies, are united, we will have the ground for an entire philosophical movement. To be frank, a new philosophical golden age, which will have its poets, saints, politicians, and historians. I do not even think man has begun to live yet.

In the terms we have, the significance of this is literally unspeakable.

" It is probable that the first man Adam did not comprehend things in name, but in song."

And this is how we should attempt to approach ourselves from here-on. Not as regressing back to Adam, but to approach meaning in a more direct way, no longer as that which is waiting for us to pick it up and use, but as that which needs us to exist, and between "us" and "it" this "musical" - which then must be closely related to the daemonic.

I have two books that I need to wrap up, and publish. It has been a long, six year journey writing them. Soon...

We are honored to have your writing published here. It is fortunate that our two logics are brought into contact. I can not oversee the potential, there is a dark green ocean in high turmoil between here and the horizon. The work of taming this nightly ocean will be done bit by bit, mile by mile. But the end is clear:

As I say in the 291st aphorism of my first book, "Towards the good conscience."

"Toward the good conscience.-- It is probable that the greatest human beings were in actuality the most child-like, but also the most courageous; who, by virtue of their courage, found the greatest beauty in emblazoning all their lives with hope's plaintive colors, their greatest happiness in the bountiful enthusiasm of desire. The misfortune is, that in time one of their hopes must be realized, one of their desires attained, in which case their good conscience about things becomes poisoned by reality, which forms only the lowly dregs of a wine that has long since run dry and, in relation to their ardent dreams about life, must always corrupt them. Hence, the great commandment of Epicurean morality to throw off all the dregs of reality, which of course means to throw off reality itself, to dwell silently in one's little garden all life long. A Stoic, possessed by an opposite nature, and perhaps also by an opposite courage; incapable of hoping and desiring with a good conscience, without the birth and death pangs of expectation and dissappointment, aims to so wholly indwell in reality that he forgets how to desire and to hope completely, but with the same final aim as an Epicurean: to maintain a good conscience, only with respect to bearing the truth. These are both quite violent methods toward securing a peaceful breast; have we developed no subtler means of reconciling the ideality and actuality of man, of taming the heart than- Epicureanism and Stoicism?"

Outstanding. Yes, this garden. My obsessive thinking, from childhood on, has been aimed at making the world subject to the laws of my garden. In this I did not seek to lie to myself about what the world is. On the contrary, I sensed that it is always lying to itself, 'it' here being 'the world at large' - the statistical world, hell of hells. I held it as necessary that what has been called to be the 'spirit of play' and which now you have designated in terms of the daemonic, would be the law of the world, instead of confined between fences excluding the world of politics, common sense, business.

How can this spirit rule? In order to solve this question, value-ontology was formulated - I had to formulate why it must rule. The purity of self-valuing, the solid, philosophical establishment of its primacy, over all the terms now constituting 'reality'. Of course, it does rule, where/whenever true rulership is exercised. The workings of all leadership can be understood by value ontology, and the consciousness of all true leaders or "master-signifiers" as the daemonic. It is the only type of spirit that may properly rule, actively direct, justify a priori its consequences.


::


Allow me some experimenting. I may be deviating from your definitions as I use your terms. Please step in when I make them unrecognizable.

A meaning of the 'heroic' is beginning to dawn on me, in the terms of leadership I just described. As leadership always requires sacrifice of the objective, an enforcing of the subject-as-art on its less than perfect canvas, there is always a certain danger involved, an 'against the odds', a going-down, the certainty of a compromise - not made my the subject but by fate, between the subjects inner 'structuring' as 'daemon' and the subjects outward 'unraveling' as 'heros' - the modus in which his value is perceived, spent.

There is always this dialectic, a frenzied activity indeed, between the hearts genius and all compromising means to "grasp" this, or "have it grasped" - see it confirmed. Such means can be refined, by the introduction of music, but in this first the essence of the loss becomes more apparent - the tragic. The effect that this tragic, the essence of lost self-valuing (a kind of value-sediment) revealed, has on the spectator is ultimately the value being transferred from the hearts genius of the falling hero to potential new self-valuing, in other subjects.

I have wondered how the mechanism of self-valuing might be spread - it now seems to me that here a reaching-out and risking is involved. But the heroic could not be effective to this purpose if the daemonic is not immediately re-attained. The dynamic between these two is the truly dizzying, the frenzy, the inspiring. By its negation, the 'truth of the daemonic' is exposed, after which it is drawn in again by its affirmation.


Parodites:

"If I understand correctly: The subconscious not as "nature" or simply the un-self-conscious, but as the battleground in which reason tries to kill "nature". I interpret this is a reversal of the traditional approach, which has things emerge from the subconscious to be grasped by reason - here reason submerges itself, as a weapon, into the animal consciousness and ravages it, much like industrial man does to his surroundings."



Yes, exactly. Our consciousness is essentially a metonymic structure... intended to grasp temporal and spatial relations through contiguous impressions. To do this there had to arise a primordial, pre-reflective affect in the conscious animal. This is "sensation." The first sensation was the first moment of consciousness. In the terms I have been setting forth, they are describing one faculty, that faculty which organizes, reflexively, the affects into contiguous impressions. This reflexive organization is essentially the creation of an internal conception of the world by qualifying, endowing with qualia, this primal affect of sensation. Through the metonymic relations carved out by an animal's personal experiences, it learns to associate the raw information of a sense like a peculiar smell- say a poisonous fruit it ate once, with the ill feelings imposed by its poisoned state. This "bad" character of the primal affect, the sense, then, is the qualia. Over time these reflexive organizations play off one another, generating a richer inner conception of the world, and more intense qualia- qualified affects that no longer need an external stimulus to be invoked, are created. These would be analogous to what humans call fears, but in any case as they grow more complex they become recognizable as "passions," as the beginning of a psychology. Eventually this process produced the human consciousness, which is so refined in its inner conception of the world that it is capable of using words, and of reasoning, and has been endowed with the sense of self. In accordance with these things a shift in the structuring of the consciousness began. No longer are our affects being organized reflexively, but rather in accordance to reason, to our thoughts. This has introduced turmoil into our passions, which are no longer held together in the coordinated organizations nature produced, and their war with one another has been deceptively called our "unconscious."

