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 Void_X_Zero » Tue Jul 25, 2017 8:28 pm

And of course the new categories are far less monolithic, as the "left" no longer has a stranglehold on "rationality and non-religiosity". This is a very good development.
"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: 1461
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Will to Power

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:08 pm

Ive kept myself from writing as I am deeply angry about almost all views and have no expectation of change until I make it. This is how I understand my philosophership.

In 2011, before we set out making this forum, I set out a timeline that has been remarkably accurate so far. What I can tell you is that the coming presidential term is not going to provide the opening yet, but the one after that is likely to begin showing true cracks; that is to say, invitations (for new law, for the lawgiver to step in).

Now here are my unfiltered sentiments on the subject of Globalism.

::

We are destroying the Earth. Whatever is growing on the surface is dying under our touch.

Our touch is globalist.

Globalism equals Earth-rape.

The only reason there is globalism is remorseless profiteering. The only reason to deny that humans have their own local natures, values, joys, character's narratives, lives, souls and beings, or to want to replace them with something 'better' in the sense of an invisible horrormachine that steals or turns to shit everything nature had them born into and that they loved, to replace it with plastic morals and plastic food to serve all the so-deprived and depraved equally with the purest synthetic nothingness, is to steal the values on which these values rely. That is globalism; rape-robbery made into a Universal Imperative.

Value Ontology has entities as local, ontically grounded in 2 things; principle of necessity (self-valuing) and its deep derivative, the environment (causation, values)

Self-valuing dies immediately under globalist purview. Only a discrete entity, a soul, who financially owns the Earth could possibly value this in organic terms at this point; and only in the sense that he'd be able to pay for its restoration across some thousands of years. The way in which the Earth is held now by disparate and competing interests none of which is grounded in any sort of reality principle, nor has any incentive to get grounded, is the antithesis of self-valuing; to uphold a collection of disparate tastes and standards as one entity in order to enforce the individuals affirmation of it, is to undo all these individuals.

Globalism is ontically only possible when I or we, that is to say, when Philosophy, firmly rules, and has for a while firmly ruled, the reasons for it. And that means primarily that value has to be understood as a derivative of self-valuing; all else follows from that; and nothing relevant follows from anything else.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sat Sep 17, 2016 1:09 pm
I am in agreement except for a slight point of difference; I see the cause of the earth-rape as not globalism or globalization but simply the tragedy of the commons on a massive scale: this has happened before, check out the history of Easter Island, it's pretty interesting. They completely wiped out their vegetative environment in order to build those massive statues, in some kind of obsession and ended up collapsing into starvation due to environmental ruin. It's essentially the fact that in a society or situation/world of many different, individual self-valuings there is an inherent lack of values-overlap when it comes to the most abstractly shared, given spaces. Classic example is public grazing land, each farmer values not over-grazing the land for his own cattle due to wanting to preserve the space, but he knows the other farmers feel the same way, therefore he can squeeze out marginal extra value foe himself by secretly over-grazing or only slightly over-grazing; of course every other farmer thinks and does the very same thing, and the plot of land is consumed.

I don't see how self-valuing alone can address this problem. In this sense we must understand a self-valuing as a reflection of its society/history/culture/family. The 'self' of a self-valuing is not irreducibly complex nor is it given, nor is it immutable, nor is it a-historical. I absolutely do not want to undermine the notion of self-valuing but I do want to condition it to the actual, real causes that bring it into being, namely the language, ideas, experiences it is exposed to upon being born and growing into itself. And this gets to my positive vision of a possible globalism that is by, of and for individual human self-valuing while also providing the highest possible social construct at the planetary level capable of preventing tragedy of the commons type problems.

Right now absolutely nothing can prevent tragedy of the commons problems. Current globalism has little to no interest in it, and absent a global capacity to act in concert self-valuings alone are incapable of preventing it either; it is in the nature of a self-valuing to try to squeeze out more marginal value where logically possible, this impulse must be rationally, moderately tempered by what we call society, "global" constructs and systems. To me it's always about a balance between these, balance between individual and social and that balance always striving to become more accurate and ideal over time.



___________
"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." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sat Sep 17, 2016 4:38 pm
Capable wrote:
I am in agreement except for a slight point of difference; I see the cause of the earth-rape as not globalism or globalization but simply the tragedy of the commons on a massive scale: this has happened before, check out the history of Easter Island, it's pretty interesting. They completely wiped out their vegetative environment in order to build those massive statues, in some kind of obsession and ended up collapsing into starvation due to environmental ruin. It's essentially the fact that in a society or situation/world of many different, individual self-valuings there is an inherent lack of values-overlap when it comes to the most abstractly shared, given spaces. Classic example is public grazing land, each farmer values not over-grazing the land for his own cattle due to wanting to preserve the space, but he knows the other farmers feel the same way, therefore he can squeeze out marginal extra value foe himself by secretly over-grazing or only slightly over-grazing; of course every other farmer thinks and does the very same thing, and the plot of land is consumed.

The reason I attribute earthrape to globalism is that globalism is driven by un-earthy motivations; it being beyond nationalism, which is fundamentally a love of the soil and physical values and qualities, of locality, which is the locus of self-valuing as a principle, it isnt able top be contained by earthly, earthy values. It simply has no impetus to stop destroying the world; it was never founded on, never made contact with earth. It is purely theoretical wealth, money-derivatives, coercion schemes, that drive globalism and anchor it in reality.

This is why I say it must be almost entirely reversed before it can be sanely implemented.

Quote :
I don't see how self-valuing alone can address this problem. In this sense we must understand a self-valuing as a reflection of its society/history/culture/family. The 'self' of a self-valuing is not irreducibly complex nor is it given, nor is it immutable, nor is it a-historical.

I'd note that the principle itself is almost a-historical, that is to say a property of pure synthetic logic (where synthetic logic is still a historicity); but that indeed no manifestation of the principle is separate of its environment; of the substance that it assimilated into its 'self' (a term I dont take too heavily).

The principle helps in as far that no logical approach is possible without it. That it does not by itself unfold as an approach, that is what Ive been discovering the past years; what VO requires is that one becomes radically, 'objectively' subjective. This is the agent that builds the objective world, that hones it, sculpts it.

The perspective of power is the final objectivity. The whole of the world is shape-shifting every electronic instance and in different ways as seen from any perspective, more so as the perspective is more substantial.

Quote :
I absolutely do not want to undermine the notion of self-valuing but I do want to condition it to the actual, real causes that bring it into being, namely the language, ideas, experiences it is exposed to upon being born and growing into itself. And this gets to my positive vision of a possible globalism that is by, of and for individual human self-valuing while also providing the highest possible social construct at the planetary level capable of preventing tragedy of the commons type problems.

This conditioning to the actual is the aim. Has been the aim. As I said above, I have discovered, not without frustration, that the actual can only be conditioned (with philosophical consistency and 'lastability') by example.

We'll actually have to demonstrate that our philosophy is superior. This is the only way to get it implemented into actuality. And that is what Ive been trying to sniff out the past years; the path to take.

After close to a year of conclave with Pezer I am quite close to having discerned where that path starts.

Quote :
Right now absolutely nothing can prevent tragedy of the commons problems. Current globalism has little to no interest in it, and absent a global capacity to act in concert self-valuings alone are incapable of preventing it either; it is in the nature of a self-valuing to try to squeeze out more marginal value where logically possible, this impulse must be rationally, moderately tempered by what we call society, "global" constructs and systems. To me it's always about a balance between these, balance between individual and social and that balance always striving to become more accurate and ideal over time.

I disagree. I think it must be kept in check locally only. For several reasons; one of which is the important factor that at no point in history has globalism leaned to being successful in reducing misery. The main reason though is pure self-valuing logic; I would never take orders from a global state, Id much rather die. That is the glory of humanity; we arent tied to our survival to uphold our values. The idea of fighting to the death against the globalist machine is pure joy. It is fighting for everything I love in a very direct way; I love animals, I love plants, I love molecules, I love humans. All of which grow, orient, live, love and die locally.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sat Sep 17, 2016 4:47 pm
I see globalization as akin to an impulse to have every organ and body part fulfill the exact same function.

That function could never be a function of the body; globalisms function is never of humans; only of an alien logic come about by flattening thought processes and abusing leverage that seeks to harvest the organs to burn them for some momentary heat.

Humanity's beauty is fully due to its diversity. That is what keeps it vital, what keeps it interacting with itself, what keeps it growing and appreciating.

Our modern cities are dead because they are homogenized in terms of the values they extract, offer and project; they are organized under the presumption that all humans hold similar values, tastes, priorities. This is why people like Sauwelios and Parodites dont leave their houses for years on end; the homogenized world is simply only fit for another, a far less alive species.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sat Sep 17, 2016 5:04 pm
The bottom line could be approached as follows;

True wholeness, the type that is actually whole-some, existent, requires the highest standards being alive and attainable for all the parts; therefore, it can only be established by the most comprehensive and highest parts; i.e. by the Philosopher, in a specific sense - by the man who leads purely by example, and who is able to lead all aspects of humanity by example. Man, or more likely group of men. - I don't think women can really lead militarily except as pure scourges, which must preclude US presidency - but this is not an analytic judgment - certainly Im prepared to debate it.... I cant see a woman leading men by example, and it is men who need to be led.

I am convinced we will have to step up, right up to the government, much as philosophers have defined their philosophership in the past; by carrying the actual responsibility overtly. That is my intention and has been my intention since VO came about. Given the clarifying and sanitizing power of merely acknowledging the principle, it would be a crime of negligence not to approach politics with the pure intention of dominating it entirely.

And to this end, it is an invaluable possession, this highly significant difference between our positions.
I know I am eternally and infinitely right about the principles working, and I know that gives me nothing directly about how to proceed, how to act; rather, the understanding of the principle has made the problem infinitely deeper; or it has revealed to me the true depth of the problem of philosophy with respect to humanity.

It is not to be disregarded, the fact that philosophers have occupied humble positions until now. That must and will end. There is no sensible way in which one can expect to be able to do actual honest commanding if it is not openly acknowledged that ones impulses are sublime and superior. No more power behind the throne. The world is our throne. Anything less, we're better off selling groceries.

Our violent temperaments and unbreakable pride are absolutely instrumental to real-world purpose. The bottom line: only the highest valuing can establish a fitting "universal" working-value standard. Anything less is rape.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sat Sep 17, 2016 5:15 pm
How do you conceive of the ontological difference between local government (including I suppose all the way up to the nation-state) and global government? I feel like I could find may examples where global institutions have done good in the world. I agree that practically speaking much that is deplorable and harmful comes out of global government, but one could say that of any government; in contrast I can't see a necessary "evil" in the notion of government at the planetary level more so than at the continental or regional levels.

In fact I'm tempted to change the terms in the discussion and start referring to the distinction between planetary government and continental or regional government. The US is a continental government; Italy is a regional government; a theoretical global government (something like the UN but with actual legal and enforcement power) would be a planetary government.

You mentioned how globalism is an alien logic trying to make everything so the same, I agree. To me this is what globalism as global capital machine is all about, a pure 'analytic' monstrosity. Wealth as blood, and not the vitalized kind of blood but just the kind that drains our and represents a loss. Blood without a body-- that is modern global capitalism. But again; two points, 1) I could, I feel quite confident, come up with examples where ostensibly global institutions have done good (yes I will actually find evidence backing this up), and 2) my aim is to advocate a form of planetary government that is made by, for and of human self-valuing at both individual and social levels. To be totally honest, I see absolutely nothing NECESSARILY about global/planetary-wide government that prevents it from potentially being rational, sane, emancipatory, dignified. Remember that I parse "government" as an entity into two categories: the people who work in government, and the institutional incentives and norms (along with strict legalities). A government with the right people working within it can do tremendous good, and a government with the right institutional incentives and norms will attract and reward a certain kind of good, dedicated employee. I see government as just a system for organizing people and ideas, including up to the legal use of force which is absolutely a required construct for a civilization of free self-valuing beings (the paradox is, on the surface, that free beings would require legal structures prohibiting and allowing various things, when in fact this isn't paradoxical at all because without such legal structures we have nothing but anarchy and rule of animal might makes right, mafia rule essentially, in which higher values get buried within lower ones-- think about trolling online; without structures preventing trolling, truly free and valuable conversation can't even get off the ground (e.g. ILP)).



___________
"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." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sat Sep 17, 2016 5:49 pm
Quote :

How do you conceive of the ontological difference between local government (including I suppose all the way up to the nation-state) and global government? I feel like I could find may examples where global institutions have done good in the world. I agree that practically speaking much that is deplorable and harmful comes out of global government, but one could say that of any government; in contrast I can't see a necessary "evil" in the notion of government at the planetary level more so than at the continental or regional levels.

To start with, language. That is perhaps the basic ethical framework the human is provided with. One can not govern people properly if one isn't subtly versed in the best their language has had to offer since its beginnings.

In general, the less local a government is, the less of an idea it could possibly have of what it is supposed to do to benefit its people. The EU has shown that a central government spanning many language groups powerfully and relentlessly acts to eradicate value, integrity. It has been able to reduce 2000 year of culture to nothing in a few decades. It has become a huge haunted house.

Quote :
In fact I'm tempted to change the terms in the discussion and start referring to the distinction between planetary government and continental or regional government. The US is a continental government; Italy is a regional government; a theoretical global government (something like the UN but with actual legal and enforcement power) would be a planetary government.

Clearer terms; still, I don't see a planetary government happening without eradicating most of humanity. Not within 500 years.

The mass pathologies ruling most of mankind are organisms, festering flora, that will have to outlive their time. Until they have withered away, a planetary government would have to pay lipservice to horrific stupidities. So before all of it has left the planet, all organized monotheism, there will only be religional governments that have some real support of the people.

Quote :
You mentioned how globalism is an alien logic trying to make everything so the same, I agree. To me this is what globalism as global capital machine is all about, a pure 'analytic' monstrosity. Wealth as blood, and not the vitalized kind of blood but just the kind that drains our and represents a loss. Blood without a body-- that is modern global capitalism. But again; two points, 1) I could, I feel quite confident, come up with examples where ostensibly global institutions have done good (yes I will actually find evidence backing this up),

It would be good to categorize that, have a list of merits.
I do believe that they can be found.
I think that the determines vastly outweigh them, but that only makes mentioning tem relevant.

Quote :
and 2) my aim is to advocate a form of planetary government that is made by, for and of human self-valuing at both individual and social levels. To be totally honest, I see absolutely nothing NECESSARILY about global/planetary-wide government that prevents it from potentially being rational, sane, emancipatory, dignified. Remember that I parse "government" as an entity into two categories: the people who work in government, and the institutional incentives and norms (along with strict legalities). A government with the right people working within it can do tremendous good,

I only could agree with that on a solid basis if we are talking about philosophers, as the right people. Philosophers and those who understand them and are driven to carry out their ideas with great passion and cool.

I truly do not believe that anyone but a rigorous philosopher could have the faintest notion of what to do with an entire fucking planet.


Quote :
and a government with the right institutional incentives and norms will attract and reward a certain kind of good, dedicated employee. I see government as just a system for organizing people and ideas, including up to the legal use of force which is absolutely a required construct for a civilization of free self-valuing beings (the paradox is, on the surface, that free beings would require legal structures prohibiting and allowing various things, when in fact this isn't paradoxical at all because without such legal structures we have nothing but anarchy and rule of animal might makes right, mafia rule essentially, in which higher values get buried within lower ones-- think about trolling online; without structures preventing trolling, truly free and valuable conversation can't even get off the ground (e.g. ILP)).

We regard animals in a fundamentally different way; I regard birds and mammals as high beings, gods in a sense, much purer than humans generally. This would say a lot about how we regard strictly human institutions; I tend to see them as terrible deviations of nature, torture instruments allowed only by excessive erring. Also I see government mostly as the disease of bureaucracy.

http://sas2.elte.hu/tg/ptorv/Parkinson-s-Law.pdf

Lastly, since indeed self-valuing relies for all its actual substance and forms on the environment, the philosophical empire that I work for must also use environment to substantiate; for this environment I am looking at Rome. I believe Rome must still subject near Asia, and that far-Asia will be very happy to sustain it in that effort.

China will gladly follow the rules of a philosophical Roman centralized philosophical government, since it is impossible for a philosopher not to respect the Chinese as standard-setters; this will become the planetary ethos once it becomes relevant; the world greatest oldest traditions will respectfully dominate a vast, rich tapestry of smaller, but equally vital cultures that are protected by some notions of freedom that will be imposed on the Chinese and others, at all costs -

Nations will eventually modify their laws to philosophical standard, but not to any lesser ones.

I aim straight for the top. There are no stairs; we are the stairs.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sat Sep 17, 2016 6:01 pm
There are a few fundamental concerns that I can already tell are crucial to global health. The main one is our food. We dont value our food, its substance. We are torturing billions of animals to death at every given moment and we are harvesting all of our forests to feed these tortured animals. That is the system, our ecosystem.

Human perishings and hells arent important at this point. What first needs to be fixed is animal and plant life. After that, long standing human concerns can be re-addressed. If we address humanity before animal and plant life, before bringing back from hell what we are literally made out of, we will not be able to sustain processes of reason among each other.

From this it should become clear how far removed I stand from all philosophy until now; the self-valuing principle allows me to see humans as as disparate as they are in value and valuing ways; it allows me to see that what passes for human these days is far less than most animals and plants, in terms of its value to itself, its joy and justification.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sauwelios
Saturnian
Saturnian
avatar

Posts : 101
Join date : 2011-12-15
Age : 38
Location : Amsterdam


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sat Sep 17, 2016 10:41 pm
Fixed Cross wrote:
I see globalization as akin to an impulse to have every organ and body part fulfill the exact same function.

That function could never be a function of the body; globalisms function is never of humans; only of an alien logic come about by flattening thought processes and abusing leverage that seeks to harvest the organs to burn them for some momentary heat.

Humanity's beauty is fully due to its diversity. That is what keeps it vital, what keeps it interacting with itself, what keeps it growing and appreciating.

Our modern cities are dead because they are homogenized in terms of the values they extract, offer and project; they are organized under the presumption that all humans hold similar values, tastes, priorities. This is why people like Sauwelios and Parodites dont leave their houses for years on end; the homogenized world is simply only fit for another, a far less alive species.

I will respond at this point, for reasons. I must say I agree with Fixed Cross. I can see where Capable is coming from, however. All beings are self-valuings. But only some self-valuings are self-aware as self-valuings. Thus: "what VO requires is that one becomes radically, 'objectively' subjective. This is the agent that builds the objective world, that hones it, sculpts it." This is why I'm taking the course I've taken with my "State of the World Address" and its sequels (my De-Waal posts or impact-driven piles). This post is not one of those, as I need to be high on psychedelics to write them. Anyway, my problem with Capable is that he seems to me to be too idealistic--not necessarily in a philosophical sense, but in the popular sense of the word. I may be able to illustrate this by the fact that, in his "Text analysis: an ideal politics" thread in the Kurukshetra forum, he did not quote all of what I said in the "brief conversation with [me]" he mentioned in that thread; in that conversation, I also wrote:

"[Q]uality should always come before quantity (unless quantity's provisionally coming before quality is a necessary means to quality's ultimately coming before quantity)--as it does in 4 out of the 5 instances in which you mention the two. Better to have a few self-valuings of the supreme quality than many of a lower quality!"