Thus:


"Reason, fundamentally, disqualifies the affects, it disrupts the structure of the affects which qualifies them as drives, as passions, which gives them quality, be this quality pleasant or unpleasant. Spinoza accomplished the most systematic disqualification, reducing the affects to one basic quality, passion, and emotional state, namely joy, and considering all the "bad passions" merely corrupted qualifications of joy. He is an example of what I called the active consciousness. An imperfect example, but an example. Not to disqualify the affects through the hypothesis of a fundamental quality, (for Spinoza, joy; for Nietzsche, power) but by their complete reduction to quantities of consciousness.... (consciousness is only the metonymic structure which qualifies them, which endows them with quality by configuring them as single passions and drives, more consciousness equals more sharply defined affects.) Who has done that? I've elected it as one of my tasks. A truly active consciousness could arise only after this total reduction was accomplished."


This is what I mean by the disintegration of the reflexive consciousness within us, the remnants that it has left behind and through which we feel. Our active consciousness, as Spinoza and Nietzsche's case prove, has never been capable of producing its own passions, of qualifying the affects on its own. The most the former two were able to do is reduce all the affects to one fundamental quality, joy and power, respectively. To grasp all the affects, all the passions, as only quantities of consciousness, as only different degrees of reflexive organization, would allow the active consciousness to finally begin qualifying the primal affect of sensation on its own, producing its own qualities, qualifications of this affect- its own passions.


::


Fixed Cross wrote:Allow me some experimenting. I may be deviating from your definitions as I use your terms. Please step in when I make them unrecognizable.

A meaning of the 'heroic' is beginning to dawn on me, in the terms of leadership I just described. As leadership always requires sacrifice of the objective, an enforcing of the subject-as-art on its less than perfect canvas, there is always a certain danger involved, an 'against the odds', a going-down, the certainty of a compromise - not made my the subject but by fate, between the subjects inner 'structuring' as 'daemon' and the subjects outward 'unraveling' as 'heros' - the modus in which his value is perceived, spent.

There is always this dialectic, a frenzied activity indeed, between the hearts genius and all compromising means to "grasp" this, or "have it grasped" - see it confirmed. Such means can be refined, by the introduction of music, but in this first the essence of the loss becomes more apparent - the tragic. The effect that this tragic, the essence of lost self-valuing (a kind of value-sediment) revealed, has on the spectator is ultimately the value being transferred from the hearts genius of the falling hero to potential new self-valuing, in other subjects.

I have wondered how the mechanism of self-valuing might be spread - it now seems to me that here a reaching-out and risking is involved. But the heroic could not be effective to this purpose if the daemonic is not immediately re-attained. The dynamic between these two is the truly dizzying, the frenzy, the inspiring. By its negation, the 'truth of the daemonic' is exposed, after which it is drawn in again by its affirmation.







I would agree with these terms and your picture. The most painful depth of daemonic existence must immediately thrust one into the heaven of heroic philosophy, and vice versa. Modern man has been prevented from attaining that depth of daemonic existence though, as a consequence of the radical divide between the languages of the empirical and transcendental, of experience and philosophy. Hence my new morality, which would aim to reinstate the continuity between these two languages, between the empirical and transcendental aspects of the self, would have as its goal the production of a new heroic philosophy, and new heroic philosophers, a new "mens heroica," to use Bruno's own term, or "heroic mind."


Fixed Cross:

The creation of new, realer passions then! This is necessary now as water is to fish, In terms of what I used to know as enthusiasm, I can hardly breathe in this new space, it is too heavily charged with real possibilities, possibilities for transformation of my environment. So the forging of an at least higher, deeper and wider passion seems to me indeed a necessity, even to express the fact that we have embarked on this journey to open up reality, open it up to its potential, directly, after all this preparation, from reflexive organic learning to the last poems of philosophical yearning for honesty.

What kind of passions may we imagine here? What is felt? Of course, the 'it' of feeling is a sediment of the passion itsefl - but the sediment is needed to begin to institutionalize such deliberate sensation into categories, which must take on a form of context in which the passions may emerge, not of description of what they are.

Pondering, again I come up with the idea that 'our nature' as we perceive it must still be used, though not as a hegemonic drive, but as a pool from which to delve useful elements to fit and sustain the architecture of our drives, the newly attaining form of passion we seek, whereby the world is transformed.

It is my strong believe that whereas the daemonic informs us about what it is that needs to be attained and what it is that is attained, the heroic does not inform us at all, but inspires us to inform ourselves. It draws us outward, it is the tragic fall fo self-valuing emitting the music that beckons others to value the tragic hero as themselves - i.e. value themselves in these heroic terms.


Parodites:

Fixed Cross wrote:It is my strong believe that whereas the daemonic informs us about what it is that needs to be attained and what it is that is attained, the heroic does not inform us at all, but inspires us to inform ourselves. It draws us outward, it is the tragic fall fo self-valuing emitting the music that beckons others to value the tragic hero as themselves - i.e. value themselves in these heroic terms.