Now it may be my bad that I brought this up as a minor problem I had with his excerpt. It was a minor problem compared to the major one I had with it, but I still think it's a major problem. He seems to aim at the ideal of democracy as the universal aristocracy. But what if this is unrealistic? Then the best democracy is imperfect democracy, with a large minority--the "elites"--being relatively noble and the majority being ignoble. But this best democracy is not the best possible regime (practically, not theoretically possible: thus better regimes have actually existed!), and if a literal aristocrat, a most noble human being, actually becomes actualized in that democracy, he will therefore vindicate the imperfect democracy as well as the ideal of democracy in such a way as to transcend them both! The ideal of democracy as leading to an ochlocracy which may lead to a new Caesarism, and the imperfect democracy as having made possible the very actualization of this philosophical Caesar!



___________
FIAT·IVSTITIA·ET·PEREAT·MVNDVS
RECVRRAT·NATVRA·ET·EXPELLATVR·FVRCA
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sat Sep 17, 2016 11:46 pm
Ha, thanks for joining us. I will directly go for the pressure point; I will address the issue I have with your post, which appears only at the end; it is however significant because I find what leads up to it very powerful; up to the following I am in agreement;

"[To] vindicate the imperfect democracy as well as the ideal of democracy in such a way as to transcend them both!"

And then it becomes radical. Too direct for my narrative sensibilities; I can simply not imagine what a new Caesarism is like in this age. I can only see Caesar as an ancient Roman, in a world that does only in unchangeable ways apply to our predicament. On the other hand, Caesar is in my soul. I don't know what he is arranging there but I'm sure Rome is preparing new conquest. So essentially my issue is a bequest; rephrase "Caesar".

What I imagine is closer to a Nietzschean artist-tyranny like described in his final notebooks. The man was a political genius the likes of which none will ever need to exist again. If humanity manages to set up his artist-tyranny so as to become the pillars to a Dionysian world, the artist tyrant would then be Apollo. And Apollo would have notions like Capable's; ambitions toward a comprehensive ethical order that guarantees the Greek gift of liberty.

Quote :
The ideal of democracy as leading to an ochlocracy which may lead to a new Caesarism, and the imperfect democracy as having made possible the very actualization of this philosophical Caesar!

If this is the path that appears, and it springs to mind that I am not in Europe right now, and that this accounts for my distance to the virtual inevitability of ochlocracy, then hail fucking Odin. And Caesar. What a bloody mess it will become.

I'm too sentimental to go there in thought, truly. But if it happens it will be clear what to do.

How are things in Europe?



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sun Sep 18, 2016 10:22 am
Sauwelios wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:
I see globalization as akin to an impulse to have every organ and body part fulfill the exact same function.

That function could never be a function of the body; globalisms function is never of humans; only of an alien logic come about by flattening thought processes and abusing leverage that seeks to harvest the organs to burn them for some momentary heat.

Humanity's beauty is fully due to its diversity. That is what keeps it vital, what keeps it interacting with itself, what keeps it growing and appreciating.

Our modern cities are dead because they are homogenized in terms of the values they extract, offer and project; they are organized under the presumption that all humans hold similar values, tastes, priorities. This is why people like Sauwelios and Parodites dont leave their houses for years on end; the homogenized world is simply only fit for another, a far less alive species.

I will respond at this point, for reasons. I must say I agree with Fixed Cross. I can see where Capable is coming from, however. All beings are self-valuings. But only some self-valuings are self-aware as self-valuings. Thus: "what VO requires is that one becomes radically, 'objectively' subjective. This is the agent that builds the objective world, that hones it, sculpts it." This is why I'm taking the course I've taken with my "State of the World Address" and its sequels (my De-Waal posts or impact-driven piles). This post is not one of those, as I need to be high on psychedelics to write them. Anyway, my problem with Capable is that he seems to me to be too idealistic--not necessarily in a philosophical sense, but in the popular sense of the word. I may be able to illustrate this by the fact that, in his "Text analysis: an ideal politics" thread in the Kurukshetra forum, he did not quote all of what I said in the "brief conversation with [me]" he mentioned in that thread; in that conversation, I also wrote:

"[Q]uality should always come before quantity (unless quantity's provisionally coming before quality is a necessary means to quality's ultimately coming before quantity)--as it does in 4 out of the 5 instances in which you mention the two. Better to have a few self-valuings of the supreme quality than many of a lower quality!"

Now it may be my bad that I brought this up as a minor problem I had with his excerpt.

Not at all, please bring up every problem you see, minor and major. The reason I truncated your part of the conversation when I re-posted it here was three-fold: 1) It was not a proper response to you anyway, but just me riffing off of some issues that were raised (I should also point out that, as far as I remember, I was the last one to offer a comprehensive reply in our ongoing conversation, unless I am remembering that wrong which is certainly possible), 2) I did not have your explicit permission to repost it, and I am usually conscious of the fact that re-posting someone's private words from a PM conversation could be a violation in their view (I satisfied myself to a point that Kurukshetra is a private forum here, so not publicly visible), and most importantly 3) that I have no value whatsoever for comprehensively for its own sake when it comes to writing and text, I am not scholar, in fact I would say I am an anti-scholar in the sense that I do not literally give one fuck for proper form and structure of citation or for making sure I carefully cover every intricacy of the argument and what was said in its entirety in order that no one could ever accuse me of not paying proper respect; fuck that. All I care about is the truth, so I will cut out what is extraneous and go to the heart of the matter, and post that instead. In this way I tried to address the core of the issue that you brought up. The part that was not posted, as you mentioned, was simply extraneous as it had already been satisfactorily addressed. (In terms of, yes quality is always primary to quantity, but quantity is also necessary, and quantity can also be a means to quality, and it is important not to legislate a qualitative tyranny prescriptively over quantity, especially when it comes to writing for new readers (people not yet well versed in this stuff)).

Quote :
It was a minor problem compared to the major one I had with it, but I still think it's a major problem. He seems to aim at the ideal of democracy as the universal aristocracy. But what if this is unrealistic? Then the best democracy is imperfect democracy, with a large minority--the "elites"--being relatively noble and the majority being ignoble. But this best democracy is not the best possible regime (practically, not theoretically possible: thus better regimes have actually existed!), and if a literal aristocrat, a most noble human being, actually becomes actualized in that democracy, he will therefore vindicate the imperfect democracy as well as the ideal of democracy in such a way as to transcend them both! The ideal of democracy as leading to an ochlocracy which may lead to a new Caesarism, and the imperfect democracy as having made possible the very actualization of this philosophical Caesar!

I would not characterize my political position as one defending democracy as universal aristocracy, nor am I particularly hung-up on democracy itself; FC will recall some text I've written to the effect of exposing democracy as little more than the attempt to enslave nobility and leadership to the 'ignoble masses', and this view is quite accurate in its own way. Democracy only still exists because most people do not want to be bothered with being invested in the administrative requirements of society or life, therefore they outsource those requirements to "experts" and "politicians", and I also wrote which FC may recall, that where a true democracy has existed there was no need to call it by the name "democracy" because such a truly democratic organization of people simply acted to instantiate its commonly-hend value, acted without needing to talk about it; any true democracy is one that would probably never bear the name "democracy".

But I am not bemoaning this "(named) democratic outsourcing" I mentioned; the positive effect of this outsourcing is two-fold as in 1) most people get to be free from wasting their time having to have endless community meeting to address issues of local government, as Zizek pointed out that he doesn't want to constantly have to go to meetings about how to regulate water in his local area and other such mundane concerns that can much better be addressed by a more distant bureaucratic system (his point that he wants to be "pleasantly alienated" from all these mundane concerns and realities, which I agree most people want that kind of alienation, us here included (philosophy itself demands this kind of alienation from the mundane)), and 2) outsourcing to politicians and experts achieves the effect of pushing problems up toward greater scope and significance of social application, namely out of the merely local and toward the global.

I want more global work, more global action and thought and valuing; I do not idealize or romanticize the notion of localism. Localism is fine in so far as it is necessary and inescapable, which in some ways it certainly is, however it is not the highest or final value here. My value is more like the federalist system of government applied to the planetary level: I want what the US has in terms of local, regional, state and federal spheres of overlapping government but I want to extend it a step further:

1) local (city)
2) regional (county, district)
3) state
4) nation-state
5) planetary

Each of those above spheres of government should have its own functioning governing bodies and systems, its own structure. I want a super-federalist system that peaks at the planetary level, something like the UN but with real power.

Of course FC's point is very valid, that the larger one moves up in governance the more distant and dis-overlapped it becomes with language, culture and values. The EU's problems for example, seems irreducibly in so far as EU member states have such vastly different languages, cultures and values.

But this inner tension is only something potentially productive in my view, a true daemonism. We should not aim for the ideal of removing or reducing that tension, we should wish to harness and use it. This diversity and difference is humanity's strength, we should not want to flatten it away. But neither should we be scared to approach it as difference qua difference, as the irreducible remainder in the equations of large-scale governance.

A truly planetary federalist system of government would not bemoan these irreducible differences, it would find ways to turn them into strengths. For one thing, the highest peak level of government (the truly planetary level as peak) would be the exception and in most cases subservient to more local factors, in order to provide stability to the larger system. In fact we could simply re-define the value of the planetary-level to not only include the obvious values such as being able to sanely address environmental, energy, human rights etc. issues, but also the simple value of providing a minimally common frame of reference in which the real differences between people and locales achieves an abstract, possibly higher synthetic value, a kind of "future shadow of cooperation".

Individual people within the same culture, region, or nation-state already have that shadow of cooperation, it is simply their commonality of culture, region or nation-state that binds them together in this indirect-abstract manner; at the individual level we have this commonality, an invisible brotherhood of human binding-ness that can act to partially reconcile and justify even the most severe individual differences in values. Likewise I think a new shadow of cooperation is materializing, the notion that we are all members of the human race. Whether or not we like this notion, whether or not we are prepared to admit certain lowly forms of humanity into it, is all beside the point; it is happening, this abstract ideal of coming-together at the species level, and I would argue in the philosophical sense it is absolutely necessary for any sentient self-conscious species to achieve this kind of species-wide recognition. Humanity has already achieved it at the regional, cultural and national levels; why not at the planetary-species level too? It is necessary that we do so, so I am not interested in trying to justify IF we should be doing it, but rather in HOW to do it.

I reject the assumption that a large number of people must be necessarily excluded from "the good society", from justified participation and value in and by government. The fact that in reality many people are excluded and seem to have little value to themselves is only a contingent and not a necessary fact; it is contingent upon humanity still being in the dark ages where our social systems and governments literally create these "miserables" of the human race. We are literally creating low-quality people with near-zero value to themselves or others. Why are we doing this? Because our systems of government and society are still so antiquated and dark-ages-inspired. For myself, I personally value and think from the position of the future looking at all this present world as a distant past; we can do better, we must do better. We must instantiate sociopolitical systems that at least strongly incentivize people to be better versions of themselves and provide the means for higher values-realizations, so in this way no one would be left behind to low-quality near-zero value except by their own choice, which would mean the impossibility for human systems to ever approach perfection and the severe law of diminishing returns that applies as we push these systems closer and closer to the ideal of perfection. Not absolutely of course, but practically speaking I think "everyone" can and ought to achieve freedom from low-quality near-zero valuation and self-valuing. Compared to FC and maybe the others here it seems that I see a much higher value and priority on how society creates the possibilities and landscapes in which individual self-valuings realize themselves and self-value, how individuals become what they are. I reject the implicit view that society and government are somehow inadequate, inept or superfluous to the processes of individual self-valuing realization. I think that all of us here are always-already benefitted highly from how our respective societies and governmental systems have laid down landscapes of possibilities for the kind of high quality self-valuing that we represent. We may be prone to not seeing this because it acts as a given and invisible background, but to me that is even more reason to prioritize it at the level of our philosophical analysis.


FC, I agree with your comments about the importance of food and how right now we are torturing animals and destroying plant life in irrational manner. But I do not come down on the side of vegetarianism or veganism, I think human beings should self-value whatever they want in terms of eating or not eating animals. But yes there need to be some very clear and enforced standards when animals are consumed.

I find your view interesting, the way you see some animals as higher than humans. I can agree to a limited extent in certain cases, I have a deep respect for and fascination with animals. But in general I always see human being as the highest instance we know of of life, of consciousness, and of being. The very things that make humans deplorable and detestable to us are indeed signs of this elevated position of humanity over the other animals -- humans are capable of being irrational, immoral and of low-quality or contradictory/dishonest self-valuing yet this is only possible because human being is already above the pre-human animal level where such things aren't even possibilities. And the elevation of humanity over the other animals/plants is not a license to just "do whatever we want" to them but is a deep responsibility that we view the earth and all life within it as our own personal and sacred charge. We are not "above" something in order that we should de-value it, quite the opposite: we should be the ones recognizing, creating, instantiating and securing the value of these things which we are "above", including animal and plant life. Of course "above" here is an imprecise term, it would be more accurate to just talk about the progression of subjectivity-consciousness and philosophical Being and where on that ladder or continuum human vs. other animal life rests. As Nietzsche said that man is more ape even than ape, this too I agree with; we do not leave behind what we have surpassed, we work it within ourselves and re-incorporated it in new and interesting (sometimes fatal) ways.



___________
"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." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sun Sep 18, 2016 11:30 am
Alls I can say is, I don't know about all 'at.

I follow fertility gods, those do little in terms of helping one to understand all-laws.

Imposition. I've come to understand that my central puzzlement at the world at large is how much it seems to like it.



___________
dionisius against the cross...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sun Sep 18, 2016 12:59 pm
I'll make some isolated comments on different points raised.


Animal cruelty / Vegetarianism; I will always eat meat, but I want animals to have lives before they are butchered. That will not only be better for them and the planets overall well being, but the meat will be better, more wholesome. We eat all sorts of hell.


Imposition: Life is will to power, one either imposes, or is imposed upon. Mostly, both. But it is a scale; obviously I don't need to explain this. What might warrant explanation is peoples desire to be imposed on; if one doesn't have the stones, to impose is terrifying, and then the only option left is to be imposed on. There is no such thing as passive freedom. Freedom is essentially existence at its most real, active, violent and caring.

The impositions I would allow for, the type of world-government, or planetary government, which sounds scarier and realer and more beautiful, is an imposition of an abstract order, in one sense like the US constitution could be interpreted to aspire to, by Libertarian romantics; a guarantee of freedom for the individual, absolute violence sanctioned against the abuse of children (though how to define that is a tricky matter) and more things of such ilk; basically a government that protects from tyranny, so in many ways, from itself.

No single human ruler could be allowed here, nor any particular group, except if it is our own, or affiliated. That is the strange situation we find ourselves in; philosophy can no longer be impartial and on the sidelines. The correctness of a planetary governmental system relies entirely on the quality of its design, and it must hermetically philosophical. No other intelligentsia at this point even wants such power; it is up to us to cohere with the Chinese, the Indians, the powers that will determine Eurasia for the next thousand years, etc - and there is no question that the Chinese will appreciate these impositions, as it is a logic that prescribes purely sustainable growth. Global economic cohesion and sanity would draw a lot from history. VO and all out philosophy allows for this, unlike modernity; history. The world as it returns to health will draw heavily from its past, its body. We will see confirmations and explications and expansions of puir philosophies when they make contact with the ancient Chinese and Tibetan sciences of the organism.

South America will not be imposed on. These people have found a way to impose on each other personally, directly, through perfecting the viscerality of culture. South America is the jewel of the world, or the wet pussy, however you want it... of course the continent falls within the envisioned planetary order, but rather than using it as a canvas, we use it as a model, for deriving local governments.

To derive local governing principle, this relies entirely on funk, to bring back Pezers term for the earth-element.

Like QM and Relativity are disparate logics because they describe micro and macro, which can not be integrated without a meta-logic (such as VO) so planetary government and actual governance are disparate working logics; the former relies on principle, the latter on smell, touch, looks in peoples eyes; the moment. This, to cultivate form the present, rather than from an eternal principle, is what must be the actualization of the eternal judgment... and I now propose formally that South America be the locus of ongoing designing work on local governing and.

As Pezer proposed earlier this year; an institutional front is required, but one that is structured only by principle, by an agreed upon philosophical code of necessity; a government without 'mass', in a sense; a government guided and calibrated by the Library.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sun Sep 18, 2016 1:28 pm
I'll be goddamned if it ain't so.

The other piece is of course the US. They are still in a position to impose, and none but US thinkers can pentrate it.

In the Venezuelan national anthem (beautiful bastards) there is a line: America whole exists as a nation.

Still the beat to our funk, so to say.



___________
dionisius against the cross...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sun Sep 18, 2016 4:44 pm
Some of what follows was intended for Capable, but I've cut it up and generalized it.

Indeed as Fixed said, Trump's election will not bring the change that is required, but will open the political process to that change, which is necessary. We have an opportunity in the US to do this in a very civilized manner, through an election- as opposed to armed rebellion.
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: 6578
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:11 pm

I do not see the possibility of a world-culture being brought into existence or have a desire that a species wide system of values be instituted either organically or by some kind of directed intention. Besides, it is impossible to create the kind of globalist institutions that could combat things like climate change without diminishing the power of the masses, the public, the individuals. Globalism is by its very nature a concentration of political force in the hands of the few. Death is preferable. Power doesn't come out of a void somewhere. In order for these elites to have more power, I have to give them some of mine; we have to give some more of our power, our rights, our individuality, our emancipatory potential, some more of our father's and forefather's blood, to them. Not only am I not interested in empowering these soul-less agencies on the flimsy misplaced hope that they'll combat the threat of a warming planet on our behalf as opposed to just stuff their fat fucking pockets, I want them to be completely disbanded and virtually all political power returned to where it belongs, the hands of the people.

You, I, a lot of other people have surpassed culture and could orchestrate a fair global system on a philosophic rulership, yes. But the difference I think in our perspectives is that I recognize that this overcoming of culture and national boundaries will never occur on the level of the species: because of that, any global system will inevitably concentrate power in the hands of a very small elite political class and take power and freedom away from individuals. When a person who has not overcome their culture through universal ethics and philosophy has their culture taken away by the impositions of an elite class, by politicians and immigrants, they simply become alienated and disaffected and it creates social chaos that can become civil unrest and real violence.

What you are free to do is meaningless. What you are free from is the only thing that matters. That we are free to numb ourselves with Netflix and iphones and whatever flavor of ice cream we want is irrelevant. We are free from- very little. As far as global institutions doing good in the world, for every "good" they have wrought, I could point to ten negatives. We could fight climate change- if you actually think it's that big of a threat, if we allowed private industries to simply drive themselves with competition and invent better solar technologies.

I agree with Fixed about globalism's failure, but I depart insofar as I lack any desire to create a metalogic with which to organize a global scale system on a philosophic rather than merely political basis. I do not desire either the present globalist system, a super-federalist system like Capable's, or a globalist state founded on philosophic rulership. My intention is to restore for civilization the dynamic and destructive surplus-energetics that has been lost in the 20th and 21st century and to instantiate the wheel of the next kharmic aeon, maybe we can even crucify the political elites and use them as spokes for it. That a philosopher condescends to rule is already an aberration to me. Philosophers exist between the human world and the world of the Gods, we shepherd the daemon of man between the worlds, we maintain the balance of the creative and the destructive potential of each kharmic aeon. We witness to man, how it can be used, and broken.