Yes, that's why I titled my book which deals with these ideas, Hamartia. Aristotle's term for the tragic element of the heroic figure.
Before the Light - No Country for Shrinks

Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6557
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

VALUE ONTOLOGY IS

Postby Fixed Cross » Sun Dec 18, 2016 1:55 am

0.
Value ontology is a philosophy that reads between the lines.


1.
Value ontology equals self-valuing logic; the logic of beings, rather than of Being. Beings are given, Being, in as far as it would be a unified state inclusive of all things, is a hypothesis.

'A'><'A' ; within a logic of the ontos, difference is as fundamental to entity as it is to identity. Mathematical abstraction is a creative artform, not a faithful representation of reality.


2.
New philosophical axiom:

Being is a word.

or

"Being" "is" "a" "word" (,:;?.!)

That is to say it might only be that. Unless we 'mean it right', 'shoot straight' - but for this our grammar is yet too crooked!

Grammar is under fire here. Grammar forms the lines between which philosophy must operate.

But this is not necessary. It is possible to approach language in the same way as one would approach physics; by first setting the terms, the calibrating operations to the reference frame. For this a term is required that refers to both physics and the human psyche. The terms "attraction" and "will to power" have been coined. These are both accurate, but not they do not produce a grammar around them. They do not explain themselves.

Philosophy crosses the long distance between word and reality. Or it has tried. By analogy, I would be claiming that value ontology is an arrow that hit the bulls eye. And this means there might be others that hit it - let's say Nietzsche was the first to hit the board, to prove it exists. In that case, VO might be just one ring closer to the center. But this is only a metaphor. As is "everything".

From hereon, we shall thus discuss “being” thinking of it as “the word “being”” . *

Into the words then. To value means to hold something distinct from another. “Being” = “Self-valuing” or extended “valuing registration (impacting physis) in terms of self” whereby "self" refers to the continuous (so as to be registered as existence, 'affect' if you will) form of the valuing, not to anything besides valuing, which if it is destined to be more than dissolution, entropy, amounts in self-valuing.

“self-valuing” is thus indirect, as is “being”.


3.
What is 'direct' is action. It is involuntary but it produces our notion of will, this is enough for now to describe the power of its difference from being. Action is related to the term 'event' one action is never reducible to a single self-valuing. More on this, infinitely more, at a later stage.

All synthetic thoughts are actions; our nervous system pushes us to action, either inward or outward. Inward actions have formed the brain, through the organisms tendency to maximize its own self-awareness toward pleasure on a spectrum that all behavioral psychologists use.

Directness is what one might call a radical form of being, caused by a dense configuration of passive being that begins to be changed by the fact that its internal logics contradict the others, when they are in the same place at the same time. This is when the will to power arises; when self-valuing becomes active, an valuing becomes a matter of overcoming resistance and thereby inadvertently self-overcoming. Unless one is literally made out of gold, which can not be changed, and is thus perfectly self-valuing. Gold acts on its own terms; that is why the ancients called it a noble metal.

Some actions lead to death. An action also “self-values” but it has a very limited lifespan. An organic being is a collection of actions and results on the capacity to sustain similar actions.

Some beings develop a greater range of successful actions, others die and whither off because their range wasn’t sufficient to experiment. Experiment is the only way to acquire power. When one is given great influence but no experience, what some would call power quickly turns against and very likely annihilates its wielder.

Self-valuing logic is born out of endurance, out of rugged naked experience with the wild. It is both psychedelic an analytics. It is life, the circle, the imperfect always improving excellence of being that Homer sings about and that shall be exalted even above Homers imagination, to Olympian laughter among humans being as common as birds among a song.


4.
Objects or characters or natures or individuals are no longer given. They are there only in as far as they 'give themselves' - self-value. Their nature is not different from their cause. Thus it includes many other natures by implication. But not, as ooSpinoza argues, all natures, for there is no whole; such a thing is not given, but again a hypothesis.

For instance: a tree still falls if there is no one around and it produces turbulence in the air and ground but it does not produce 'sound'. That is a phenomenon that derives from our eardrums, i.e. the thing between the phenomenon and 'that which gives' - the 'giver' - and I mean of meaning, of character, objectivity, nature, individuation; being-as-such. 'Sound as such' namely does not exist; there must be 'a sound' or 'several sounds' for 'sound' to exist. That means that it must becomes something within something else; a human experience. Therein can it self-value; i.e. respond to its environment in such a way as to continue to exist. That might be as an idea written down in a book, or as some grooves in a vinyl disc, or the memory of it in a mind... it needs to be recalled, ordered to presence to be verified but if it can be verified in theory, it 'exists'.

That is never to say 'strictly to itself'; often the level of involvement with other being determines simply the level of our involvement in our own being. This is very slippery ice; one can, with some discernment, become deeper and richer and 'happier', but many lives, most civilized lives perhaps, are lived excessively by other self-valuing terms than the 'spirit' of that person, the entity that might emerge if the mind was dead-seat on the values its spirit, fire, will sets for it. Such an entity can not be pulled into a Frankensteinian quasi existence by unknown hyperbolic assumptions. Detach! But slowly we proceed, in degrees.


5.
What we need is visceral pathos, passion of the heart to direct the brains great madness, the violent ventures of which a man is inadvertently capable and often inclined, which must ultimately result in mastery of the Earth; that is to say, to behave in such a way that makes it possible to ay that the Earth self-values. Right now, man is a contradiction to that. A great one, requiring a great solution. Man is not capable of this in general, he needs his excessive warriors or that. These have now taken up the sword. Sword? what a I saying -- the pen. Far more dangerous.