If being branded a racist because you hang a flag in your yard or something is "Nietzschean playfulness," then fuck it. Perhaps Capable is simply not aware of the extent to which modern Leftist deconstructionism has reached in its diffusion and destruction of culture or what exactly I mean when I use the term. A lot of what I have said in even these messages would immediately get me kicked out of most academia for "thought-crime and hate-facts." I'd get kicked out even for mentioning the fact that South African had 2 million white slaves in the 15th century. But, as I said here:

No poetry is as eloquent as time, which numbers the dead in as indifferent a silence as the
wind numbers the fallen leaves, for, as Santyana says in his discourse on madness in the
Dialogues in Limbo, no truth is eloquent save for truth unspoken. And yet what
eloquence there is in those names of our fallen kingdoms- what poetry in the lofty
syllables of Elam, Babylon, or Nineveh, as are dutifully recorded by our histories, the
winsome compact of whose beautiful name will never again be as pretty as it was when
the truth of their era remained unspoken, for, with Valery in the Crisis of Mind, even the
kingdoms now know that they are mortal.

Perhaps we should not have spoken so much- for, to the poets, bestowing a name on something is the highest honor it can possibly be paid, and, in honoring our own history, with all the deeds of our fathers, perhaps we have finally been crushed under the weight of their sins, their misdeeds. Valery was writing about what has taken place; the diffusion of our cultural inheritance into the hands of larger and larger institutions and groups, which nullifies the emancipatory potential for transformation, for the liberation of the daemon to a new era. Such emancipation depends on the concentration of cultural wealth in the hands of the few. The few: the philosophers, those who understand philosophy as it was understood by Plato's republic, as the capacity to utilize power, power being knowledge and culture.

[ This coming phenomenon, moreover, may be connected with another to be found in every nation: I mean the diffusion of culture, and its acquisition by ever larger categories of individuals.

An attempt to predict the consequences of such diffusion, or to find whether it will or not inevitably bring on decadence, would be a delightfully complicated problem in intellectual physics.
-- Crisis of Mind, Valery. ]

Well we no longer have to predict the consequences, the decadence is abundantly clear. Not just the decadence of culture: the annihilation, the political suicide, of culture. But Valery makes another inquiry at the end of this essay:

[But can the European Mind -- or at least its most precious content -- be totally diffused? Must such phenomena as democracy, the exploitation of the globe, and the general spread of technology, all of which presage a deminutio capitis for Europe...must these be taken as absolute decisions of fate? Or have we some freedom against this threatening conspiracy of things?]

The ancients thought about time as I do, and with that, the ebb and flow of civilizations.

Knowledge is power. But philosophy is not knowledge. Philosophy is knowing what to do with knowledge... what to do with power. That's the basis of Plato's marvelous Republic. Agnosis- that is, knowledge, along with all our ideas and history- our cultures, amount simply to the karmic aeon, to the collective soul of a people. Each generation is born into a cycle of karma, that karma being an inherited accumulation of past history and ideas and debts and causes and effects in arrangements of power. Dharma is gnosis, as opposed to agnosis; it is the understanding of how to manipulate the karma in order to free yourself from its repetitive cycle; how to re-organize it in order to eventually generate a new aeon, a new karma. The circles of time I was talking about are this karma, and the goal of philosophy is to escape the karmic aeon of your generation, in daemonic ascent continually liberating power to power's other side, namely love; this liberating capacity is virtu, the strength of love; to escape one cycle of karma into a new one, continually re-ifying life in higher and higher forms, higher karmic aeons. This is the building I am talking about. I am intent on dissolving and shattering the current karmic aeon, utilizing philosophy to rearrange the social power structure- (memetic warfare like the gnostics repurposing the Abrahamic god or like I am repurposing sanskrit philosophy right now or like how N. repurposed Zoroaster) and liberating power to the purpose of forging the next, higher cycle of karma, the next karmic aeon in which to entrap the next generation of souls upon the wheel of life and death, upon samsara, a Sanskrit meme Nietzsche took and re-branded as the recurrence of the same. This is why what I am speaking of is not just a game for the sake of power. This kharmic aeon has become too heavy, too saturated with past guilt, too polluted with past assemblages of power, too paralyzed by the weight of its history- the weight of this karma is too great for anyone to ascend into gnosis and become philosophers- save for the few, the bodhisattvas who saw through its illusion and could have absorbed our consciousness in the paradaiscal godhead but decided to stay behind in the corrupted world of matter and power in order to guide the next generation into a new cycle of time and karma, a higher and freer one. So like all the aeons before it, this current circle must be closed, so that the next kharmic aeon can begin, which will only happen when the latent power in this one is liberated, when its tension is reified, so that life can once again be reinscribed in a higher cycle.

Agnostic philosophy works within the kharmic aeon; gnostic philosophy simply closes it and siphons power from it to forge the next kharmic aeon. Mastering both as I have done is necessary; you must start in the current karma to work with its power structure and see through to the next karma.

The cyclic view of time is correct due to the fact that at the highest abstraction dialectical synthesis ceases to function and no Hegelian absolute exists in which a linear time could unfold toward geist; the arrangement of power and wills cannot go anywhere, it can just re-organize into different kharmic aeons, each one forming a cycle in which a power structure repeats itself in accordance to its daemonic intensification. The daemon of man oscillates, ascends and descends in it, until one masters its dharma with philosophy, (rather then devotes one's self to it in amor fati like Nietzsche's ubermensh) and reifies the cycle in a higher level cycle, freeing the daemon to explore a new aeon. These cycles are ultimately grounded on the larger cycle of the universe, samsara, which the perfect dharma provides an escape from. The cycles, these kharmic aeons, form a spiral; they get tighter and tighter as the daemon, as life, ascends into continually higher forms. In the last universe, perhaps we were still using vacuum tubes at this time.

There is no global state at the end of this, that is utopian and Marxist in nature, a product of the linear view of time and a kind of unconscious desire for an end of history. The nation-state will continue to exist, as well as true diversity, namely independent cultures in different nations, not multicultures. Every attempt to fulfill the Utopian vision has produced death, and so Trump is needed to discontinue these globalist policies. The linear view of time only appeared with the Abrahamic religion, every other culture and mythos and philosophy understood time as a circle not a line going in a specific direction. The fact that technology builds on itself and "progresses" is meaningless as Heidegger pointed out, because technology is only one form of human techne or knowledge, one that like the others freezes the image of Being in stasis. Heidegger tried to destruct those forms of techne- technology, metaphysics, and religion, but that is useless; Being is truly disclosed in the progressively heightening aeons, in which power is recycled and purified throughout time.


Rather or not the total decay of culture into the globalist multicultural utopia is an inevitability of fate- and culture is the formula of the great kharmic aeons, the wheels upon which the daemon makes its ascent into higher and higher dharma and forms of life; rather or not this destruction can at least be undone, that has not been answered yet. But it soon will, for the sins and deeds of the past aside, the left-right paradigm will no longer even exist soon, when the circle of this age is closed in about 50 days and a fate determined, either to continue this path, or to transition. The fascination with globalism, Utopianism, feminism, and Marxism, with the consequent deconstruction of historical forms, the reality of sexual differentiation, and the relativization of moral ideals; the demonization of our forbears as mindless racists and misogynists, all which was carried out at the end of the last generation, has left this generation divorced from its own karma, from its very ancestry, and without any power to forge a new age for themselves, which had been accomplished by every generation precedent to this one. The circle of time has been flattened out and undone, stretched into a line pointing toward the Messianic fulfillment of history which will never come- a lie easily fed to the masses under the guise of benefiting the emerging and beneficent global state, a new international solidarity, the metapolitics of free love.

The Greeks didn't need to set down and discuss what being a Greek was. The Greek ethos emerged from their daemon, their oral traditions, taking on the granite of speech in the voice of Homer. Likewise, this is all beyond the sphere of debate. This is occurring, this determination, over which course to take.

With the transition beyond the left-right paradigm, so comes also a transition beyond the socialist-capitalist paradigm.

The model of capitalism is a direct mirror of Freudian psychology. In Freud, you have a natural drive, it gets repressed by the super-ego, and then sublimated by the ego to create a surplus-drive which cannot be contained by the strictures of the ID, so that we create art and civilization to utilize it, just as in capitalism surplus wealth gets reinvested to perpetuate itself. It explains things from the inward to the outward. Capital and surplus value is literally just the economic analogue of libidinal sublimation. The stages of capitalism I pointed out some time ago are relevant in this comparison.

Communism's explanation begins in alienation as a consequence of material conditions, which limit man to certain patterns of life. It assumes each man contains the whole of the species-essence, ie. we can all magically be philosophers, mathematicians, farmers, etc. all at the same time due to the perfect equality of human nature, so that the structural limitations of social existence impose definite occupations on us that limit our phenomenal reality in an unnatural way. I don't feel I need to remark on how this is stupid. The underlying equivalence of individual and species-essence is why you will see the word cultural Marxist applied to social justice warrior types.

National socialism is not inherently worse than the other two. It borrows some insight from communism and gives the government the ability to divert capital resources to what it sees fit, particular technological sectors or entire industries, but it takes insight from capitalism and allows the market and competition to coordinate that capital at the level of individual businesses. It has the foresight of a top down vision imposed by the few heads of government as well as some of the hindsight of nature, ie. forces of competition in the market. However, this makes national socialism incredibly statist, which is no good if you wish to separate culture and government like I do. The national socialist government has direct control over the culture because it can divert capital to industries it values and take it away from those it does not, and they easily foisted a hyper racial supremacist pseudo-mystical vision on their populace.

" Dialectical
materialism (communism and Marxism) cannot produce the episteme necessary for
effective revolutionary consciousness and the mobilization of knowledge in the form of
empowered political action, that is, the component of energeia or energizing tension,
while the negative-reflective consciousness of tragic subjectivity- the spirit of poetry, art,
and even religion itself in the view of Holderlin, Kierkegaard, and Schelling, (despite
their numerous theoretical differences) cannot produce the component of entellecheia,
identity, and affirmative content... "

The Nazis and Heidegger (and Russia) sought the later, [everyone is always surprised by Heid. endorsement of the Nazis] thinking they could salvage from the decaying dreams of Europe a new racial identity from behind the history of the Aryan people which was hijacked first by the Asiatics in Greece then corrupted and twisted even more by the Jews in the Roman era, and inaugurate a new political regime as a dispensation from Ousia itself to dasein, which would assume the form of a pure Aryan reborn, freed from the distorted history imposed on it by the other races of the earth. Obviously the communists and socialists and now our Leftists seek the former. Neither will win against the spiritually emaciated and philosophically brain dead spirit of liberal American-European secularism, which has no positive meaning, which has no future vision for humanity, nothing with which to establish a human identity in our postmodern techno-apocalypse. Its destruction will come from within, not from without. And as it falls so will the globalist paradigm, which has been the only thing holding us back from nuclear war, a shadow that still looms as much as it did during the cold war.

Capitalism succeeded out of these three for a reason. It is not the most effective- none of the three are very effective, as they all reflect inaccurate understandings of human psychology. The reason it succeeded is because it naturally aligns itself with the Leftist secular humanism, and allows a complex to form between corporate power, democratic processes, the media, science, and military (via globalism) whereas this is difficult if not impossible with the other two alternatives. This complex is very powerful, physically speaking, if spiritually emaciated and lacking any vision for humanity or affirmative content, lacking ethos. It was inevitable that capitalism would win by allowing this complex of social forces to form.



The left, with the star of its fate firmly poised on the lofty horizon of post-wiggerdom neo-hipster Marxist transgenderism, can destroy the idea of sex differences, the idea of the nation-state and culture, etc. and that's not perceived as destructive- it's fine and progressive, but destroying the globalist neo-con neo-liberal plutocracy along with the welfare state which it champions as its social mask and foists over the bemused gormless faces of the public with the assistance of the corporate media shills to convince people it's good, along with all these federal and internationalist institutions with their over-extended spheres of power, etc.- destroying that is anarchic, chaotic, nihilistic. This system is diffusing culture as I said in the last message- while doing the opposite with power, concentrating it in a steadily narrowing group of elites in control of the whole institutionalized bureaucracy now blanketing the earth. Culture diffuses; power concentrates- is the result of these policies. The people are then both being robbed of their identities and cultural inheritances, and of their power. Being robbed of their power alone is something that the masses can recover from, it's happened all throughout our history, culminating in the collapse and rebirth of nations. But with the diffusion of culture accomplished by the left, well, perhaps there will no longer be a rebirth. Whenever a people were subjugated too greedily under the foot of a tyrant, they could always turn back and draw on the wealth of their collective soul to discover the emancipatory potential of their kharmic aeon.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sun Sep 18, 2016 8:26 pm
Really quick to a central issue of the idea of globalism, before I take more time to process these posts and respond more completely: as far as I can see there are only two logical differences between a continental and a planetary government: 1) the fact that a continent has a zone outside of itself whereas a planet does not; or, a planet's logical outside is just empty space, a moon, and eventually some other planets and moons but that's a long ways off still in the future. And 2) the differences between the peoples, cultures, histories, values-forms that obtain within a continental scope are less severe than are the likewise types of differences obtaining within a planetary scope. In plain terms, there's a lot more variety and difference of stuff if you make a group out of "everyone" than if you make a group out of "everyone on a given continent".

These two points are the only real factors I can see that would guide a different outcome and logical construction when it comes to comparing a federalist-rational sustem of government at the continental vs. planetary level. If, for example, we imagine the US system loosely adapted to the entire planet and every current nation-state becomes a state within the larger Union, other than the practical problems of increasing the number of states from 50 to around 200 and obviously increasing the number of people in the states, there are those two primary logical problems of difference to contend with: (corresponding to the above), 1) the global government has nowhere outside itself to which one might escape (in contrast, if you live in the US you can always denounce your citizenship and move to another country if you want to), and 2) there would be a lot more different feelings and ideas competing for political shared space, most likely making it even harder to find compromises on practical issues such as fiscal policy and taxes, individual rights, punishment and retributive justice, allowable norms vs illegal prohibitions (such ax for easy example slaughtering animals and letting their blood wash out into the street, which is probably violating some kind of health law in most US states but obviously some people around the world wouldn't want such a law), and all the rest kinds of issues that always come up.

I think these two logical problems are serious, but I don't think they are fatal. I think it is possible to find work-arounds to where a planetary quasi-federalist representational system of governance could still work; most likely this will involve a divestment of most powers at the planetary level and the reservation of most powers to state levels (in this case, to the world's nation-states). My idea of planetary government doesn't involve the dissolution of nation-states anymore than the idea of American federal governance involves the dissolution of the now 50 states in the US. The higher most summative peak of governance should derive its structure and power from less summative categories, in every case descending down the ladder of scope toward greater real-world ("earthy") complexity and vitality, as FC was saying. The highest level of planetary government would be tightly restricted on what it can and cannot do, just as in the US the people are still always most affected by the policies coming out of their state and local governments rather than those coming out of Washington DC.

So basically my idea doesn't involve the forced homogenization of cultural differences, or even languages; my idea of planetary governance would accomplish two essential tasks: it would provide an only abstract higher plane of categorical sameness and possible reconciliations across all people everywhere, and it would allow a mechanism for addressing the most serious and life threatening, self-value threatening problems that affect humanity as a whole. Everything else would remain basically the same with only very limited marginal homogenizations occurring only within the most far-removed and most agreed-upon rational delimitations, with everything else (the bulk of human life and political-administrative issues) being such powers as are reserved to the states, as it says in the US constitution for example.

And quickly touching on the first of the two problems, I consider this one to be the most serious one, since the ability to leave one's nation-state jurisdiction is an important check on abuses of nation-state power just as I think it is an important individual right. However, it should be possible to address this if we combine the fact of stark limitation of peak-global governing powers to only those most absolutely pressing and critical with the fact of some "outside zones" where it is still possible to escape global-state jurisdiction, such as perhaps space colonies or some manner of free zones that could be set up. Maybe a certain number of regions around the world could be designated as exempt from global government power, and people would be free to renounce citizenship and move to those places if they want. I don't know, it's definitely a serious problem. But we could also look at the aspect that perhaps this "outside zone" is either unnecessary or could be effectively maintained at the level of migrating from one nation-state to another just as how in the US we are free to migrate to other states within the US and thereby find those states with which we most agree on issues of practical governing policies (taxes, etc.) In short I don't think that many people in the US are lining up to leave the US for another country, but definitely people often move from one state to another and this capacity could be replicated at the nation-state level within a larger planetary federalist system.

Ok now that I've laid out the only meaningful differences between a federal government system at the continental vs. global levels, and provided a very brief initial outline for how those differences as problems could be addressed, I'll spend some time taking in the many other points raised over the last five or so posts before this one, and have more to say later. In the meantime I want to know if anyone here sees any other serious logical problematic differences between government at the continental level vs. at the planetary level, other than the two logical problematic differences I've just identified above. Such differences must be exhaustively identified before we can begin to make claims such as saying that government on the planetary level is impossible, requires the massive forfeiture of individual rights significantly more so than in the current US model of government, etc.

Note that if such logical differences (either the two Ive just mentioned, or any others you might find) prove to be insurmountable problems then I will reject the possibility of a sane, rational planetary government and turn to a new paradigm instead, one that doesn't involve any kind of "globalism" at all; however, if the logical differences are not found to be fatally problematic then we must rationally accept that planetary government is acceptable to the exact same degree that continental government is acceptable.



___________
"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." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Mon Sep 19, 2016 12:14 pm
"I agree with Fixed about globalism's failure, but I depart insofar as I lack any desire to create a metalogic with which to organize a global scale system on a philosophic rather than merely political basis. I do not desire either the present globalist system, a super-federalist system like Capable's, or a globalist state founded on philosophic rulership. My intention is to restore for civilization the dynamic and destructive surplus-energetics that has been lost in the 20th and 21st century and to instantiate the wheel of the next kharmic aeon, maybe we can even crucify the political elites and use them as spokes for it. That a philosopher condescends to rule is already an aberration to me. Philosophers exist between the human world and the world of the Gods, we shepherd the daemon of man between the worlds, we maintain the balance of the creative and the destructive potential of each kharmic aeon. We witness to man, how it can be used, and broken."

It is more because the logic, with VO, has become available, that I see no other possibility than that it will be implemented, by someone, eventually; the collapse of this age, might very well be allowed, in a Schellingian/Heideggerian way of emerging from a chaos of drives, by providing a code for the disintegration of the purely political, extortionist system of superstitious fear used as leverage.

I think that the aeon will die spasmodically, pure muscle reflexes clinging on, because the instinct for universalization of economy and politics is the depth of a few billion souls, all willing toward an impossible, but nonetheless forging some possibility of something else, - thinner, a rulership more like mountain air; a pure principle that guides, to which people across the world of some intellectual weight can all subscribe, because its rule is precisely not to infringe on the Earthly.

This is, I believe, the anarchist ideal, and it is also the only possible global legislative ethics. That means not to say global legislation. I do not believe in that, except for a non nuclear proliferation pact. I be,ieve that mankind can add a principle to his environment, to insert it into his world at the side of air and water, to allow him to breathe morally, politically, looking-into-the-future; this is what the New Aeon will require, for it to be born from the increasing chaos; perspective.

This open space, removal of the choking bag from the head of humanity, the introduction of philosophies of our spirit, is what becomes the philosophers home; freedom in the world begins with creating freedom for the philosopher.

Liberating Prometheus, Chirons death, symbolizing the philosophers departure from his dank cave into the exalted firmament.

Naturally the dank cave isnt actually given up. It's just that the sky is also our birthright.

Or, essentially, the world best freedom begins with, is anchored, rooted in, the world being regarded as a playground for philosophers. That, at least, is the proper aesthetics to uphold in order to drive for the right changes.

I see all great politics as the explication of standards, ruling by example. What the Brits did in India, and how India responded, gives a good idea of what is possible for a rising culture aiming to imprint it on the fertile ground of a decaying old one.