* The word refers to a complex arrangement of things, namely everything. It does not, thusly, appear to do its object of reference any justice. It does not even show how precisely it must, as a word, contain itself within the vast, or infinite expanse of its reference.

But there never was a way to particularize the term being so as to represent, rather than to refer. Or so it seemed: in this very yearning for such a way was the way itself. The thinking mind needed required a 'self' (this is what philosophy is, the search for the self of thought), but it was looking in all the wrong places. It was looking at everything besides the ends to its passion. It could not acknowledge that all is selective passion, valuing, because that seems not noble enough. And - it wasn't. Man could not believe this, because he was not noble enough. He did not deserve to believe it.

[OP]
Before the Light - No Country for Shrinks

Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6557
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Crow » Tue Jan 17, 2017 11:30 pm

Value and Value-Judgments

Value is a word indicating a relationship.
The relationship is between an observer and the observed, therefore it only has meaning in relation to living organisms within world.
In it most basic form it is an organism evaluating an otherness in relation to its needs.

Humans, having the ability to go beyond the third level of cognition, can evaluate a behavior, a choice, in relation to a projected objective, an abstract ideal.
In other words he can extricate his own needs from the process and compare an action to an ideal.

This ability can produce the value represented by money, or the value of numerical measurements representing the phenomenon's activity measure against an abstract, immutable standard.
This is how we can measure temperature, or speed.

Value only has meaning in relation to a motive, a goal, an objective.
Value is not an intrinsic part of a pattern.
A phenomenon lacks value, but only in relation to a motive, such as measuring its activity, its energy, relative to the observer, or some standardized abstraction.
A stone has no value. It is pattern, or a congruity of patterns that may be measured by an external consciousness that first differentiates it from the background, from its pile of stones it is among.
A stone is given value either in relationship to this standard, ideal, usually mathematical, or in relation to a goal, such as building a house.
Similarly, a stone has no name unless there's a consciousness present to give it a standardized noetic model, such as language a symbol, a word associated with its pattern.
Stone, the term, is not a intrinsic aspect of its existence.
Similarly speed-of-light has a speed.
The value we give to this activity we call velocity, which is nothing more than its pattern, is based on human standards, which are, in turn, founded on human metabolic rates.
It can be 299792458 metres per second or it can be 186,282 mi/s.
The numbers are not an intrinsic part of light. The value they represent is a representation of its behavior, its pattern (inter)acting. In this case in a vacuum where interaction is minimal to the point of being inconsequential relative to human lifespans, and speeds of awareness.

The type of pattern determines its (inter)activity, therefore it determines how an organism such as man using light as a medium will perceive - interpret the phenomenon.
if the medium is not light, not visual, but acoustic then it is how atmosphere, the patterns we know as gases, (inter)act with a given phenomenon, and then the eardrum.
We give sound value according to this interpretation of (inter)activity, based on our organic limitations. We give it a tonal value, we interpret it as noise or as ordered noise we call melody, or music.
Sound is vibration which is another way of saying pattern.
Light is also vibration, energy - the fastest pattern man can process, making it a metaphor for human awareness, the extent of man's perceptual-event-horizon.
Sound has no value in and of itself. It is given value, either as a way of categorizing it, or in relation to the organisms needs. A particular sound may mean dinner, or a coming threat.
Sound is simply patterns (inter)acting.
Man gives sound value in order to categorize it, to know it and then to understand it.
Sound resonates, in other words it (inter)acts via the medium of atmosphere with an organism.
It has a psychosomatic effect.
Crow
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:11 pm

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Crow » Tue Jan 17, 2017 11:41 pm

Value only has meaning in relation to a goal, an objective, or what is called an ideal.
The most abstract ideals being mathematical 1/0 binary.
The word has no meaning outside this relationship of actor, within world, using the objective as the standard.
Anyone using the word in any other way is attempting to hide nonsense, or plagiarism beneath verbal confusions, and then excuse it using mystical innuendos.
His motive - goal, objective - is something other than clarity.
The ideal, or objective or goal is not automatically equal to any other.
It is evaluated not only in relation to how realistic it is, or how close one can come to achieving it, but also by the consequences of striving towards it, by the kind of psychology it produces.
Consequences are what we call the cost/benefits produces by striving towards the objective, even if it is not attainable, and/or when it is attained, to whatever degree.
Consequences not intervened upon by some external force that would adjust the costs/benefits, making the actor believe that its judgment is no different than any other.
With no skyhooks, no human interventions, what is left is a mind measuring itself against world, in competition with others doing likewise.
There is no "I say so", "He says so", "God says so" or the democratic authoritarianism of the majority imposing itself on the individual of "We say so".
There is only a mind, an actor, subjectively judging world, including all other actors participating within it, indifferent to its choices, facing the consequences of its judgment calls.
We call this natural selection.
To determine natural from artificial environments, one must eliminate ALL human interventions, including technologies.
There's a reason why females have the form and the psychology they do. In nature their reproductive role burdens them on the back-end cost, whereas for the male the costs were front-loaded and had no, or minimal, back-end costs.
This is not Paternalism.
This is why human morals began by shifting from a purely bonding mechanism to one intervening upon human choices and behaviors. But they were not very effective being that they were human contrivances, using a natural behavioral mechanism for human social engineering.
This is why morality, imposed by Abrahamic religions with a carrot-stick approach, had to also include the penalty of law.
The objective, the ideal, the goal, here was to intervene upon naturally evolved human behaviors to achieve social harmony, or artificial tolerance.
Monogamy and the institution of marriage were additional human contrivances aiming for the same goal, the same ideal.
Yet, despite all those human inventions and interventions human still manage to revert to their evolved behaviors, particularly when stress decreases the frontal cortex's dominance over the reptilian brain.
Take adultery as another example.
No matter how many rules, regulations, peer pressured and enforced norms, how many moral laws, or human laws are in place, even under the penalty of death, humans will still cheat on their mates, particularly the more base animalistic types. The less evolved ones.
Behavior evolved before and outside human societies still overwhelms human judgments, and "I say so" rules. Because the authority is inside each and every individual....and it is called genetics.
The meme is like a cover evolving out of, or contrary to this genetic past/nature.
Nihilism produces the most past/nature annulling memes....which would include morals, ideals, and socioeconomic ambitions.
Crow
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:11 pm

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Sauwelios » Wed Jan 18, 2017 5:57 am

What a fitting name, Crow.

The only way I can value this so-called "Satyr" is by imagining him as weaving his old crow's nest of a persona out of overfulness, in order to be a rod, an absolute negative scaring others into relative positivity, colour, beauty.

It's as a means to this, then, that he denies all life, all valuing, in the inorganic--and even to a great extent in most of the organic, even most animals, even most people. I wonder if he has thought the experiment of the Weltbild.

In any case, if my most generous suspicion, my most beneficial doubt is correct, he will understand that goals, objectives, or ideals are themselves values: not in the sense that they necessarily have intrinsic value, but in the sense that they are necessarily valued by those pursuing them.

Likewise, that the carriers and manifestations of genetic blueprints are but the environment of these τέλοι, these Ideas,--these qualia.
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7121
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Crow » Wed Jan 18, 2017 10:58 am

Good Disciple, and forever loyal follower of the cock's crow, and the pussy's bark, I salute your tireless commitments as wife-maiden and poet, designate, of the royal court.
With so much supplicant back-slapping you will certainly find a place on the master's table, and will be forever canonized, as one of the original founders, and knowers of the true heir.

When Christianity 2.0 finds its way into the catacombs where freaks, and geeks still hide, unaware that the second coming has come, and new and improved Messiah walks upon the earth, they will storm out into the streets to bring about a revolting revolutions, of revolving Revelations.
The substitution of 'love' with 'value, so as to usher in, through the Pagan's "back door" Nietzsche, the big cock himself, was brilliant.
Finally Judaism and Hellenism will synthesize in a successful and glorious monstrosity, saving all from this cruel, and unjust cosmos.
All will love themselves and god, no....sorry, value themselves and life.
And though we can find self-loving and sell-valuing, in the self-preservation department, we shall not buy such simple products but choose to challenge our witless-wits and mystify it, color the box with mysterious icons, runes, magical incantations offering immediate physical rewards, not to be confused for Placebo effects and psychosomatic influence, as the faith healers performed on the Christian flocks.

And all with a simple and shameless change of words, and then its validation no less complex and "philosophical", to impress the potential buyer, like Sauwelios, the head of the marketing department.
Why use proper terminology when inappropriate words, like 'value', as the Christian used 'love' to describe their Nihilistic miasma, can produce the right amount of confusion, and perplexity, permitting plausible deniability to forever claim to be misunderstood by the nay-sayers, and only felt as true by the faith-believers.

How ironic that the old half-breed, used to bridge Hebrew and Hellene, has been replaced by a new, cRapping one.....born among the lowly and impoverished, no doubt, and not among the spoiled and pampered.
How ironic that Nietzsche is now the icon, as Jesus was, that will head the church of the new-Christian era.

Do not Christians accuse skeptics of negativity, of hating and fearing their God, of not understanding Scripture sufficiently?
Straight out of the degenerate manual you come, Sauwelios.
You are the old, recycled, turned to mulch and then sold to the hungering masses as nectar.

From a chaos is born a dancing star, is that not what your idol said?
For he can speak and do no wrong. He the alpha and the omega, in the church of VO, for little boys and girls, in this Modern era.

As such....from the 'negative' the 'positive' emerges, you faith-believer and forever follower of the impressively, plumed self-handicapping pea-cock.

For when a man creates a meaning, he must draw it from nature's order, and when he constructs a meme, it must be in harmony with nature's genes.
Ideal and Real must be as close to harmony as possible, for a beautiful melody to echo.
Declaring yourself master exposes a miserly spirit, hoarding accolades, desperately seeking approval.

Ideal must align with past/nature, with the individual the conduit, the willing chain in the link, proud to pass on what has come before, and not seek to stand out, like an artist desperate to become Tupac, or Madonna creating pop music for fame and fortune.
A true artist, like a true philosopher, does it for the pleasure of the work, because he must, as it is in his nature, and fame and fortune may come or may not, but this does not motivate him, and so it does not dissuade him either.

Speaking lies, after you've convinces yourself of their validity, and covering up your motives with excuses, is vile.
The ideal that perfectly reflects the rel, the natural, needs not speak of its nature. It excused it in simple things.
A strong man does not need to call himself powerful, or have others acknowledge him as such....he is it. He cannot stop being it.

The crow scares away the feeble, the cowardly, the sickly, the desperate for easy solutions, and self-flattering lies.
The crow exposes plagiarizing hypocrites and degenerate liars.

Crow says:
Life is beautiful as it is.
Last edited by Crow on Wed Jan 18, 2017 2:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Crow
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:11 pm

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Void_X_Zero » Wed Jan 18, 2017 11:48 am

Crow fails to understand even among the most basic points of VO, which is that a "sensation" or "observing" are things that all entities do, even non-living ones. When a force impacts a rock this force transfers into and passes through the rock, disturbing the molecular structures of the rock; if the force is strong enough it will break molecular bonds and the rock will crack or shatter. The only difference between that and a living organism here is that when a force passes into a living organism the force is divided into various channels of effects, namely the organism is far more responsive to the original force than is a rock, but they both respond to it.