And it is my increasingly solid belief that we, being with such a significant group of philosophers, a kind of grouping that hasn't ever occurred except at the roots and in the crowns of empires, actually do represent the weight of an entire rising culture. The flimsiness of what is left of the old cultural structure actually will allow for us to - well.

Im not talking about taking over shit physically or organizationally, but intellectually. The west is ruled by think-tanks. These think tanks are occupied by proud men and women. That's all we need to know, really, if we'd consider stepping forward and getting things rolling our way. I ve entirely surrendered to astrology for giving me the timing. Right now, we;'re in the 10 day window of the Jupiter-Sun conjunction that, last year, was the frame of the Pantad, and threads about politics, that lead to my voyage west.

Jupiter rules philosophy, not in a symbolic way, but in a physiological way. When he comes conjunct the Sun, philosophy becomes viable in the daylight.

The year of Jupiter has 13 months. We are in the end of the 13th month of the first year.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Mon Sep 19, 2016 1:28 pm
Im not asking anyone to believe in Jupiter, but I am asking all 4 of you to respect the calendar as a means, to a cycle; respect the cycle as the ultimate form of power and value. The Aeon of Jupiter. I am the Pontifex. Ive seen myself as a high priest of Jupiter - a holy Fool an Magus going for the World Entire on a whim of Olympian laughter - since in a vision I saw the world collapse in 1998; where I differ with Parodites is that I have seen the world as already leveled to the ground for a good time; I am perhaps even more cynical, and equally a romantic, thus my scheming is deeply ironic, and in accordance to how he describes magic, I both firmly believe it is real and fully know it isnt and needs first to be made real by 'some dark magic' - which is Will, or self-valuing pure; the cohering of the most self-valuable materials.

The world is in flames, flames turn to dragons, dragons turn to flames.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Mon Sep 19, 2016 4:03 pm
At this point I think the only thing we can do is make our own values statements, and leave it at that. It appears no real compromise is possible, our respective positions are simply too far apart. I think this is the danger of philosophy moving toward politics: the political is a dimension that forces philosophy to attempt to posit itself “in reality” and in the practical sense, which is often enough not only an invalidation of philosophy as such by returning the premises of such a philosophy to pre-philosophical status, but even more so is something for which philosophy is woefully unprepared. Just because we might have been philosophizing on the mountain tops for a decade or more doesn’t necessarily mean one bit of worth when it comes to trying to translate and apply that philosophy to “the real world”, at the sociopolitical level.

It would take another decades-long deep work to create a philosophical politics on par with our philosophies. By no means is a justified, truthful, sane or good politics ensured by any height of standard or achievement at the purely philosophical level. We should let this fact humble us; that is the first step at least in starting on that long path toward real progress in the philosophical-political, progress in something that really doesn’t even exist yet. To the extent that philosophy is a rarity, a philosophical-politics is far more rare; a philosophical-politics would only be possible after the successful development of a philosophy and after many more years of hard work attempting to translate philosophy to the political, ‘real world’ substances which, again, are almost always pre-philosophical in nature and so cannot help but seriously offend our true philosophical taste and noble pathos of distance.


. . .

World-culture is already coming into existence, under the mandate of US-driven (western) global capitalism. Whether or not we want a world-culture seems irrelevant at this point, as one has been developing for a while now and seems poised to keep developing. What are the old religions, ideologies, political powers compared to the youth of every country on earth watching and uploading videos to Youtube on a daily basis? As Sloterdijk said, there is a sphere of globalism in which some are included and outside of which most are excluded, yet those on the outside are always trying to get inside. Equally we have Reich noting that people desire their own repression, desire some form of “fascism” and I think Zizek perfected this insight by realizing that what we desire isn’t fascism so much as a kind of pleasant alienation from the mundane: we do not want to be heavily involved in administrative decisions and requirements of society, no one wants to go to community committee meetings every week to determine how best to regulate water usage in one’s area, etc.; philosophy itself is freedom from the mundane, and self-valuing subjectivity is always already philosophical at heart.

There is no reason that planetary government would demand absolute forfeiture of individual rights, in fact as Guattari and I am sure many others have noted it is only by granting individual rights that modern globalized political structures are able to maintain their power. Democracy isn’t about individual rights, democracy is about using the pretense of such rights to establish a sociopolitical structure that can endure over time. From the perspective of society (of every society that has existed so far) individual rights are just the price paid by that society for its long-term stability, just like how voting isn’t about political participation at all and is simply about 1) giving the people an excuse to delude themselves into believing they are politically viable, and 2) creating the false impression of legitimacy by consent of the governed. Now, I want to eventually reverse these trends within the sociopolitical, but we should be absolutely clear as to the real justifications so far of these systems. Likewise, we must be absolutely clear that there is no such thing as absolute individual rights, nor “natural rights”; rights are something human beings create and enforce within a social order, not something inherent to nature, given by some god or universal decree. Individual rights are a pact of compromise between individuals and the social structures in which individuals come up and develop/individualize. There is always this element of middle-ground compromise involved, there is never going to be absolute individual rights, the very idea of that is a contradiction in terms because it supposes the non-existence of the sociopolitical dimension, yet it is the sociopolitical dimension that grants the ontological possibility of individual rights in the first place. Otherwise we simply have mafia rule of gangs and the rich oligarchies using pure force of muscle and fear/violence to get what they want, which is a situation akin to internet trolling whereby the higher values are impossible to appear due to the ubiquitousness of unchallengeable lower values.

It has taken humanity thousands of years to get to this point it is at right now, and I am not about to embrace the idea of throwing all that away and burning it upon a pyre just because we see some problems with global capitalism, or just because the idea of rebellious anarchy feels good at the personal pathological level of one’s narcissism and feelings of disaffection. Nor am I going to capitulate to hyperbolic statements that continuously skew the reality of the situations, onto-psychological dynamics and real-world consequences and values that truly underlie issues of the sociopolitical in the world today, such as the constant hyperbole of Trump and those like him. The reason they speak like this is because they need to talk down to people in order to win their support, their statements resonate somewhere at the 4th grade level; and when you talk down to someone, you actually start to create that exact same low standard in them. This isn’t complicated nor is it rocket science. All politicians do this dumbing-down, but Trump really takes the cake on this.

Quote :
The cyclic view of time is correct due to the fact that at the highest abstraction dialectical synthesis ceases to function and no Hegelian absolute exists in which a linear time could unfold toward geist; the arrangement of power and wills cannot go anywhere, it can just re-organize into different kharmic aeons, each one forming a cycle in which a power structure repeats itself in accordance to its daemonic intensification. The daemon of man oscillates, ascends and descends in it, until one masters its dharma with philosophy, (rather then devotes one's self to it in amor fati like Nietzsche's ubermensh) and reifies the cycle in a higher level cycle, freeing the daemon to explore a new aeon. These cycles are ultimately grounded on the larger cycle of the universe, samsara, which the perfect dharma provides an escape from. The cycles, these kharmic aeons, form a spiral; they get tighter and tighter as the daemon, as life, ascends into continually higher forms. In the last universe, perhaps we were still using vacuum tubes at this time.

I am going to need some examples from history to really get an idea of this. Are you talking about the Egyptians and their pyramids, or what? I am not sure. I already highly dislike this Eastern Buddhistic terminology, which makes it hard enough for me to go along with this analysis, but the idea of a purely cyclical history seems false to me. If we look at the last 2500 years of history we can see a definite gradual progression over time, granted it has its fits and starts and there are small cycles here and there where old forms are recouped more recently and altered somewhat to fit present circumstances, but the general trend is one of linear progress. I honestly have no idea what you mean when you talk about "the arrangement of power and wills cannot go anywhere, it can just re-organize into different kharmic aeons, each one forming a cycle in which a power structure repeats itself in accordance to its daemonic intensification"... in fact, the power structures we see today are quite different from those of the past, the forms and contents are different even if not absolutely so, and even as power 'cycles' back and forth there is definite, real world progress being made atop that cycling. We can now edit out own genes, land on the moon, map distant solar systems, communicate instantly from one corner of the globe to the other, and more importantly philosophical ideas have permeated the unconscious strata of human being, such as with the example of all this Nietzschean postmodernity deconstruction stuff, but also at the level of more directly informing a kind of innate, intimate artistic being-valuing of the individual human that is sometimes (mis)translated as apathy toward all that has a low quality. The average person today has a higher standard for themselves, even ideology while it continues to spread is losing its grip, hence the relative collapse of religious and traditionally political ideological power to the newer ideological power of the global capitalistic.

What we do with freedom is not meaningless. What we do with freedom is a sign of our values and self-valuing, and the positivity of freedom is equally a cornerstone of the subjectivity-consciousness as is the negativity of freedom. I wrote about this in my recent book, I can paraphrase somewhat here: the positivity of freedom is the feeling of free will that we all experience, yet the content of that feeling is a pure negativity. We cannot have one without the other, there is no negative pure content of freedom without the forms of positivity that instantiate and replicate it in real time and space, likewise there is no positivity of freedom without the receded content of the pure negative actual reality of this freedom. Every void-negative content actualizes in realtime and realspace to construct positivities, the world itself is such a field of positivities. It makes as little sense to embrace the world-positivity without the negativity content underlying it as it does to embrace the negativity-content without embracing the world-positivity in which the negative lives and by which it gains its negativity at all.

As for the karmic aeon and the anarchic collapse, I have no idea what this really means. Can you give an example of this happening in history? As for a collapse and return to anarchic relations, how do you think that will go in the modern age of drones, nuclear and biological weapons, and stealth bombers? How can anyone realistically think anything productive could come out of a total global collapse and return to anarchy relations? When ancient Greece collapsed it was absorbed into Rome, when Rome collapse it was absorbed into Medieval Europe, and when the great old kingdoms of Europe collapsed these were absorbed into modern democratic classically liberal civilizations… throughout this entire project we have a progressive climb of humanity up the scale of civilization, toward more truth, more subjectivity-consciousness, more developed knowledge in science and technology, more universalization and objectifying of human being out into the world. Yet Greece, Rome, European monarchies did not have nuclear weapons at their disposal; the situation today is fundamentally different, even if we were to see those historical collapses as some kind of resetting of the karmic aeon, because the stakes are so much higher now, they are truly global in nature. There is no longer a possibility of rebellion of the people against society as such, against the government, because society-government as simply too much power now. Look at the Arab Spring states, these rebellions only further deepened state power and further invalidated the authority of the people over their own societies.

This conservative, anarchic idea that the people will rise up in mass rebellion and “take back their country” is so fucking stupid it would make me laugh if it were not also so pathetically tragic. No amount of rednecks with guns is going to overthrow the modern military; the government has drones, surveillance, access to trillions of dollars of capital, not to mention nuclear and biological weapons and who knows how many psychological weapons and secret technologies we don’t even know about. If this reactive conservative anarchic strain really succeeds, through Trump or someone else, of pushing things to the brink all that will take place is that the government will crack down so hard that individual rights, freedom, and the people’s involvement in their own political process and futurity vanishes overnight. Trump is probably the secret wet dream of the global fascists, of those who want to instantiate a 1984 world, because no one can light that fuse and give that justification for total takeover of the people as someone like Trump can. Trump feeds the lies and bad thinking reactionism that leads otherwise intelligent people to somehow think they can gather their friends and march on Washington….. no, it doesn’t work like that anymore.

The ONLY way to change the future and affect sociopolitical realities now is to actually participate in the political process, through think tanks like FC noted, through writing books and speaking and making videos that are shared with thousands of people; we must engage the political structures and not sit around in our fantasy land that these structures will somehow collapse and instantiate a Pure Anarchy of Absolute Freedom and Individual Rights. Trumpism is utopian thinking in the extreme, whereas the Left-liberalism paradigm is at least somewhere in the middle-ground between reality and insane global capitalism trying to etch out a middle space where humanity can actually exert real control over its future. But for some reason the pathology is very strong that rejects any kind of compromise and seeks only the black and white extremes, a fallacy of excluded middle… whereby it is either “anarchy or death”. I cannot accept such thinking.

And again, all this postmodern deconstruction stuff is just the inheritance of Nietzsche’s effect on humanity. It isn’t a serious threat, it could never build anything lasting or significant nor could it ever have a true effect on human being itself; it’s like kids playing with their toys, only as Nietzsche showed us, we are our own “toys”, and most people lacking philosophy and a proper Mind will simply play toy games with themselves on the emotional, physical and social levels rather than at the intellectual and mental level as we all do here. But regardless of all that, none of that has any bearing upon actual truths or human being itself, it is just a side-effect of the world as now thoroughly Nietzschean. Postmodern deconstruction and global capitalism are thoroughly Nietzschean inheritances, ones befitting pre-philosophical humanity. In any case the philosophical, higher standards will always be the exception and never the rule; I too have no desire at all to “rule”, nor do I have any delusions that philosophers could somehow become Kings in Plato’s idea, nor that the masses of people will somehow someday become philosophical. The only thing that can happen is that the average person becomes unconsciously more aligned to a gradually higher standard of truth and power, of will to power, and that is precisely what we are seeing with all this postmodernism, deconstruction, critical theory, feminist studies, gender identity stuff today. If we allow ourselves a mental-emotional collapse into pure reactivity of looking at all this from the lens of “Decadence! Ah!” then we are simply cutting ourselves out of the processes whereby reality actually becomes aligned over time to truths, just like Trump and the nationalists are driven by their own reactive anxiety to cut themselves and their countries out of the power-games of influence that in reality actually shape the world and the future of humanity. Anarchy represents a deflation of one’s “will” to seriously engage the actual reality of the world, in favor of a kind of self-satisfying fantasy paradigm that in fact serves the purpose of preventing oneself from ever needing to seriously engage reality at all. I have no desire for such things, but neither do I have much desire to get highly involved in engaging the realities of the world either; so my position is one of a more or less neutral observer standing on the side and watching things, with an eye for the highest truths. I am not going to collapse myself into anarchic deflation and utopian fantasy just because, as I freely admit, I have little desire to actually engage myself and my energy and time seriously in the practical affairs of changing things in the real world; my ideas come from the place where, were I to actually have that will, that energy and time, I would hold already the most accurate, truthful and highest value ideas as possible. That way I can at least right now provide this higher standard and context for others who might feel driven to get down to earth and really do something in the world. But in any case, philosophy catalogues truths and truth’s effects on human being, before any kind of “real work” can begin.


. . .

Again to my points about planetary governance, I want a minimal standard here, not any kind of global fascist behemoth to which everyone must sacrifice everything. I don’t believe in stupid utopian fantasies, and my idea of planetary government is neither utopian nor fantastical…. it is simply a logical extension of the political constructs that have been developed already over so many hundreds of years, to their logical next-step of global context. But again this is a minimal kind of globalism, just as the design of the US political system gives a minimal kind of power to the federal level and reserves other powers for the states and the people. That model obviously cannot just be adapted to the entire planet, but some kind of global construct is going to form whether we like it or not, so we might as well roll up our sleeves and start getting our hands dirty a little bit with trying to work out the details and realistic scenarios of what is going to happen and how best we want to envision and steer that toward our own values and ideal ends.

The kind of stark, raw anarchic drive I see today, the deep cynicism and skepticism is, from my perspective, deeply utopian and impotent. My position is not utopian at all, it is just my best attempt to apply philosophy to the practical real-world of the human sociopolitical in light of a naturalistic analysis of what I see going on in that world and with little regard for "what I want to happen". I have my own desires, as you can see in how I form the idea of a possible minimal planetary government as well as the kinds of values I want humanity to aspire to in the future (space exploration, clean energy, environmental cleanup, human rights, an end to mass mobilized warfare, an end to religion, etc.), but those values that I hold do not over-determine my theoretical approach to how I look at what is really happening in the world. Globalism is here and it isn't going anywhere; if Trump or anyone else succeeds at collapsing the present global order they will likewise only succeed in doubling-down the sheer absolute control of, violence toward, and loss of true political power to shape its future, of humanity. There is no going back, no re-writing history; we must make do with what we have, and engage reality as it is and armed with our high philosophy. Anything less is infinitely beneath us.

Global capitalism is just a nascent stage of a planetary-wide sociopolitics. The United Nations is another nascent stage. In fact, global capitalism today is playing the role of content to the pure form that the UN represents; we should try to reconcile this form and content to each other, to naturalize them and thus understand what is going on at the truthful level, as Nietzsche’s brand of naturalistic philosophizing would have it (philosophy as non-pathological, non-“moral” and simply truthful and honest at all costs… non-teleological). Any standard less than this I have no interest in.

Edit: apologies for any offense that I have given. These are simply my most truthful views and ideas, not any attempt to offend anyone. But I refuse to not completely speak my mind simply for the sake of sparing someone from the impact of my statements, at least when it comes to fellow philosophers (as FC noted about the idea of philosophical friendship, we must be able to call each other out as much as possible and laugh at each other's, and our own, weaknesses. True friendship is infinitely beyond the level of "hurt feelings" (not that I am assuming anyone's feelings are being hurt in the process of these discussions, but again I felt inclined to point out the obvious here that no such offense is intended or should even be valued by us at all)). Let's keep pushing these ideas absolutely and as far as we possibly can, with the only thing we care about being the discovery of truth. Truly Building Thought to Disclose the Future. And if in the process of this we come up against irreconcilable divides in our respective ideas, so be it; that is a small price to pay for being able to participate in this high level of conversation and friendship. We can even laugh at our differences, as we ought to be able to equally laugh at ourselves. In any case I am fully prepared to admit that any of my ideas here is wrong, provided that this is demonstrated. "Men seek agreement, the philosophers seek disagreement" as I wrote, or another that applies to the philosophers the most, "Disagreement is context."
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: 6578
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:23 pm

New analysis:

Trump's concerns and their legitimacy:

1) Terrorism. He wants to ban all Muslims from entering and track those already here. Is his fear of terrorism legitimate? Yes. Is his response to this fear a rational, useful response? No. Problem 1: not all Muslims are Middle Eastern. Plenty are African, African American, Asian, or white. This is why the Left claims there is no such thing as "Islamic terrorism" because the terrorist groups and sympathies out there are not inherently Islamic, rather this terrorism has sprung up within only certain isolated sub-groups within Islam and is quite regional in nature. Banning and tracking people based on their religious affiliation is like banning and tracking all Irish people because of the IRA, or all Christians everywhere because of some extreme anti-abortion groups that threaten murder and commit violence against abortion doctors and workers. Or use whatever example you want, the point is that terrorism is not inherently tied to Islam as such; Trump needs a better way of addressing it, and I agree it needs to be addressed. Problem 2: the terrorism that does exist within regional and ideological sub-groups of Islam must be addressed in significant measure by other Muslims within those sub-groups as well as to some degree by all Muslims. Here Trump's proposal has a positive and negative aspect: the positive is that by alienating all Muslims without regard to who they actually are and what they actually think, Trump would put more pressure on all Muslims to step up and address terrorism within these sub-groups more directly, because the rest of the non-terrorist Muslims do not want to be lumped into that group and seen as terrorists; the negative is that you also risk alienating and removing the very people who are most effective at preventing terrorist sympathies from developing in Muslim youth, namely the Muslim community at large most of whom are just regular religious people who want to live their lives in peace and do not hold extremist views, but of course could potentially turn to extremist views at some point (as could just about anyone, under the right conditions). This brings us to problem 3: the ban and tracking of all Muslims is going to create more hatred, confusion, alienation and disaffection among Muslims everywhere and especially in Muslim youth, in other words the same emotions and economic circumstances that are breeding grounds for developing terrorist sympathies; Trump's plan will most certainly increase the number of terrorists and potential terrorists out there, just as US bombing and drone campaigns right now are increasing the number of terrorists and potential terrorists (lowering the threshold for what it takes to push someone over the edge from poverty/hate/pain/anxiety/disaffection/confusion and into full blown terrorism).