Consciousness is about responsiveness. Someone infinitely more intelligent that Crow once said that if nature can be said to have any goal at all it would be the goal of producing the maximum response from the minimum stimulus; what we call "sentience" or "subjective awareness" is just a very very complex and derivative kind of responsiveness, fundamentally no different than the much more basic and linear responsiveness of a rock to whatever is able to cause an effect upon it. The only difference is that a living thing can respond to a much wider range of stimuli and that a living thing has many more kinds of responses available to it. A cow has more access to ontic nature and truth than does an apple, an apple has more access to ontic nature and truth than does a rock, and a human has more access to ontic nature and truth than any of these, yet all do have some access to it. There is no fundamental difference in this regard, even differences of quality appear because of differences in quantity.
"Siamo contenti? Son dio, ha fatto questa caricatura . . . [Are we happy? I am God, I made this caricature . . .]"

--Nietzsche.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kkUzU9OiDI
User avatar
Void_X_Zero
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1448
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Will to Power

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Crow » Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:03 pm

"In future discussions of self-preservation Spinoza can be found attaching the qualifying phrase ‘insofar as it is able’ [quantum in se est] to his own characterisation of bodies’ natural tendencies. Its inclusion is primarily intended to demonstrate that such strivings exist as a function of an object’s individual bodily powers, or in the case of more complex bodies, their mental powers. This emphasis on potency - i.e. that some bodies are naturally better suited to defend and preserve their existence than others - further lends itself to the establishment of a natural hierarchy for addressing the various types of bodies that exist throughout nature. In this non-exclusive structure it becomes possible to accommodate the fact that more complex bodies are able to rely on both mental and bodily powers to aid in their preservation while less complex bodies such as plants and rocks remain dependent only on their comparatively weaker bodily powers." [Justin Jacobs, Self-preservation in Hobbes and Spinoza]
Crow
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:11 pm

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Crow » Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:19 pm

VO rearranges words, applies them wrongly, to create the illusion that it is unique, that it is presenting something extraordinary, something new, when it is channeling the same Hebrew spirit, attempting to reinvent Christianity in a post-Nieatzsche era.

For shame!!

There is no need for the terms "value" and "self" in relation to how elements in stones remain in congruence.
The choice of 'self' in particular smells of a motive other than clarity.
It's a shameless attempt to sample, as cRappers do, from past popular melodies to recreate a recycled new song.

No SELF in any congruity but what we call life.
No need for such anthropomorphic allusions, when interacting patterns attracting and repelling suffices.
The stone has no motive, no memory, no desire.
The elements that participate in its congruity are patterns interacting as only they can with other patters.

Pattern = repeating, oscillating, vibrating, consistently, predictably = order.
Attraction/Repulsion are terms expressing how the different pattern harmonize.
No 'self' no 'value'.

When a cult is uncovered they run for the corners, like cockroaches.....claiming that nobody saw them, and what they saw they've misunderstood.
They just do not get it....is this not what Christians say about non-believers?
Then they go into a ritualized word juggling performance they were taught in their Church seminars on "How to deal with sinners and infidels"

Listen...you want to believe your Messiah is the next 'big thing'; be my guest...but don't expect me to stop laughing about it.
like I said....be good promoters and followers....it's in your natures....and I will be awaiting his cRAP album to hit the charts.
Did he not also discover Pezer as a talent in word-associating rhymes?

Don't mind me...carry on plagiarizing, repackaging, declaring, accusing others of misunderstanding the profound complexities of your revolutionary "philosophy".
Even that's not new

.
Crow
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:11 pm

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Void_X_Zero » Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:23 pm

Self-preservation is only a side effect. The more significant and fundamental aspect is that such "powers" are quite literally pushing further into the ontos. More truth happens to allow better survivalism, all other things being equal, that is all.
"Siamo contenti? Son dio, ha fatto questa caricatura . . . [Are we happy? I am God, I made this caricature . . .]"

--Nietzsche.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kkUzU9OiDI
User avatar
Void_X_Zero
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1448
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Will to Power

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Crow » Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:32 pm

I realized you were representative of the overall intellectual quality of the van-clan, when you offered us your positions on race and why people are racists.
I cannot take anything you post seriously, from then on.

Yes, your master, the wannabe Jesus for the post-Christian era, has repackaged self-preservation, inspired by how Saul repackaged self-love, and is selling it as a magical concept, nobody truly understanding if they do not first accept it into their hearts.

God, the Abrahamic ONE didn't die....he was renamed.
Self-preservation at all costs.
Bacteria will survive mankind, ergo, bacteria are superior to man.

Complexity is not automatically strength.

If you acknowledge that complexity equals strength, then you denying that Europeans, Caucasians, Indo-Europeans are superior to Negroes, is you being a damn hypocrite and a sickly liar.
Which makes you a perfect fit for the van-clan.

A bitch is attracted to the biggest male dog, or the one with a loud bark....as she perceives size and strength = hedonism.

Truth is what survives, and what survives is truth.
The circular reasoning of the degenerate.
Can you think of no other reason for something to survive?

If cockroaches survive a nuclear holocaust will they have proven to be superior to them organism that produced the holocaust?
Why yes...because Negroes simply by surviving, enduring, have proven to be the equals to those that enslaved them.
Let us emulate their survival tenacity, and adopt their fabulous art: cRAP music, bling-bling, in our crib, in da hood, with hoodies on, bouncing vans, and a posse, our peeps, our crew...entourage.

Da biatches will luv us.
Crow
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:11 pm

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Void_X_Zero » Wed Jan 18, 2017 2:29 pm

You still think this is about self-preservation and self-love. You have no idea what we are talking about. At this point the fault clearly lies with you.

As for truth, it is not something that "survives or perishes". Truth is that by which beings survive or perish. You seem to not only be conceptually insane but also have a weird fetish with "survival", not to mention an obsession with Fixed. Your groupie antics are those of a whore spreading its legs for attention, but at lest you serve to attract some attention to this place, which again is a nicely whorish function.

As for your fetish with "preservation" and "survival", that is some transhumanism nonsense. I won't expect you to make even a single effort to rise above the filth that you call a mind.

"..and now the gnaw where they defacate", as Nietzsche said. A sad omen for your life, it would seem. I would say it's a pity, but it really isn't. Value Ontology describes quite well what has happened to you and why you have broken your mind. You gain some value from doing so, although such a small amount it is indeed laughable. The same reason why no one takes you seriously, and why you like it that way.
"Siamo contenti? Son dio, ha fatto questa caricatura . . . [Are we happy? I am God, I made this caricature . . .]"

--Nietzsche.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kkUzU9OiDI
User avatar
Void_X_Zero
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1448
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Will to Power

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Crow » Wed Jan 18, 2017 3:04 pm

Red what I actually said, disciple of the one true Messiah, and heir of Nietzsche.

Just as the Christians tore the word 'love' form its natural roots, and turned into into a meaningless mystical concept all deserved, so do you new crypt-Christians, take another word 'value' and mystify it by tearing ti away form its wordy application sand controverting it to a mystical device to mesmerize the needy and feeble-minded.
You reduce the value of value.

I have a fetish for hypocrites, liars, and degenerates...so yes Fixed is one of my favorites.
Particularly those who declare themselves grandiose icons.
The arrogance of feebleness irks me, it is true.

As for my life, disciple of neo-Abrahamism...it is just fine.
I have everything that I need, and more.

Sorry...if you come to a public space, spewing nonsense, plagiarizing, repackaging, pretending to be inventing something new when you are sampling and recycling the same feces you should, at the very least, show the quality of mind to be able to defend your positions with more than just "you don't understand"....and exposing it in your anti-racist mediocrities, echoing the same crap I watched on Oprah Winfrey.

You, whether you know it or not, have changed the concept of self-preservation into self-valuing, and then you ascribe it to non-living patterns, which you conclude are unities because it is you, and only you, who differentiates a stone from a pile of stones, or a single cloud from a storm.
I don't even feel sorry for you....because you defense to be exactly what you are.

No, bacteria is not superior to humans, well not most anyway....just because they survived.
No the word 'self' is meaningless when applied to non-living unities.
no, the word 'value' is devalued when applied to non-consciousness....like love was applied by your failed predecessors.

Again...that your Messiah chose those words, and then pretended that they implied more, only exposes his motives, just as they are exposed by his artistic endeavors...and you, his van-clan, are the desperately duped - victims of your own feebleness.
That he claimed a rune has physical effects, exposes the quality of mind at work here.

It's but another symptom of nihilistic psychosis.
ILP is perfect for you.
Here, your kind of crazy, is one among many.
I knew what you are after reading a few of your posts here.
Classic follower psychology - a true Modern.
Anything that feels good, is true.
Anything that makes you afraid is afraid of you.
How does your kind explain honest comments about homosexuality and race?
Yes...homophobia, haters, they fear.

"The Philosophers"
#-o
Sheesh....
More like a wannabe cult, dreaming of becoming a world-wide religion.

Emoters, feelers..."The Hypocrites", is more apt.

Value Ontology....gawd!!!
Ha!!
I almost choked when I first read it.
Value and Value-Judgments

Value is a word indicating a relationship.
The relationship is between an observer and the observed, therefore it only has meaning in relation to living organisms within world.
In it most basic form it is an organism evaluating an otherness in relation to its needs.

Humans, having the ability to go beyond the third level of cognition, can evaluate a behavior, a choice, in relation to a projected objective, an abstract ideal.
In other words he can extricate his own needs from the process and compare an action to an ideal.

This ability can produce the value represented by money, or the value of numerical measurements representing the phenomenon's activity measure against an abstract, immutable standard.
This is how we can measure temperature, or speed.

Value only has meaning in relation to a motive, a goal, an objective.
Value is not an intrinsic part of a pattern.
A phenomenon lacks value, but only in relation to a motive, such as measuring its activity, its energy, relative to the observer, or some standardized abstraction.
A stone has no value. It is pattern, or a congruity of patterns that may be measured by an external consciousness that first differentiates it from the background, from its pile of stones it is among.
A stone is given value either in relationship to this standard, ideal, usually mathematical, or in relation to a goal, such as building a house.
Similarly, a stone has no name unless there's a consciousness present to give it a standardized noetic model, such as language a symbol, a word associated with its pattern.
Stone, the term, is not a intrinsic aspect of its existence.
Similarly speed-of-light has a speed.
The value we give to this activity we call velocity, which is nothing more than its pattern, is based on human standards, which are, in turn, founded on human metabolic rates.
It can be 299792458 metres per second or it can be 186,282 mi/s.
The numbers are not an intrinsic part of light. The value they represent is a representation of its behavior, its pattern (inter)acting. In this case in a vacuum where interaction is minimal to the point of being inconsequential relative to human lifespans, and speeds of awareness.