Trump's concern for terrorism is legitimate, but is approach to solving the problem is akin to killing a fly with a sledgehammer. Or rather, trying to kill dozens of flies like that, it isn't effective and actually is going to make the problem worse (a sledgehammer won't make the flies breed faster, but a Trump USA policy toward Islam will certainly make terrorist sentiment breed faster). So what is the best approach?

One critical fact has been overlooked in the terrorism debate everywhere: the fact that it will always be possible for one person to injure or kill another person. We cannot treat terrorism as an issue similar to open war with another nation-state; there are no parallels, and Trump treating it like that is making things far, far worse. The unstated assumption behind his approach is that we could theoretically create a situation in which certain people aren't able to injure or hurt othets, but that is not possible (his position is similar in this way to the naive liberal position that we can stop terrorism and violence by banning weapons). One person will always be able to hurt another, and no amount of walls or immigration limits will stop the spread of ideas; Trump's philosophy here logically culminates in near-total control over the Internet and all means of communication in an effort to stop even the ideas of Islam and extreme Islam from entering the US. Think about it: if you believe that banning all Muslims from coming to the US is the way to address terrorism then you're going to be forced to also ban the entry of ideas and communications into the US, and you'll need an apparatus for doing so as well as for tracking and removing such communications and speech within the US already. This is only one clear example of how Trump and his followers are proto-fascists. So how has terrorism gotten to be the way it is today, if it had always been the case that one person could always hurt or kill another?

Modern terrorism is a version of political guerrilla warfare. It appears in Islam because Islam can provide the needed psychological component to actualize this particularly virulent form of guerrilla warfare: an ideology capable of removing the natural self-valuing of a person. Terrorists are willing to die and even want to die; this is the true logical heart of terrorism. The real basis of modern terrorism is this fact of not caring if one dies or not, and Islam is just a means to achieving that pure ideology, and also Islam is selected for this psychological type because of those regional conflicts alluded to above. Western treatment of the Middle East since WWII has caused the conditions for terrorism to ferment, and now the ideological "wanting to die" perversion of self-valuing that Islam provides for was the match that finally set it off.

Now this modern terrorism is out there, the genie is out of the bottle and there is no going back. This kind of virulent guerrilla warfare is always going to be a potential problem. So you address the real roots of the problem as follows: not by naively treating it as if we are in a state of traditional war with another nation-state as Trump proposes, but actually addressing the real root cases of terrorism: 1) poverty, disaffection, violence and trauma, fear and alienation that people and especially young people experience, and 2) addressing the lack of desire to live and the desire to die. It's very hard to defeat a guerrilla army, especially one that can cross any border just by the spread of ideas and information; terrorism could easily be used to justify the loss of privacy and freedom of speech and thought across the entire western world, and indeed that is the final rationale of the kind of approach Trump is taking.

Terrorism is a means to meaning and self-value for those who think they have no other possible means to those. The delusion of life after death and martyrdom provide the oil in the gears of pain, disaffection, lack of economic opportunities, alienation etc. to potentiate the formation of a psyche bent toward terrorism as a method of subjective realization, just as Schopenhauer notes that sometimes suicide is a way of preserving oneself. This is the real, deeper philosophical meaning of terrorism today; and all this is something that Trump not only does not at all grasp but is in fact pathologically incapable of grasping.



___________
"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." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Sep 20, 2016 11:07 am
C - no hurt feelings, the opposite how could we consequentially discuss the lives of 7 billion without arguing to the depth of our convictions? Surely anything we may end up producing as guidance for the species will take years of heated disagreements in our forges to take any kind of recognizable shape.

As I see it we do not fundamentally disagree, you and I, on the envisioned outcome, at least not on the envisioned best possible outcome. But we have vastly different work to do toward that outcome, and that work is what, really, we are discussing, shaping the outline of in our souls.

I differ with Parodites in that I think the worst has already come; the world is already in ashes, rubble, chaos, Europe is already leveled, in terms of what it once was there is little left, and we are bracing ourselves for a big fight against monotheism again. I'll go back to Europe to fight that fight. I need to protect my family, clean and simple.

The problem with Islam is not terrorism. Terrorism isnt even Islamic, usually, it's 90 percent false flag, I think we all know this. The problem is far worse. Its education. It's soul-rape. It's reading 3 year olds from the koran. All of that is sub-human, 'even' sub-animal - it is basically a kind of excess of pure disagreement with self-valuing, a thing possible only in the human memetic realm; humans as functions of a moral and intellectual no to existence. Of course they kill each other all the time,. and of course they try to kill others, and of course they die young and withered, of course all no longer young men are deeply sad to the point of rot, of course their cities dont sell any books and of course women stuff poisonous plants in their vagina when they have had sex. Of course it must all die. And of course we must weather that storm of death. And of course many future ones born of muslim parents will join us in weathering that storm. But we must see that this storm is as short as possible, and we must not try to postpone it.

There is no philosophical excuse in excusing monotheistic world-religion. At least no more than there is for napalming cities. We must be honest; would we want our children to grow up afraid of an irrational, jealous and badly writing god, i.e. his ignorant piece of shit parents and priest? If not, then any excuse of Islam is inexcusable, anti-philosophical.

Philosophy requires a host of enemies and adversaries. It makes no sense to attack racists in ones own country and not attack Islam. It makes no sense to expect sanity of politicians before we actually tell them what to do. It truly doesn't. This is what philosophy is, has always been - the voice in the ear of power. This forum has caught the attention of several agencies, Im pretty sure, having studied the ip addresses of guests and lurkers the past years. It would actually be very odd if it hadn't; given the level of internet surveillance - about as much processing power is used to trace content as to produce it, and the very real logics we work with as pioneers - it is nigh impossible that the US government does not take an interest in this world of scrambling for shreds of the ever coveted power-logic. This is how the US works, why it is the moist powerful nation. It tries to use everything that has a slight potential of becoming useful. Take remote cognition, all that, the CIA took the father of my best friends mate, who was a sufi-guru, in from Switzerland and employed him during the 80's for telepathic services to the army. Im not saying it worked, though it very well might have, but Im saying they tried, and not superficially.

I do not think they would think they can afford not to test our thoughts to all sorts of algorithms that they have going. Of We are one of the few places online that actually produces long term strategic value. Internet surveillance never was for tracing terrorists, obviously - believing in the terrorism narrative is like believing in Santa, its a pleasant belief and therefore justified, but it is one sided, Santa doesnt believe in himself - it has always been to steal thoughts. And Ive always been writing with this in mind. Our governments treasure us, you can be assured of that. We are resource of the highest value, and because of the internet they dont have to employ us.

Consider the real value of absolute online surveillance. Is it not harvest?



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Sep 20, 2016 11:21 am
Once more, all I write is in the suspension of disbelief; paradoxically this is a requirement of truthfulness. I can not verify that we are being watched, but I need only to make the following two observations: Our work is objectively powerful, and the US government dominates by implementing objectively powerful theory. It is the only nation that works purely in this sense, the sense of opportunism; the very soul of the US is the desire to take in the best minds of the world.

My philosophical model has emerged in Austria from German philosophy, and yet, it will come to the benefit of the Anglosaxon world. Because the USA is the greatest valuer on the planet. It knows what value is. The future is entirely American. But that means that any world government will be resisted by its own very roots, by criminal families discussing the merits of this and that apple pie in dusty yards - crime is actually the final protection against government.

I prefer mafia rule to NATO rule - NATO is mafia with nukes and 'legal' police forces. Enlightened governments usually rule through controlling crime organizations, not by dismantling them. Same internationally. You cant dismantle ill-will, or egoism, or thrill seeking, or anger, or jealousy, or sheer possibility, or the human spirit. Crime is a fact of life, and its not the worst fact; government-sanctioned mass murder is far worse. And that is what globalism means as long as it isn't understood as enlightened value-distribution.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Thu Sep 22, 2016 9:34 am
Parodites brought up an excellent idea regarding all this: the idea that human society is a reflection of nature, in my interpretation he means that human society and social forces and constructs are basically nothing more than the same kind of social dynamics we see in the animal world. If this point is correct then much of the liberal-postmodern critique of social construction of identities, implicit institutional bias and repression, would fall apart. That critique rests in large part on the idea that human societies codify psychological, economic, interpersonal norms and expectations and enforce these upon individuals over time, but if society is instead just a mirror of the natural animal dynamics then there would be no way for society to provide this function (except of course to the extent that social identities and institutional repressions were in fact reflection of nature, which would mean that if Parodites is correct there would be no basis for working to change those identities or reduce those repressions since after all they are "innate"); he added that identity-based differences such as gender and race differences are innate differences and he implied these could be reduced (in total or in part, I'm not sure the extent he meant exactly) to genetic factors.

Obviously to any of you who know my ideas by now, I do not accept that gender and racial differences are entirely the result of innate factors such as genetics, but I also accept Parodites' idea of the status of the human social world as a mirror of animal nature... I accept it but not yet convinced to accept this ideas as the sole explanation for the social. For one thing, the way I understand our human emotions is that these express a condensation of meaning over time with relevance to sociodynamics: 1) the feeling itself, the affective experience rooted in either pleasure or pain is physiological and involves destabilizing the "affective background state" of the proprioceptive self-experience in such a way that some awareness rises over the background, thus making itself known to us (if you imagine the background affective state as the sum result of hundreds of individual feelings of body changes such as feeling the heartbeat, blood flow patterns in various parts of the body, muscle contractions or relaxations, glands excreting hormones, that sort of thing, then when a certain configuration of these individual feelings-changes succeeds in rising above the background to which it also contributes we feel that configuration in a unique way, the self becomes aware of it as distinct); 2) over time and given the regularity of certain kinds of experiences people have given their social dynamics and social-cultural structures and systems, certain of such configurations of stand-out feelings-changes will reoccur many times given those regularities in the kinds of experiences we have; 3) the "emotion" is the fact that the feelings-changes reoccurring configurations in the individual act as a bridge between the final self-affective conscious experience that we feel and the deeper historical reasons for why that particular configuration has reoccurred over time. What this means is that the reoccurring feeling-change configuration of stand-out proprioceptive awareness comes to embody and represent the meaning or reason for its own having recurred, and the final awareness and subjective quality of the feeling in self-consciousness innately and inherently reflects-represents this meaning and reason although in a non-cognitive manner, in the manner that a feeling-state itself has come to act as a stable sign for a certain range of meaningful facts and aspects about the history of our human lives. This "being a sign" aspect is what transforms the configuration of the feelings-changes into a true emotion.

This is one reason why I think the social must be more than just the reflection of the animal-natural, because human beings automatically imbue the social with meaning in so far as we draw the actual causes and reasons for why certain social dynamic regularities reoccur up and into our cultural and individual experiences of what various feelings mean, wedding concepts with affects in the development of our emotions. For example, human beings still tend toward monogamous relationships and there are many reasons for this (increase chances of healthy survival of the offspring, stability and predictability in the interpersonal supports and pleasurable experiences we can predict for ourselves, reduction in the energy cost of interpersonal interactions) and those reasons in total and at the unconscious level actually comprise the meaning and content of the emotions in question which emotion acts as the sign of the reoccurring feelings-changing configurations of the physiological body, and those reoccurring feelings-changes are the affective qualitative subjective feelin of the emotion itself, although all collapsed together into a single feeling rather than as all of the individual feelings of the many body changes themselves that are so grouped into the reoccurring feeling-changing state.

All of this means, to me, that the social is more than just a reflection of nature, that for humans the social has been transformed into something more than just that reflection; the social is still this reflection as Parodites said, and indeed many of our social dynamics and norms do reflect the same kind of natural instinctive responses that can be found elsewhere in the animal world (play-fighting, displays of dominance and territorialism, submission gestures such as in primates we show the palms of our hands as a submission gesture (humans do this and other primates also do this), averting or making eye contact), all of these sort of social dynamics are animal-instinctive in nature. We humans even reconstruct these social dynamics in our languages, as language has many words or sounds or linguistic forms that serve the role of recreating those same animal-instinctive dynamics. But the social also deepens past this natural sphere, in part because of how we have emotions as I just mentioned and therefore the social sphere begins to represent and comprise meanings in was beyond what it can do in other animal species, but also I think because we humans do indeed use the social sphere to instantiate certain contingent or arbitrary norms and expectations, predictive forms, from one generation to the next. It is just inevitable that this would happen; humans are always reprogramming the social in part to cause the social to absorb as reflect-concentrate certain expectations and norms, certain patterns of information and prediction power, and this reprogramming is a kind of secondary war of forces of meaning within and upon the social.

I think this impressing of new meaning upon the social is another aspect where we cannot say that the social is ONLY the reflection of nature; humans go much further than other animals and we actually use the social as a field or substance on which to impress our other meanings, I would say religion and politics are clear examples of this. But in general I agree with Parodites that the social is to a large extent the reflection of nature; but in addition to this the social can be involved in contributing to or inhibiting certain "social constructions of identities" although never absolutely, because the left-postmodern paradigm is incorrect to assume that no hard innate differences exist. There are hard innate differences between men and women, also probably between one race and another, it would be absurd to claim no such differences exist between races; but I would be careful not to use this fact to claim there are significant meaningful differences between either men or women, unless we define a standard of measure such as "become a philosopher": in that case it is clear that women innately have less of the enjoyment of conditions favorable to becoming a philosopher than do men, but that does not mean that women are intellectually or subjectively incapable of becoming philosophers. I think women could become philosophers as much as can men, intellectually and subjectively speaking, but it's just that women don't really want to do that, they are not driven by their desires and pleasures toward those conditions that are favorable to philosophy. The issue of race and philosophy, however, is less clear since western philosophy is part of the European ("white") tradition and it naturally takes outside cultures longer and more work in general to penetrate into that tradition when they are not a part of it; in other words there is a natural a contingent pressure in the social that acts to keep westerners philosophy within the western world and regardless whether or not other cultures or races could in fact success equally in that philosophy as do westerners ("white") people. But even if we assume there are significant genetic innate differences in other races that make it less likely for them to seek and enjoy the conditions favorable to philosophy (such as I agree with Parodites that this is the case with women in general) that will always admit of individual exceptions, and again this is just one standard of measure we have chosen by which to determine if there are significant meaningful innate differences across genders or races. Regardless of the answer to that question for any given standard of measure, it is still the case that to some degree the social does indeed act to construct certain possibilities and predictive expectations upon certain identities, in part with reference to any innate differences that exist but also in part with reference to the secondary reprogramming of the social, but as to whether any actual person conforms to those identity-construct pressures will be more of a matter of individual lives and experiences. Of course another problem for the theory of innate racial differences is that most people today are hybrids of different races, that we can go back so many generations and find one great-great-grandparent or whatever that came from another culture or race, and even if we cannot do that there is no "white race" but just the many different European cultures and races which are somewhat genetically distinct from each other. So Europe itself as tradition of western philosophy demonstrates how it is possible for many different races to contribute into the same activity such as philosophy in this case. Although it's also interesting that certain European races contribute more and in somewhat predictable ways to philosophy (the Germans, French and English all have a generally different approach to philosophy, for example). How much of that is "only cultural" versus generic and innate? Since the cultural comes from the innate and since the innate is refocused and concentrated in certain of its aspects by the cultural, there is probably no way to know for certain. In fact it might make the most sense to view the innate-generic and the cultural as a single substance with multiple parts, rather than as two fundamentally distinct substances.



___________
"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." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Thu Sep 22, 2016 11:00 am
I tend to a similar view as Parodites, because to me there arent any analytic differences between beings, as long as they are self-valuings (of course there are heavy and crucial synthetic differences); their structure, their working, the way they integrate parts into their own wholeness, is identical in any living being. A culture, a people, is obviously a living being. Such a being responds instinctively for 99 percent, and there is a small degree which can be said to respond consciously - parliament, referendums, or very talented statesmen, etc. But in general, my issue with global government is that it would by definition be a beast.

Obviosuly, there is no neutrality in the world. Self-valuing precludes it. So any construct, however balanced its parts against each other may appear to be at one point, will be a monster. It must be. It would be an entity so large that it scopes the globe, and thus it would incorporate all human malice.

This is absolute; One can not organize humans without accumulating their malice. Hence, why states are always at war with some other state, in some form.

At no juncture could be logically expect any lessening of malice, of subjectivity, of self-interest, of 'wisdom' let's say, by the means of combining more people under less heads.


The Social: all animals are social, they all live in organized groups, and all mammals have complex emotions. If you interact for some hours with a dolphin or a cat, or with a wolf, or with a horse, you will see that they have emoptions quite comparable to the sort of emotions 99 percent of humans have - the only difference is that the do no think (equally like humans, generally) and thus have none of ther deeply complex emotions that form an artists soul, which is a soul that, through art, is implanted in most humans, on top of their proper, animal emotions.

Most mammals are monogamous. All nature has organized functionally, this is what self-valuing is - all behaviors are 'instinctive' - no matter of their are atomic or human or divine or plant - even computers behave in the same way, when they are well integrated in a workflow and network. Humans are computers environments; they self-value in terms of us. But they are entities.

What we know, Anglosaxons and affiliated culture, is that we like individual freedom, and are willing to play a big price for this. What Arabs want is clearly something somewhat reversed; they always go for group-identity at the cost of individual liberties. Fine - let them. If there are exceptions, theyll come to the west. But if the west invites all of thje non-exceptions, the west is going to have to fight for its life, its values, its instincts, its freedom - and change, expel or kill the newcomers. Since our values preclude killing them inside of our borders at least, and our governments force us to take them in, we can only change them, or accept that they change us. Hence, we have war to look froward to, and this is only to blame on the ones who thought it was wise to invite these people without setting some standards for them, so that they can adapt to the part of life they now have come to serve under, which is freedom.

This is what we, the west, should say, regardless of anything we do overseas; Freedom is our religion, and if your religion is okay with that, then ours is okay with you. If your religion denies freedom, you need to get the fuck in a boat and drown at sea.

Literally, all that exists, is standards.

If we sacrifice our standards for the comfort of others, we are nothing but death waiting to happen.




___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Thu Sep 22, 2016 11:20 am
Im going to introduce a big and clunky psychological concept into this discussion. Whether a man identifies more with his mother or with his father, in terms of worldly outlook. It just struck me that this must be fundamental. The mother represents the home, the father the outside world. So a maternally oriented outlook might produce more of a conservative patriotic mindset, whereas a paternally oriented one would produce an progressive, idealistic one. I wonder if this is the case - I know it's true in my case, that when I consider my mother, I know Ill destroy billions of lives in a second to keep her safe, so thats conservative. If I think of my father, I dont think of protecting him, but I think of designing, of a cool mind that can insert magic where it wants, and has no fear of losing its base.

Im bringing this in because we need to cover a lot of bases first - most importantly of all things political and organizational - what drives the human to his extremes?

Reasonability, normal ness, humaneness, common sense, all that is wiped away in an instant when passion rears its head. Passion shapes the world, and it is only passion that I seek to direct. Therefore I dont believe insetting rules or cognitive standards before redirecting passions. On ILP that is all Im doing now. To rout passions away from oblivion, relativism, nihilism, moralism, into the will to penetrate into the heart. Thought follows from this passion. Some people have that passion latent in them. These people, those are my people. I do not care about any of the rest. This month Ive emotionally cut off much of my family, cousins, all that, because they have shown that they're opting for standing by. Fuck everyone who opts for that.