The type of pattern determines its (inter)activity, therefore it determines how an organism such as man using light as a medium will perceive - interpret the phenomenon.
if the medium is not light, not visual, but acoustic then it is how atmosphere, the patterns we know as gases, (inter)act with a given phenomenon, and then the eardrum.
We give sound value according to this interpretation of (inter)activity, based on our organic limitations. We give it a tonal value, we interpret it as noise or as ordered noise we call melody, or music.
Sound is vibration which is another way of saying pattern.
Light is also vibration, energy - the fastest pattern man can process, making it a metaphor for human awareness, the extent of man's perceptual-event-horizon.
Sound has no value in and of itself. It is given value, either as a way of categorizing it, or in relation to the organisms needs. A particular sound may mean dinner, or a coming threat.
Sound is simply patterns (inter)acting.
Man gives sound value in order to categorize it, to know it and then to understand it.
Sound resonates, in other words it (inter)acts via the medium of atmosphere with an organism.
It has a psychosomatic effect.


Value only acquires meaning in relation to living organisms.
Self only has meaning in relation to an organism with memories, DNA included.

Combining the two and then claiming some mystical synthesis, scrambling to justify why you chose those words and not far more appropriate and clarifying terms, is what snake-oil salesmen do.
You've bee duped.
Your emotional needs exploited and manipulated.
Your not the first, nor the last.

Philosophy is about clarifying, not obfuscating.
Charlatans cultivate complexity to mask their lack of talent.
Have you seen Pollock's "art", or Warhol's fART?
Duping needy, insecure desperate to belong, minds.
Crow
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:11 pm

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Sauwelios » Thu Jan 19, 2017 12:31 am

Wyld wrote:Crow fails to understand even among the most basic points of VO, which is that a "sensation" or "observing" are things that all entities do, even non-living ones. When a force impacts a rock this force transfers into and passes through the rock, disturbing the molecular structures of the rock; if the force is strong enough it will break molecular bonds and the rock will crack or shatter. The only difference between that and a living organism here is that when a force passes into a living organism the force is divided into various channels of effects, namely the organism is far more responsive to the original force than is a rock, but they both respond to it.

Consciousness is about responsiveness. Someone infinitely more intelligent that Crow once said that if nature can be said to have any goal at all it would be the goal of producing the maximum response from the minimum stimulus; what we call "sentience" or "subjective awareness" is just a very very complex and derivative kind of responsiveness, fundamentally no different than the much more basic and linear responsiveness of a rock to whatever is able to cause an effect upon it. The only difference is that a living thing can respond to a much wider range of stimuli and that a living thing has many more kinds of responses available to it. A cow has more access to ontic nature and truth than does an apple, an apple has more access to ontic nature and truth than does a rock, and a human has more access to ontic nature and truth than any of these, yet all do have some access to it. There is no fundamental difference in this regard, even differences of quality appear because of differences in quantity.


I approach it from the opposite direction. I don't think differences in quality can be reduced to differences in quantity. Thus I've coined the term "Quale Organics"--though in my last post I suggested that even inorganic existence is alive, yet we could equally well say that even "non-living" entities are organistic.

I agree though that this is what Crow seems not to understand. Force [understood from the inside] is will to power, and the "love under will" of the will to power is self-valuing. Crowley, who coined the phrase "love under will", makes clear that this is not the Christian love (agapê) Crow confounds it with:

"There is then little indeed in common between Love and such tepid passions as regard, affection, or kindliness; it is the uninitiate, who, to his damnation in a hell of cabbage soup and soap-suds, confuses them.
Love may best be defined as the passion of Hatred inflamed to the point of madness, when it takes refuge in Self-destruction.
Love is clear-sighted with the lust of deadly rage, anatomizing its victim with keen energy, seeking where best to strike home mortally to the heart; it becomes blind only when its fury has completely overpowered it, and thrust it into the red maw of the furnace of self-immolation." (Crowley, Little Essays toward Truth, "Love".)

Compare Nietzsche's definition, in Ecce Homo, of heterosexual love as "in its means, war, and at bottom, the deadly hatred of the sexes"; and:

"Other forms of love, such as agape, the universal, spiritual love praised in the Gospel of John, may certainly play an important role within specific cultural settings, but they cannot serve to found or constitute culture. The founding of culture requires as its catalyst nothing less than erôs, the most powerful, discriminating, egoistic and dangerous form of love known to humankind". (Daniel Conway, "Love's labor's lost". Cf. Conway, Nietzsche and the political, "The philosopher's Versucherkunst".)


Crow wrote:There is no need for the terms "value" and "self" in relation to how elements in stones remain in congruence.
The choice of 'self' in particular smells of a motive other than clarity.
It's a shameless attempt to sample, as cRappers do, from past popular melodies to recreate a recycled new song.

No SELF in any congruity but what we call life.
No need for such anthropomorphic allusions, when interacting patterns attracting and repelling suffices.
The stone has no motive, no memory, no desire.
The elements that participate in its congruity are patterns interacting as only they can with other patters.

Pattern = repeating, oscillating, vibrating, consistently, predictably = order.
Attraction/Repulsion are terms expressing how the different pattern harmonize.
No 'self' no 'value'.

When a cult is uncovered they run for the corners, like cockroaches.....claiming that nobody saw them, and what they saw they've misunderstood.
They just do not get it....is this not what Christians say about non-believers?


If this is an instance of exoteric writing, what masterful use of that secret art! Immediately after saying "pattern = repeating", the Crow repeats almost verbatim what he said in his previous post (not counting the Justin Jacobs quote):

The Crow wrote:Do not Christians accuse skeptics of negativity, of hating and fearing their God, of not understanding Scripture sufficiently?


But what does this mean if it's not an instance of exoteric writing? Then according to his own logic it follows that he's the human equivalent of a stone...
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7121
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

PreviousNext

Return to Non-Philosophical Chat



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users