I now only care for people who actively cultivate their passions in a philosophical way. These are my 'race' - these are the ones I fight for, and with these, we will create the capital of a new order, a structure of worldly ethics of which we now only know that it at its centers is a library.

This is how I see the mothers and the fathers boys come together. Local, truly pleasant centers of culture that radiate outward in ideas. But no fucking institutional enforcers of any sort, in my world. Just real humans.

Any time a state grants a man the right to decide for another man, it creates two vampires. It breaks two beings.




Once more, consider that Im writing this in an associative way; the coming Jupiter year will be a year of debating and finding common ground; the previous year was one of creating foundations. 13 months from now, in the next year, which is of Scorpio, our work will begin to turn to political power. By that time, many organizations will be have their hands stretched out, as the only surfacing part of a drowning body - as has been the case in all greay political crises, philosophers will be the last resort for the wicked in power - because all others are too afraid to look them in the eyes.

At that moment, the tide, which has stationed the past year, will begin to turn. When we look the politicians in the eyes with a judgment so vastly differing from what they feared, our standards will begin to take over the global standard of power-thought.



All paradigmatic battles come down to a staredown. And all staredowns come down to what is behind the eyes. No man in this word has more fire behind the eyes than the people right here.

This is what standard-setting is in the final human instance; demonstrating ones fire.

A nod to Heraclitus, who understood this so well.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content





PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law



Before The Light

'Mortal as I am, I know that I am born for a day. But when I follow at my pleasure the serried multitude of the stars in their circular course, my feet no longer touch the earth.'

HomeCalendarFAQSearchMemberlistRegisterLog in

Before The Light :: Tree :: The World Share | Actions
The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law View previous topic View next topic Go down
Go to page : Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 21 ... 40 Next
Author Message
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Thu Sep 22, 2016 11:50 am
Fixed Cross wrote:
I tend to a similar view as Parodites, because to me there arent any analytic differences between beings, as long as they are self-valuings (of course there are heavy and crucial synthetic differences); their structure, their working, the way they integrate parts into their own wholeness, is identical in any living being. A culture, a people, is obviously a living being. Such a being responds instinctively for 99 percent, and there is a small degree which can be said to respond consciously - parliament, referendums, or very talented statesmen, etc. But in general, my issue with global government is that it would by definition be a beast.

Obviosuly, there is no neutrality in the world. Self-valuing precludes it. So any construct, however balanced its parts against each other may appear to be at one point, will be a monster. It must be. It would be an entity so large that it scopes the globe, and thus it would incorporate all human malice.

This is absolute; One can not organize humans without accumulating their malice. Hence, why states are always at war with some other state, in some form.

I don't put inter-state warfare down to malice, in most cases I think such war is the result of economic factors internal and inter-related to states combined with a political escalation of subtle psychological factors amongst leaders and between leaders and their people, such that "saving face" requires continuing the escalation rather than diffusing it. The end result of such political psychological escalation is open war, but it isn't malice that causes this to occur, rather the psychological effect of political realities that are still largely unconscious and depend on things like not appearing to be weak or back down; and again coupled with economic problems within and between states.

Those economic problems provide the ground on which those political psychological (pathological) factors such as needing to save face and not appear "weak" end up driving a gradual escalation of tensions until the point where the high level of tension sparks a military encounter, at which point the same pathological factors that led to gradual escalation now force escalation of military hostilities.

I don't give leaders or countries generally the kind of credit to suppose that something like war would be the direct result of something like malice. Leaders and nation-states generally are still far too unconscious for that.

Quote :
At no juncture could be logically expect any lessening of malice, of subjectivity, of self-interest, of 'wisdom' let's say, by the means of combining more people under less heads.

I tend to see it differently. I think group dynamics can contribute to reductions in personal pathological states such as irrational malice; note that in one of the Zizek videos I recently posted he talks about how for a jealous husband, even if his wife is in fact cheating on him, his jealousy is still pathological. This is how ideology works, it simply uses truths or falsehoods to feed itself but doesn't at all reduce in itself to true versus false states or situations.

Aggregating people into larger social groupings will achieve conflicting ends; it can and will reduce some pathological factors but also can and will increase others. It comes down to the KINDS OF social group forms that people are gathered into. The group form imposes its meaning and value standard upon those in the group as a kind of potentiating psychological model.

The view you espouse seems to preclude the possibility of individuals forming large groups in stable ways; but individuals already do that and have been doing it. We already have nation-states and international organizations and bodies, for me the next logical step is to continue universalizing these groupings, just as thought itself, subjectivity itself are always attempting to best universalize themselves. Of course even a true globalism isn't a universalization, but just an attempt in that direction. To me, global doesn't mean homogeneous or universal, it means a common minimum standard of interaction.


Quote :
The Social: all animals are social, they all live in organized groups, and all mammals have complex emotions. If you interact for some hours with a dolphin or a cat, or with a wolf, or with a horse, you will see that they have emoptions quite comparable to the sort of emotions 99 percent of humans have - the only difference is that the do no think (equally like humans, generally) and thus have none of ther deeply complex emotions that form an artists soul, which is a soul that, through art, is implanted in most humans, on top of their proper, animal emotions.

I think there is a risk of falsely anthropomorphizing animals. How can we really know if their inner experience is on par with our own, emotionally speaking? I think true emotions come from inner distance imposed on the self as well as a highly conceptual-based accumulated experiences of meaning. Since a dog for example has no idea what a tree or a squirrel or a human being actually is, much less could know what it means to be alive or the fact that itself will die someday, how could a dog or any other animal really imbue its experiences with meaning, with understanding? I think emotions are very much products of meaning, understanding, accumulated daemonic inner differences formed hierarchically over time in such ways as to act as Signs pointing to meanings in derivation, predictive consequences of significance. I just don't see animal other than humans able to do that. But I know from being around my dog that dogs at least do have strong feelings, like affection and fear and contentment and excitement, I just don't think that can be on par with human emotions or if it is on par then it's on par at the level of pure affective quality of feeling only and not because the animal really "understands" these feelings at all. I definitely want to keep developing theory here.

Quote :
Most mammals are monogamous. All nature has organized functionally, this is what self-valuing is - all behaviors are 'instinctive' - no matter of their are atomic or human or divine or plant - even computers behave in the same way, when they are well integrated in a workflow and network. Humans are computers environments; they self-value in terms of us. But they are entities.

What we know, Anglosaxons and affiliated culture, is that we like individual freedom, and are willing to play a big price for this. What Arabs want is clearly something somewhat reversed; they always go for group-identity at the cost of individual liberties. Fine - let them. If there are exceptions, theyll come to the west. But if the west invites all of thje non-exceptions, the west is going to have to fight for its life, its values, its instincts, its freedom - and change, expel or kill the newcomers. Since our values preclude killing them inside of our borders at least, and our governments force us to take them in, we can only change them, or accept that they change us. Hence, we have war to look froward to, and this is only to blame on the ones who thought it was wise to invite these people without setting some standards for them, so that they can adapt to the part of life they now have come to serve under, which is freedom.

This is what we, the west, should say, regardless of anything we do overseas; Freedom is our religion, and if your religion is okay with that, then ours is okay with you. If your religion denies freedom, you need to get the fuck in a boat and drown at sea.

Literally, all that exists, is standards.

If we sacrifice our standards for the comfort of others, we are nothing but death waiting to happen.


This goes to what I posted in Archives, we need to identify the means and meaning by which our own cultural values are instantiated as standard. Physically removing people who do not conform to our values already exists, we call it the criminal justice system and prison. The law exists to define a line within which differences of values are tolerated and outside of which they are not, and the law does include plenty of determinations as to a person's values beyond their actions, as it should. Muslims living in the west going to their Mosques and praying in public isn't a violation of our laws, and I don't think it needs to be. Enforcing integration at the point of a gun is sociopathic and fascistic in my view, and the mere fact that we feel a need to enforce it like that already indicates our own values and our faith in them has severely waned. The west is secular and tolerates a huge range of differing values-sets, and those we do not tolerate must be established in law as illegal.

Whatever it is that immigrants to the west do that is so offensive to us, those things must be clearly labeled illegal or we have no rational basis for pointing a gun at such people and demanding they leave. I agree that freedom is our "religion", but freedom is not absolute nor "God-given", and it's meaning does change over time. I also agree that western nations should set reasonable limits on the number of immigrants allowed in, and some western countries have clearly exceeded such a reasonable limit. But I don't think that justifies resorting to nationalistic xenophobic fascism. Again, the impulse to such a form of nationalism is pathological even if immigrants do indeed pose challenges to our societies.



___________
"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." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Thu Sep 22, 2016 1:02 pm
We need to clarify our intentions toward Islam-- the nationalists are taking advantage of a huge gray area here, and the left-liberals aren't stepping in to demand clarity but are using that same avoidance of specificity to advance their own agendas.

What will the new laws be that we write regarding 1) Islam, 2) Muslim immigrants, 3) the teaching of Islam to children. The last one is the most problematic because it is so pressingly important and also there exists no historical context or legal precedent that I know of for doing this. Is it true that in Muslim countries and culture there are really no books except for the Koran? I've heard there are some kids stories and kids books, maybe a few, otherwise is it actually the case there are no other books but the Koran? That is insane if true. We can use such examples to inform the new laws we will write. And we can use the immanent danger to children as another solid reason, but then we're stuck with the problem of differentiating between teaching Islam versus other religious beliefs. Do we really want to make it illegal to teach any religion to children? I don't think we could do that even if we wanted to.

Fascism is when the immanent perception of need is supposed to outweigh our more general lasting and deeper values, and to collapse contradictions to one side only, the side based on immediate fear and need to "act". I want to avoid subverting our thinking to such a need, but that doesn't mean I don't see how pressingly important these problems are for Europe.



___________
"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." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Thu Sep 22, 2016 2:46 pm
Capable wrote:

I don't put inter-state warfare down to malice,

Nor do I - I put it down to bureaucratic power, which is basically a power not backed by ontos.

I dont see how globalism would work without massive increase in bureaucracy, rather than massive decrease, which is a first prerequisite to sanity.

Did you read the Law of Parkinson link? Its an Englishman work that anecdotally, but credibly proves how bureaucracy can not avoid becoming bloated. But we only need to look with our own eyes.

Open war on the other hand is just the explication of valuing. It is much preferable, because it is always temporary, as well as actually existent.


Quote :
Quote :
At no juncture could be logically expect any lessening of malice, of subjectivity, of self-interest, of 'wisdom' let's say, by the means of combining more people under less heads.

I tend to see it differently. I think group dynamics can contribute to reductions in personal pathological states such as irrational malice; note that in one of the Zizek videos I recently posted he talks about how for a jealous husband, even if his wife is in fact cheating on him, his jealousy is still pathological. This is how ideology works, it simply uses truths or falsehoods to feed itself but doesn't at all reduce in itself to true versus false states or situations.

Aggregating people into larger social groupings will achieve conflicting ends; it can and will reduce some pathological factors but also can and will increase others. It comes down to the KINDS OF social group forms that people are gathered into. The group form imposes its meaning and value standard upon those in the group as a kind of potentiating psychological model.

The view you espouse seems to preclude the possibility of individuals forming large groups in stable ways; but individuals already do that and have been doing it. We already have nation-states and international organizations and bodies, for me the next logical step is to continue universalizing these groupings, just as thought itself, subjectivity itself are always attempting to best universalize themselves. Of course even a true globalism isn't a universalization, but just an attempt in that direction. To me, global doesn't mean homogeneous or universal, it means a common minimum standard of interaction.

I said that humans can only organize in groups, as equals, as individuals. This is the exact opposite of having overhead decision making processes.

Groups are, as you know, formed around values. They are similar valuings grouping together to become stronger.
Values are by definition differentiated though - they are very much product of the environment. And this is beautiful.

I find diversity beautiful, good, righteous, true.

Quote :
Quote :
The Social: all animals are social, they all live in organized groups, and all mammals have complex emotions. If you interact for some hours with a dolphin or a cat, or with a wolf, or with a horse, you will see that they have emoptions quite comparable to the sort of emotions 99 percent of humans have - the only difference is that the do no think (equally like humans, generally) and thus have none of ther deeply complex emotions that form an artists soul, which is a soul that, through art, is implanted in most humans, on top of their proper, animal emotions.

I think there is a risk of falsely anthropomorphizing animals. How can we really know if their inner experience is on par with our own, emotionally speaking?

How can we know this of humans?
I kmow for a fact that I emotionally interact with animals ona sophisticated basis, and that with most humans, this is impossible.

I know no beings inner world except my own - I find the belief that one can know another humans motivations and inner workd to be pure superstition - humans differ from each other more than they do from animals.

All creatures feel pain, all warm blooded creatures emote. Birds have very complex cognitive processes in time, as proven by their ultra sophisticated behavior. Look at a crow solving a puzzle.

Only I experienced the creation of VO, but a raven was sitting in the windowsill, keenly observing me. Between that bird and me was friendship.

I dont care for people who disbelief in my friendships - philosophy can take so many forms that maybe two or three humans happen upon. That's what I share with Pezer - the love of the wild. It totally trumps any desire to control my fellow species. ALl I wish to do is to allow people to experience the wild, which is all that is needed to end fascistic impulse, which is all that is really needed in general. But to this modest end, everything that the highest men can summon is required. Because what we are attaining, slowly, philosophers and artists and all vital humans, is the end of slave-instinct.

It is the slave instinct thsat requires government, rather than friendship.

Friendship will be the rule of my kingdom. It is the rule of my kingdom. Step by sterp I expand my kingdom, utterly uncompromising, always placing the individuals self-valuing above universal ideas, always thereby selecting individuals that can endure other individuals.

The only thing that ever goes wrong in a society is having too many dependent people.

Student debt is a means of creating dependency, of destroying human resilience to humanity.

Ah yes - humanity, the phenomenon that means only resilience to itself.
In its very highest form, the principle of government comes down to the same. It can thus never be imposed top-down without contradicting its only justification.

A contradiction well have to live with, but the influence of which I will be minimizing with every post or article or book that I write.

Self-valuing logic virtually precludes bureaucracy; there is only one way in which it can work, which is as an extremely proud, thus self-correcting function of a very fluid entity. Empires in their prime have functioned as such, but because these empires were built on plunder, that phase was always short.

We've never had a vital bureaucracy based on production. I think that is because bureaucracy is essentially derivative. It is simply the element of laziness. It works fine with pride as long as there are immense violent gains, but when the lands are stripped bare, bucreaucracy consumes first its subjects, and then its lower ranks, then its mid ranks, and then turns to military fascism, and then kills itself in a conflict between various honorless factions. It is the road to absolute annihilation, as we're seeing in the middle east, which is a function of the bureaucratic "Peace Process"....

har har.
This is why we must be romantic not to turn cynic. Or why only romantic philosophers survive.

Quote :
I think true emotions come from inner distance imposed on the self as well as a highly conceptual-based accumulated experiences of meaning. Since a dog for example has no idea what a tree or a squirrel or a human being actually is, much less could know what it means to be alive or the fact that itself will die someday, how could a dog or any other animal really imbue its experiences with meaning, with understanding? I think emotions are very much products of meaning, understanding, accumulated daemonic inner differences formed hierarchically over time in such ways as to act as Signs pointing to meanings in derivation, predictive consequences of significance. I just don't see animal other than humans able to do that. But I know from being around my dog that dogs at least do have strong feelings, like affection and fear and contentment and excitement, I just don't think that can be on par with human emotions or if it is on par then it's on par at the level of pure affective quality of feeling only and not because the animal really "understands" these feelings at all. I definitely want to keep developing theory here.

All mammals understand death. All mammals have complex emotions. I content that they are usually far more complex than human emotions, and that these mammals are far more conscious of what it means to exist than any human who spends more than 4 hours watching tv.

Ive seen my cats, two brothers, grow up and die, Ive seen them as they saw the death of one of them approaching, I saw them preparing the dying together, I saw the good-byes, I saw the mourning, I saw the psychological transformation, the depth increasing behind the eyes, the thoughtfulness of his gestures toward my sister, who was also sad..

Elephants treat death in a way that proves they are far more aware of what it is than we are. No walking self-valuing is unaware of itself, awareness is nothing besides self-valuing in a changing environment. Rather, it is the speaking self-valuings that have partially grown unaware, static; precisely because they began misunderstanding awareness as a static state, as 'contemplation' or 'reflection' rather than the most intense acting, which energy expenditure wise, it is.

You could tell me all of this is projection - but I assume you know me, and human nature, to well for this. Either all of it is projection, or we learn to trust our experiences as the only reality we have to work with. And when that happens, we begin to discern what we project and what is truly there.

That is how self-valuing came about as an idea.
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: 6578
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:23 pm

Ill respond to the other segment on another post.

The above is summarized more or less in this;

The self-valuing principle is the only universal. All phenomena that are brought into being by this principle permutating itself so as to create being in time, are particulars.

Values are particular, so are self-valuings; they are synthetic functions of each other. Values and self-valuings together amount to self-valuing in terms of acting, and will to power in terms of being.

The will to organize the global value-grid in homogenous terms is perhaps the strongest will there exists, at least the most tyrannical one - but it is a will that if it will not bend, and thus must ultimately break; as all that does not bend does break. Especially light.

Then again, broken light is hardly wasted light.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Thu Sep 22, 2016 3:45 pm
Capable wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:


If we sacrifice our standards for the comfort of others, we are nothing but death waiting to happen.


This goes to what I posted in Archives, we need to identify the means and meaning by which our own cultural values are instantiated as standard. Physically removing people who do not conform to our values already exists, we call it the criminal justice system and prison. The law exists to define a line within which differences of values are tolerated and outside of which they are not, and the law does include plenty of determinations as to a person's values beyond their actions, as it should. Muslims living in the west going to their Mosques and praying in public isn't a violation of our laws, and I don't think it needs to be. Enforcing integration at the point of a gun is sociopathic and fascistic in my view, and the mere fact that we feel a need to enforce it like that already indicates our own values and our faith in them has severely waned. The west is secular and tolerates a huge range of differing values-sets, and those we do not tolerate must be established in law as illegal.

Whatever it is that immigrants to the west do that is so offensive to us, those things must be clearly labeled illegal or we have no rational basis for pointing a gun at such people and demanding they leave. I agree that freedom is our "religion", but freedom is not absolute nor "God-given", and it's meaning does change over time. I also agree that western nations should set reasonable limits on the number of immigrants allowed in, and some western countries have clearly exceeded such a reasonable limit. But I don't think that justifies resorting to nationalistic xenophobic fascism. Again, the impulse to such a form of nationalism is pathological even if immigrants do indeed pose challenges to our societies.

I think we need to clearly separate three forces, rather than two; there isnt just the immigrants and 'the west' - but there are immigrants, peoples, and governments.

For the past 60 years, governments in the west have excluded their peoples from decision making, while at the same time importing huge amounts of peoples with radically opposed values. As people defended themselves against female circumcision, condemnation of science, beating women to death in their own house, etc etc, the governments started labeling this as racist and xenophobic.

So we have three forces:
islam
international fascism
individuals.

Among all muslim peoples are individuals. By inviting people over without stripping them of their most horrible customs, we both destroy the chances of freedom loving Arabs and such, and we destroy our own values.

On the other hand, if Obama hadn't been such a fool of monstrous proportions, millions of coming immigrants would still have homes where they were born - so it is already too late - because France was such a big part in this disaster, Europe cant avoid absorbing these people in any sensible way - its all the result of meddling in the middle east - still none of that excuses in the least giving away a hairs breath of our freedom... that is precisely the wrong approach to take.

After all, we did not invade Lybia, or draw red lines in Syria. We did nothing to cause these people to move to our cities - it is rather that we are the only ones who can salvage the situation, precisely by not conceding to either the muslim priests or our own unelected institutions.

The EU and the US government arent anymore related to any standards of proper occidental quality. This is why they are falling apart. This is why Trump will win; he represents basic human values of the not fully civilized individual, of the raw culture-building forces.

"Culture and civilization are opposites." - Weary Locomotive
There is much sense in this. Civilization could be seen as the circumference of culture. When it gets too heavy, i.e. too sensitive to weakness, it crushes its heart, the cultivating self-valuing that produced it as a mere facilitator.

When a civilization begins to speak out universals, it is about to splinter. It has lost its particular focus, its 'spin', its perspective - it will no longer be able to cohere with other particulars.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Thu Sep 22, 2016 4:01 pm
Capable wrote:
We need to clarify our intentions toward Islam-- the nationalists are taking advantage of a huge gray area here, and the left-liberals aren't stepping in to demand clarity but are using that same avoidance of specificity to advance their own agendas.

What will the new laws be that we write regarding 1) Islam, 2) Muslim immigrants, 3) the teaching of Islam to children. The last one is the most problematic because it is so pressingly important and also there exists no historical context or legal precedent that I know of for doing this. Is it true that in Muslim countries and culture there are really no books except for the Koran? I've heard there are some kids stories and kids books, maybe a few, otherwise is it actually the case there are no other books but the Koran? That is insane if true. We can use such examples to inform the new laws we will write. And we can use the immanent danger to children as another solid reason, but then we're stuck with the problem of differentiating between teaching Islam versus other religious beliefs. Do we really want to make it illegal to teach any religion to children? I don't think we could do that even if we wanted to.

Consider that when Christianity held sway, there weren't any allowed books except the bible. A religion can not possibly maintain itself if books are freely published. Whatever is published is filtered and edited to fit precisely into the ruling code. So authorship isnt a cultivated quality. Literature isnt spontaneous, it's the result of centuries of deference to the free mind.

Im sure you are familiar with Salman Rushdie. He was just one guy who, despite mortal danger, decided to puyblish a book. He isnt safe anywhere on this planet.

Do you want to tolerate that? I dont. I even think it warrants nuclear holocaust and elimination of human life to prevent such codes from ruling.

All this is self-valuing. Placing real particulars higher than hypothetical universals. I act only out of love, and love only what I truly love. I dont pretend to love what tries to kill me. I happily send to its grave all that wants to kill what I love. I believe that the west is infinitely superior, and has the duty to eradicate childrape. No universals are in play here excpet self-valuing itself; universal monotheism simply is a negation of it. Only Judaism is valid as monotyheism, precisely because it is tribal, particular. It is their god. So they fucking leave us the fuck alone.

Quote :
Fascism is when the immanent perception of need is supposed to outweigh our more general lasting and deeper values, and to collapse contradictions to one side only, the side based on immediate fear and need to "act". I want to avoid subverting our thinking to such a need, but that doesn't mean I don't see how pressingly important these problems are for Europe.

We can only rely on one thing, which is our own values. Everything else is about to collapse.

This is what it means to be philosopher in a cultural cataclysm. The last man standing.

Like Tolkien, in the trenches of World War one, consolidated the values of his friends, who were dying around him, in a manuscript that eventually became the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings, much in that way we must collect and assemble the highest values of our culture, and produce a grand narrative-architecture, within which sciences and culture can continue to thrive in freedom.

We are going back to a time of castles and wilderness. Philosophy is the only discipline that is happy in both. Our time is actually coming; but it is coming to only our most bold and proud aspect - in a word, Jupiter.

No man will ever rule the Earth. No human government ever will. The hearts of humans will always rule, and this is why 'the gods' are in charge.

Hence, Government of Muses. A muse is an intermediary between man and god. A muse makes sure that both exist.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Thu Sep 22, 2016 4:21 pm
If you invite something as hideous and coercive as Islam into the midst of your people, you must also allow all other types of bigotry and bias to run rampant, simply to protect life from this great bias against life itself.

It is all too easily forgotten that these gods of theirs all claim that man and this world are bad. This alone is enough to banish it from this world. But this does not mean banishing individuals. It means destroying gigantic power structures that have been rising for over a thousand years. It means terminating narratives that have run for millennia. It means, to so many, the end of times.


What one should tell an individual muslim immigrant here is: you are extremely welcome, to learn to be free here - if you speak one word of your sinister god to my children, ill wring you through the meatgrinder. That is how you show someone who doesn't know what freedom is the path to freedom; by clarifying its worth to you - given that you would kill and die for it. Only one who holds it as dearly as that can make it understood, felt.

It must replace the idea of god, or at least force the idea of god to coincide with it. It is a pathos, a courage, a constitution.


As I formulated in Pezers ILP thread, for a full fledged being, freedom means to be free to ones values... and nothing besides!



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Thu Sep 22, 2016 6:09 pm
Parodites wrote:
Indeed as Fixed said, Trump's election will not bring the change that is required, but will open the political process to that change, which is necessary. We have an opportunity in the US to do this in a very civilized manner, through an election- as opposed to armed rebellion.

I do not see the possibility of a world-culture being brought into existence or have a desire that a species wide system of values be instituted either organically or by some kind of directed intention. Besides, it is impossible to create the kind of globalist institutions that could combat things like climate change without diminishing the power of the masses, the public, the individuals. Globalism is by its very nature a concentration of political force in the hands of the few. Death is preferable. Power doesn't come out of a void somewhere. In order for these elites to have more power, I have to give them some of mine; we have to give some more of our power, our rights, our individuality, our emancipatory potential, some more of our father's and forefather's blood, to them. Not only am I not interested in empowering these soul-less agencies on the flimsy misplaced hope that they'll combat the threat of a warming planet on our behalf as opposed to just stuff their fat fucking pockets, I want them to be completely disbanded and virtually all political power returned to where it belongs, the hands of the people.

Beautifully said. I have shared this elsewhere, among some other writing that you permitted. I do not worry that it will come to total chaos - civil life in most western nations of great international trade-networks is regulated in part by the significant layer of crime between law on the one hand and order on the other. Crime families that run local police stations are a veil that separates global elites from power on the ground, at least in democratic nations where the semblance of ground up influence is required to maintain civil society.

Capable takes the more difficult (bordering on impossible) approach - and this is crucial too as elites will continue to press for power, so the closer philosophy gets to relevance here, the more these elites can be curtailed to jobs that might actually be necessary, such as the containment of WMD. That is actually the only thing I can think of that justifies globalism in some way - it is curious that this view dawned on me reading a Jewish Kabbalah site that explained nuclear technology in these terms.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Thu Sep 22, 2016 6:31 pm
All functions of government are meant to ward off some tyranny. Of war of hunger, of poverty and ignorance... or of political tyranny in the direct sense, either autocratic or ochlocratic - of harsh capital distribution, of all kinds of persistent discomforts and threats. But in no other way was it ever necessitated other than as as a measure against something. All the aspects of these things, peace, prosperity, culture, fairness, etc etc, these are all products of local human ingenuity and soul on the ground.

Mostly, government came to be as violent repression and extortion, simply out of the haphazard way in which nature distributes qualities and virtues. Mostly, that is what it remains. All the good that it claims is the work and initiative of the people it extorts. Governments are the parasites of cultures. They exist because the parasitical possibility is an implication of the self-valuing nature, but we need to get rid of the silly belief that they preside over them. We elect a scumbag to represent our more scummy instincts in an arena where no creator can breathe. Eventually it'll die out.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Thu Sep 22, 2016 7:10 pm
A government is essentially a crime organization that is so big that it can force people to call it "representation". This is exactly how Mafia works ('protection') - but just bigger, and representing more slavish folk.

Italy will never be enslaved, precisely because their crime families represent roots to a more vital time, of more powerful governmental codes and values. Ive come to regard crime as preferable to systemic moral coercion, which is why I support Trump.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Fri Sep 23, 2016 9:49 am
For the same reason that government can never get rid of all crime, crime can never get rid of all government. Government and crime share bureaucracy in common, the mafia families have plenty of their own bureaucracy too. Petty chaotic crime is unable to ontologically structure itself into something socially significant and lasting; this is the problem that both government and the mafia have solved.

It is a problem of diminishing returns from either angle: if you want to get rid of crime or government corruption it is easy to start and deal with the biggest move obvious instances, but as you get closer to perfect elimination the task approaches impossibility. Malice, as you said, is part of human nature and bureaucracy is a perfect system for regulating (not eliminating) malice.

I see bureaucracy as a necessary part of human life. If not for it we would not have such things as computers or the internet, for an easy example. We would be restricted to mere localism and barter system type quasi-anarchic modes of life, which to me is fucking pointless. So the trick is to see how bureaucratic forms can evolve over time; this is what capitalism represents, I think. And my position toward globalism is entirely motivated by the fact that I see globalism as inevitable, so my personal feelings either way are entirely irrelevant. I might hate or love the idea of globalism, but globalism is going to be the case either way. Globalism is basically just the logic of the nation-state with no exteriority (with the exteriority posited internally rather than externally). Yes this raises definite problems and risks, I agree. So I want to look at how to mitigate those risks and solve those problems.

In my view time (history) only moves in one direction -- forward -- and never backward. Like a mind, history is always looking back and recollecting things, reanimating them in the present moment but this is always done at the express logic and behest of the present moment posited forward toward its predictable future/s. The past only lives in the present because the present is the condition of possibility of that past-recollecting; and the ways in which the present is able to posit-predict its possible futures is going to determine the ways in which the present recollects elements from its past. If we look at the last 2500 years we see a clear progression of history. I have not studied anthropology and pre-ancient Greek history enough but I assume that if we were to extent that to say the last 10,000 years the same would hold true... but even if it didn't, modern history of the last 2500 years is sufficient to demonstrate the case that we are now on a more or less linear track, and globalism represents the limit of that linearity in so far as positing itself under the old models of interior/exterior mediation of forms. Society itself needs to be rethought once a truly global situation presents itself. And with the re-thinking of society comes the re-thinking of the subject and its psychology as well -- Marx for example understood the globalizing nature of capitalism, and Marx thought that this global capitalism would reach its limit and then collapse into world communism. The only justification of capitalism is that it organizes production so efficiently that it is able to produce all the objects, machines, technologies, capital etc. that will later be distributed throughout the world in a communist State; his idea of communism was a post-global capitalism situation and not really the kind of nation-state communisms that we saw in the last century and which mostly all failed. (Not saying that I agree with his idealization of the world communist state, of course, I think he was utopian just like Nietzsche was, namely precisely where they were positing their higher values in imagined future forms of a theoretically pure or total absolution.) Capitalism will always eat such communisms, but only until capitalism reaches its final limit and collapses; that is Marx's idea anyway. But Zizek uses Hegel to point out that it is impossible to envision this collapse and reformation in advance, that any attempt to achieve a revolution is doomed to failure yet it is precisely that failure and the how and why of it that is the condition of possibility for the later realization of the ideal of the revolution as such, albeit in some other form (modern capitalism is the realization of the revolutionary spirit of the proletariat, we have won out freedom "from" the old labor systems but this freedom is only a freedom "for" converting ourselves into subjectivity-as-labor as such, the self as its own commodity, for example.)



___________
"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." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson


Last edited by Capable on Fri Sep 23, 2016 10:43 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Fri Sep 23, 2016 10:40 am
Another interesting point here about nature and its relation to human being: "Imagine all of nature waiting for the invention of (human) language so that it can finally be expressed how bad it is to be a vegetable or a fish." Lol. This point is a Heideggerian one regarding dwelling: rocks have no world, animals have a desire for a world that is not present to them, and only in human being is there the possibility for truly Dwelling (for having a world). To employ Zizek again, the idea is that we should not be asking what is human language that it cannot step outside of itself to perceive nature or animal "in themselves" as if we could never escape the ontological horizon of our own meaning therefore such a stepping outside is impossible, therefore we can never know nature or animal "really"... No, the idea is that we should ask "what is human language to nature", what is the invention of language from the perspective of the non-linguistic natural world and how does the arrival of language allow that natural world a new means with which to articulate its truer reality or essence?

The idea of course now is that self-valuing can mediate this distinction; because nature is a self-valuing and because an animal is a self-valuing and because also a human being is a self-valuing it is now possible, armed with a theory of self-valuing as such, that the gap can be bridged on account of the true ontic similarity between all beings of all kinds in that all beings are always already self-valuings and therefore in some way both obscure and immediate are able to "know" each other. Perhaps a crow knows that a human is a self-valuing, for example. But this glosses over the idea that there must be radically different kinds of self-valuings and that even if one kind can always approach another at the basic level of form (being a self-valuing) it is still possible that no actual content could be communicated or transferred there; but I believe that self-valuings admit of degrees and progressive development not only formally as Heidegger said that man is that being for which its own being is an issue, but more significantly because man is that being for which its own being has become able to be an issue for it ---why "able to be", what does it mean that this holds for a human and not for a crow or a fish or a vegetable? I think that the consciousness is a substance and that self-valuing prescribes the basic form but not the actual contents within that form. And that it is the actual contents that, in sum and as accumulated hierarchically over time into metaphorical, metonymic logical structures within being, are really what defines what a being is or what consciousness truly means.

So I'm less concerned with the pure form of "all being is a self-valuing" and more concerned with what are the actual contents and experiences that have so far been accumulated to a given self-valuing and what does this say as to the potentials and powers open to that given self-valuing? I think it is on the basis of shared contents that truly significant (and ontic or abstract-transcendental) relating between beings is possible, and not simply on the basis of a shared form (of being a self-valuing). It is as if the shared form is just a condition of possibility for relations of shared contents to appear. In this sense I think we can say that being or consciousness is literally its contents and nothing besides. And so that raises the question: what are the contents of the consciousness of a crow, or a dog, or a fish, or a vegetable?



___________
"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." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Fri Sep 23, 2016 11:32 am
To the last post first; I would say the content of a crows self-valuing is far closer to mine than the content of a typical Hillary Clinton voter. I mean that - as indeed of course humans seem more alike in their capacities, also for holding things in the mind, but crows can actually solve puzzles that people with low IQs can not. Animals also have extensive memories, and gorillas can learn to paint figuratively. That last fact is proof of representational and abstract consciousness. But so is the crow solving the puzzle.



I am leaning to the idea that them brain is really more of a filter than a construct of drives.

Likely it will simply be impossible for us to come to terms on this view on animals - I expect Parodites will agree with you... but I do not see the regular human as capable of existing in ways remotely similar to how I exist, am conscious of myself - this is precisely why I turn to specific animals -- cats, wolves, squirrels and crows most notably now - they inhabit a world of values and instincts that resonate with me, that vitalize me, that clarify things to me.

Here and there, a human with a historical mind exists. Absent that historical mind, human consciousness is not, to my understanding, much more complex or involved than animal behavior, except in that it forms more complex knots - but these arent functional.

So far Id say human complexity vs animals has mainly resulted in a diminished self-awareness, and a strange construct of 'awareness as such', a kind of collective conscious that does not really partain to much except its own permutations and lust for itself... valuing humans in its terms.

truly I do not consider the human species as homogenous at all, least of all in terms of awareness and historicity. My experiences with creatures tell me that awareness isnt sufficiently hierarchized in terms of species, but also needs to differentiate specimens inter-species.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Fri Sep 23, 2016 12:25 pm
I agree that is pretty cool of the crow to do that. I've seen gorillas smoking cigarettes, chimps using sticks to get at insects inside logs, and there was an experiment that supposedly demonstrated dogs can use logical deduction (the dog is walking down a hall following the scent of food, when it is confronted with two passageways as the hall splits in two directions. The experimenters have set it up so that the smell of the food stops before the split, and no smell of food continues down either passageway. The dog would sniff the first passageway and, not finding the scent, immediately dart down the second passageway before even testing for the smell there... the obvious idea that the dog deduced "if not this one, then that one" which is a purely rational deduction).

I certainly agree that animals can do these sort of things. But I don't really think this speaks to my larger point. A crow doesn't know what the Earth is or even that there is an Earth, much less other planets, gravity, it cannot solve arithmetic equations, it cannot formulate in philosophical or conceptual terms something like justice, love, hope, truth, art, beauty, or freedom; such ideas are simply beyond that range of non-human animals as I see it. But certainly animals possess the kind of instinctual organic basis in which these conceptual ideas are themselves originally rooted, namely pleasure and pain differentiations and trying to maximize pleasure while minimizing pain, and making self-valuing distinctions of which other animal or situation or food is more valuable than another, etc. Animals can definitely do those things. But I think humans do those same things as well as build atop them. And this is the reason why some humans aren't even as "pure" in their self-valuing as the animals: humans are capable of making mistakes, of not acting according to an immediate values-need for example, precisely because humans have surpassed that level. The capacity to make a mistake is an active, positive capacity whereas the capacity to solve a puzzle is just rote learning. Undoubtedly that crow had to go through extensive training on how to do those things it did, putting each piece of the puzzle together and then in what we saw it performed this all over again but in a slightly different order or arrangement of the steps.... yes indeed that is impressive, but I don't think the crow is able to make a mistake in the way a human can make a mistake. Making mistakes is divine, it isn't a mark against humanity that we are often stupid, ignorant, pathological, because the fact we can do these "deplorable" things is simply the fact that we have developed something more than rote immediacy of animal consciousness and are now in the middle stages of trying to unpack and learn about this "something more", we haven't perfected it yet but we are in the process of doing so.

It is as if, you watch an ape being taught by its parent how to use a stick on the anthill to get the ants, well the ape at first just smacks the stick around randomly and doesnt perform the finesse needed to get the ants, and so you declare that the ape is somehow less evolved or lower in consciousness than other animals that simply use their long tongues to get out the ants much more effectively. But the young ape is learning something higher, and just because it isn't quite there yet doesn't mean it isn't already entirely beyond those other animals that use their naturally specified tongues or whatever to get to the food. The difference is categorical.

Precisely humanity's deplorable, pathological, unrefined, ignorant qualities proves that humanity is already beyond the level of the rest of the animal kingdom. Not very many animals will act with cruelty toward another for no reason other than to be cruel, humans will do that and so will some other primates, but that is all the examples I've heard of. Likewise other animals do not go to war for ideas or because of the joy of war, to self-actualize themselves, they will fight for concrete reasons such as territory or access to resources. Mobilized war and human psychopathology are deplorable not because humans are less than animals, but because humans are still in the much larger process of learning about precisely how humans are always already much beyond the animal level. At least this is how I see it.

I am not criticizing your connection to animals at all, I have this connection too. I am just not using such a connection as a means to demean humanity simply because humanity must, in addition to being "immersed in the immediacy of pure natural instinctive awareness" or whatever kind of idealized state of nature we might imagine they exist in, actual work and suffer and error in the process of discovering who and what it really means to be a human, to be oneself. The error in man is beautiful, as Holderlin's "where danger is there grows the saving power", humans are in a state of danger for which there is no parallel in the animal natural kingdom anywhere. A crow does not have an existential crisis, is what I mean.



___________
"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." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Fri Sep 23, 2016 1:59 pm
I also reject the opposite polarity as yours, the one that says all of nature is brutal pain and suffering and horror, and that only the human world overcomes this and introduces any semblance of meaning or value into existence. I think these two views represent polarities and the truth is somewhere in the middle. The "state of nature" is not something that I idealize, simply because I imagine having to live in the wild scrounging for food all the time, being cold and dirty and in fear of predators, probably usually hungry; even if I were incapable of aspiring to any kind of human values or quality of life, that still sounds miserable. But neither do I think that nature is one massive horror show of suffering insanity and constant death and meaninglessness, a "rabid rat trapped in a cage forever devouring itself" as I remember Inmendham called it in one of his videos. That isn't correct either; we should try to develop a philosophy of nature, a true theory here. In such a theory I would tend to come down more on your side Fixed than on the other side.

I see humans are entirely natural, except that we "broke the wheel of evolution" as I think Parodites said once, and because we are no longer subject to natural selection (since just about any human and regardless of the state of his genes can procreate). But our selection mechanisms are different ones now, we can align them to truths and to fact as such, at least as far as we are able to tell thus-far (yeah we make plenty of mistakes here, but I think over history we are getting better, closer to truths).

Here is an easy example of what I mean: imagine someone like Einstein or Shakespeare or Nietzsche, highly intelligent and refined emotional and creatively, with tons to contribute so much so that the future of humanity can be altered just by this individual person's work... except this person lives in a state of nature type anarchy society, and one day they are assaulted by a gang and killed for their cash... the false paradigm of anarchy would say because the person could not defend themselves physically they "deserved" to die, because as we know this paradigm believes that might makes right. But that isn't correct at all. The value of Nietzsche or Einstein or Shakespeare or any number of great genius people is infinitely more than their capacity to physically defend themselves from others, and the standard of physical defense is infinitely lower than the standards by which the genius individual operates and can contribute to. Imagine a world like this, a humanity where "might makes right" it somehow or another to some degree instantiates as moral truth; that would be a fucking disaster, hardly anything good could arise out of such a world. Certainly humanity would evolve at a snails pace under such conditions, and indeed the slow curve of progress that was early humanity until the last couple thousand years represents this fact: culture and knowledge, higher values, were unable to be valued directly in the ancient past because indeed might made right in that past, humans were still very close to the state of nature and dominated each other physically or through surrogates of physical violence (fear, psychological tricks (religion), etc.). Now finally we have started to climb up the curve of progress and escape that state of nature.

The state of nature is just fine for animal life because animal life is unable to aspire to higher values; an animal pursues pleasure and avoids pain, and would rest in a state of comfort, but otherwise isn't able to value a higher quality of life, or values as such. Animals do not care for knowledge, for truth, they cannot really build anything like culture at all. This is also why I still disagree with Parodites' view that human society is a reflection of nature, because while it is true that part of human society is indeed this reflection, there is much more about human society that is far beyond that level. The state of nature for animal life, the natural societies of animals entirely lack what we might call culture or higher values, overall knowledge or progression toward truth, precisely because they are locked in the survival of the fittest game of might makes right, so that higher values are unable to appear (and even if they did appear, they would vanish just as quickly). Humans struggled for probably 50,000 years or more in that kind of state to gradually, gradually overcome it by the tiniest of increments until finally we founded culture, language, and were able to somewhat escape the state of nature into something ontologically higher on the continuum of being.

I agree with the respect and love for animals, I consider my dog to be my true companion and indeed we understand each other very well. But I think were I differ from you is that I still hold humanity in highest regard, and I consider whatever is best about animals is precisely what defines human being already, even or perhaps especially where human being is capable of erring in terms of it. We should show more respect to animal life because what is best about human being and ourselves, this is also shared, at the foundations, with the animals. And you are right in the sense that we can never really know the inner world of the animal, the crow might have a fully developed subjectivity, personality, forms of knowledge, a kind of understanding of values like justice etc., I cannot say for sure that it doesn't. And regardless if it does or not, its form of life should still be respected, and not only because we too share in that form of life of the animals, but because our human form of life is not necessarily the highest or best one; we preference our own form of life because it is ours, in proper self-valuing fashion. The 'objective' measures that we use to defend that anthropocentric valuation notwithstanding.



___________
"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." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sun Sep 25, 2016 9:18 am
About Trump's Muslim ban- he revised it a long time ago to be a ban from specific regions in the world, not a religious ban- regions of the world with a known history of sponsoring terrorism. Regions of the world where ripping a girl's clitoris off is common- a crime that goes basically unpunished by European and British authorities who don't want to be racist and prosecute Muslims.


And one quick thing on globalism:

"You can't solve this problem, so you, the people, have to surrender your power to us, to our political elites and social institutions, we will counter these problems on your behalf..." that is the kind of thinking behind the worst catastrophes of the last century, rather it was communism addressing poverty or now globalism addressing climate change. In a text on Zizek, I find the following, directly admitting this elevation of the political elite to illusory heroes to save the masses from themselves:

Speaking against democratic values: "There is a name for the politics that glorifies risk, decision, and will; that yearns for the hero, the master, and the leader- that prefers death and the infinite to democracy and the pragmatic; that finds the only true freedom in the terror of violence. Its name is not communism, but fascism. In his most recent work, Zizek has unarguably revealed himself as a kind of fascist. He admits as much in Violence, where he mentions "the re-emerging left-Fascist whispering at the borders of academia, where I guess I belong."


This is fucking disgusting, to be blunt. That a person like Zizek not only admits the thought-policing fascist scheme which the Left basically represents now, which would have me thrown out of academia for what I've said in this thread, which would bring back book burning if it could, along with this heroic elevation of political classes who ask us to give all of our power to them- so that they can betray us, and even seems proud of it... I have very little respect for the guy, and zero respect for his politics.

This country, the US, was founded on exactly the opposite principles: it was founded on the de-centralization and the separation of government powers. It was founded on: no heroes, no masters. And this country became in 200 years the most powerful force on earth because of it, only so that I now have to endure people preaching the virtues of taking a completely opposite path, people saying "fuck localism," or to translate it, fuck having a functioning community, fuck having a politically empowered public, etc. Give all your power away to them, these political classes. That, in order to combat climate change or poverty, we must surrender our power to a centralized government, to larger and more powerful institutions, is a religious idea. You also mention that somehow without these piece of shit administrators that parasitize us and betray us we wouldn't have computers and the like. How? Centralized government and Statism are the enemies of enlightenment, philosophy, and civilization. The state has held civilization back, not pushed it forward.


I do not perceive the leveling to have been completed yet, as Fixed does. You want my vision of the future of society, the completion to this leveling, at the coming dawn of the new, post-globalist era of western civilization? Europe continues its globalist policies, imports another billion Muslims, gets rid of borders and the idea of nation states, centralizes the power of its people in larger social institutions, and experiences economic meltdowns and civil unrest, to eventually become a third world, decimated kingdom of ghosts and broken dreams. The US does what Washington wrote of and told us to do centuries ago- it uses its unique position, separated from the rest of the world by an ocean, with an entire continent to itself, to isolate itself completely, becoming perfectly independent from the rest of the nations, then inherits the world after Europe collapses over a new pact with Russia taken over the corpse of Europe, clenching humanity between a new East-West alliance. Contra Zizek, you can see the collapse in advance, I do see it in advance. This is the inevitable future, not globalism: because globalism doesn't work. Europe will never be a united states of nations because of its population density, because of its economic position, because of the fact that racial and cultural differences in humanity are real and social integration will never take place at the level required to push these globalist policies through to their conclusion. Europe will fall in the coming wars, the US will not only survive, but find the courage to conclude its true destiny, inheriting the Western mind and its legacy for a new continent. The left-right, capitalist-communist idealogical paradigm will be left behind, (I mentioned how capitalism won the battle for the soul of modernity in my first post in this thread) with a new post-ideology paradigm emerging between America and Russia, between our anti-globalist anti-statist system and the Eastern nationalism with its return to tradition, utilizing the familiar forms of the Church and christian symbolism to reconstruct a new national identity. The Russian constitution explicitly denies the existence of ideology, our constitution explicitly denies the existence of centralization. In this new paradigm, it is impossible to determine where the left and right are- this election cycle is just an intimation of this new karma. The new political axis will form between the political emancipatory potential of communities and the metapolitical emancipatory potential of traditions, not between left and right idealogy, not between the economic division capitalism and socialism. The axis and division I conceived between the State and Culture, will be brought to exist, as the alternative to globalism. The next aeon will begin, a new era for western civilization. It would be wise to mobilize our philosophies and the general philosophy of self-valuing toward filling the space of this new political axis that is forming, to become the logic whereby the new determination is made as to where one falls in it, as opposed to where one falls in the dying left-right axis. That is what I am concerned with doing anyway.

The light of Being has, as in Heidegger, been snuffed out by the accumulated forms of Being on the part of Western intelligence, (with postmodernity offering a glimpse into the abyssal end of history, the emptiness of neon lights and malls and Iphones) by the traditions and cultural forms which Liberalism has busied itself with rejecting, so that the final oblivion of Being has been reached, and nihilism touched upon all things; but, on the other side, the rejection of these forms, the Leftist push, has paralyzed the spirit of humanity upon the precipice of our karmic aeon, and deprived us of all emancipatory potential. This deprivation is what makes globalism and the end of history appear to be "inevitable." This is why, as these old forms were done away with, no new forms arose to take their place, no "pure forms" as Capable imagined. Man turned out unable to fill the throne that he relieved God of. Nothing filled the place of God. But a people with no history or culture had taken an entire continent for themselves and attempted to form a new kind of society based around empowering the masses and stripping the political elites, while the Russians in the East worked off the failure of the German reich and attempted to piece together a new nationalism, a new national identity, with the tattered remains of Christian symbolism inherited from the church orthodoxy. And in the middle, Europe embraced the end of history, the Messianic fulfillment, leftist secular humanism and globalism, only to be undone by it, only to be mistaken. As the Europeans evacuated their nations of their cultural forms and traditions, as they accomplished the destruktion of culture, the Russians collected the shards of western intelligence in an attempt to peer through them from behind history into the light of Being, to dispense in the revelation of pure Being the foundation for the next karmic aeon to dasein, and salvage an ethos and new racial identity for the nation, while we, in America, outlined a new, thoroughly non-European form of government, to provide the masses with true political force. On either side of Europe, between these two formulas, between antistatism and nationalism, the new political axis will take shape as the left-right axis and globalism's alternative.

The unspoken contempt has always been: there is no place for the Americans and the Russians in the new globalist utopian multiculture. The Americans especially have to sacrifice their leading position in the world, their economic power and independence, we have to export all our jobs to other countries, bankrupt ourselves on aiding them, send the fucking Jews 100 million dollars a day: Obama is right now trying to transfer control of the internet to the EU, by giving away our US controlled company that dispenses all the domain names.

But the real truth is: there is no place for Europe in the new dawning karmic aeon, the next political paradigm. Europe is dead and it's head will finally be cut off in our lifetimes, and the globalist vision it has been at the center of blown away like the pitiable ghost it always was.



The first blow against globalism was struck with Brexit, Trump will win for the second blow, and not long from now this current system will fall.



Nobody wants to return to a state of nature, that's not what anarchy means. We can have a stateless society, a society where the masses administer their own government to themselves, as opposed to giving their power away to be concentrated in the hands of an elite administrative class and centralized federal government. This is what the US was planned to approximate. It was the only government designed on philosophic principles, the spheres of power among the branches of government balanced mathematically in advance, to ensure the greatest freedom and emancipatory potential for the masses. Every other nation and government emerged out of the chaos of nature, arbitrarily.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sun Sep 25, 2016 12:04 pm
"The unspoken contempt has always been: there is no place for the Americans and the Russians in the new globalist utopian multiculture."

I laughed at this. Word to your mother, I did not realize the cluelessness.

Fuck Wagner.



___________
dionisius against the cross...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sun Sep 25, 2016 12:27 pm
That Europe thought it could deny America its destiny is not the absolute punchline, it is not the most laughable thing. We have the three political fronts for the battle over the soul of modernity at the 20th century: communism, fascism, and capitalism. Capitalism won for the reasons I mentioned.

[Capitalism succeeded out of these three for a reason. It is not the most effective- none of the three are very effective, as they all reflect inaccurate understandings of human psychology. The reason it succeeded is because it naturally aligns itself with the Leftist secular humanism, and allows a complex to form between corporate power, democratic processes, the media, science, and military (via globalism) whereas this is difficult if not impossible with the other two alternatives. This complex is very powerful, physically speaking, if spiritually emaciated and lacking any vision for humanity or affirmative content, lacking ethos. It was inevitable that capitalism would win by allowing this complex of social forces to form. ]

This complex it formed: between capitalist economies, corporate power, the media, our electoral cycles manipulated as they are by the media, science, fetishistic technology, and the military through globalism....- this complex of social forces, is leftism. That is the punchline to the joke, leftist secular humanism isn't even an ideology. The political, ideological axis between the right and left isn't even real, it never was real. It's a complex of various social forces that have integrated themselves into a single force, a single will, it's not an ideology. It's been using the myth of ideological struggle and that it has provided the end of history by concluding that struggle in order to keep itself in existence.

Additional afterthought: Heidegger thought that Leftist idealogy, with its annihilation of Being in the forms of being (culminating in technology replacing culture) originated with a core of enlightenment rationality implanted in the original Greek dialectic by the Asiatics, then later modified by the Jews in Rome, which has now broken forth and taken control of the whole thing. But truly, science and rationalism are merely another set of social forces transformed by and integrated within the complex that capitalism's victory has enabled. So this was his mistake. And Nietzsche's: the nihilism he saw rising had already been formed, hiding in the myth of ideology: the Leftist, leveling secular humanism has no intrinsic core, it is a totally phenomenal apparition- the struggle of ideology has not ended, because it never began. Nietzsche was himself the last man, for he was the last man to believe there was ever any struggle of ideas behind the dialectic of history. God did not die, he was stillborn: the dialectic of history that began in Greece never had a dispensation of Being to dasein, never had an intrinsic core, and because of that, this devastating complex of social forces has formed and taken control of the momentum of civilization. This leftist secular humanism has given us an apolitical world- it has shown us what the movement of history always was; a world where political decisions have been replaced by bureaucrats managing the masses of humanity in a purely economic and administrative capacity: Nietzsche was the last to truly believe there ever was a possibility for grand politics. This is why I envision my counter logic to the historical dialectic and my metapsychology, self-valuing, American constitutional political philosophy, and the Russian project of salvaging nationalism, ethos, and identity, as all converging on a metaphysical attractor point, which is gravitating all the marginal history, all that European culture has diffused and thrown away, to itself, upon whose precipice a new karmic aeon can be derived, upon which a new history can begin. A history grounded on the constant reification of cultural inheritance in higher forms, on the continuous derivation of epistemes or guiding images of thought as expressions of various communities' emancipatory potential and identity, each one proving itself not so much in a debate or struggle against the others but in a nomadic bid to prove how effectively they can each capture the momentum of history for themselves.
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: 6578
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:24 pm

Because America and Russia both provide a means at attacking and overcoming this social complex centered on capitalist economics, ie. Leftist secular humanism, they represent the two sides to the true axis, and we must concentrate our philosophic vision on the task of negotiating it and working within it, on navigating it, in order to successfully cross the line into the next era of human civilization.



They always wanted to squeeze America out of the world stage specifically, with Russia secondarily. Our two constitutions are at odds with the intentions behind the globalist push for world domination. We have nothing to offer them. That's why the US fails on every agreement it reaches with foreign nations. Obama said explicitly that "America must give up certain freedoms and power, to realize this level of international cooperation..." or something like that, as he gives control of the internet away. But we have much to gain, as Europe falls.

The new era will confront this one, not like a debate, not like a battle of ideologies as existed in the 20th century and culminated in the cold war, but like the possible confronting the actual, like spirit confronting material. The time for debating is over, there is nothing left to discuss. Now it is much more simple; those who can see the line, cross it. Those that cannot see it, stay behind. The fact that the cold war was cold: the fact that the bombs never went off, is proof that the ideological struggle was just an illusion all along. They should have dropped, and they didn't.


Everything that Europe threw away to reach its present vision of the end of history- all the discarded stones, those are the cornerstones of the next era. Russia understood that, hence their attempt to reconstruct a new Russian national identity through the rubble of Christian orthodoxy and Christian mystical symbolism; hence the Nazis attempting to reconstruct the identity of the Aryan as it existed prior to being co-opted by the Asiatics in Greece and then the Jews in Rome. There is something to that, this dwelling in the marginalia of Western history, feeding on tidbits of historical knowledge and identity for fear of starvation entirely. But it is not the whole story; the emancipatory potential of the masses in America allows a common project to emerge out of this, (due to our localism, the power and independence of our communities both from one another and from the state) whereby this fragmented marginal history can be truly organized into functioning identities, while the statism of the east, of Russia, is an encumbrance to be overcome- the state has sway over culture there, their identity is organized from the top down, and so their history will never become cohesive, will never become an episteme or guiding image for thought.

Nobody is going to help in the new territory that opens up when crossing the threshold into the next karma, the new aeon. The most the philosophers heretofore can do is help point out the way, but I am stepping over it because I've found the way, even if the risk of something going wrong in this transition means a nuclear holocaust or climate change disaster or the aliens finally get tired of us and annex our planet. I'd welcome a nuke over this shit.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud


Last edited by Parodites on Sun Sep 25, 2016 2:02 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sun Sep 25, 2016 1:27 pm
So in this axis, despite our overt differences, America and Russia both pursue a way out of this unipolar globalist state, a way out of the end of history, a way out of the diffusion of culture Valery was talking about and the destruction of identity and the forms of Being's revelation Heidegger was seeing, a way out from the oblivion of being, a way out of the nihilism Nietzsche was seeing, a way out of the loss of all national sovereignty to the globalized monoculture, a way out of all of it. Capable is correct in that globalism is an organic development, it is nature speaking again through humanity, inasmuch as the complex I noted around capitalism was a natural development; it is the flattening of time by inertia, and so no mere debate will abrupt its course. What is required in order to pass the threshold into the karmic aeon I envision, is no mere political struggle, no mere economic struggle, no debate, no twitter war, no viral youtube video, but rather, a metaphysical struggle- a struggle against nature, a philosophy.


The world economic crises we are seeing are just the beginning. Part of the globalist push is that we can delay the total meltdown of the world economy by pulling everything together. But again I reiterate, America is in a unique position, it can utilize its geographical position among other things to gain what our forefathers intended: total economic independence. Let Europe burn, the faster it does so, the better.

" Man either crushes his heart underneath his deed or his now accomplished work
and thereby perjures his conscience of things, or in the last case his hand is found to
tremble, as he stands back arrested at the highest moment of his act, at the serene calm in
the consciousness of necessity, wherein he was to meet with his very triumph and, like
light poured back into the dead embers from which it issued, is found luminance without
heat, and fire that reveals but does not burn. It is by the most tremendous deeds that
civilization has lost the most, that man has been compelled to take upon himself the
heaviest sacrifices; yet, it is only by the heaviest sacrifices that any future for man can be
determined. "





___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sun Sep 25, 2016 1:45 pm
Heidegger thought that Leftist idealogy, with its annihilation of Being in the forms of being (culminating in technology replacing culture) originated with a core of enlightenment rationality implanted in the original Greek dialectic by the Asiatics, then later modified by the Jews in Rome, which has now broken forth and taken control of the whole thing. But truly, science and rationalism are merely another set of social forces transformed by and integrated within the complex that capitalism's victory has enabled. So this was his mistake. And Nietzsche's: the nihilism he saw rising had already been formed, hiding in the myth of ideology: the Leftist, leveling secular humanism has no intrinsic core, it is a totally phenomenal apparition- the struggle of ideology has not ended, because it never began. Nietzsche was himself the last man, for he was the last man to believe there was ever any struggle of ideas behind the dialectic of history. God did not die, he was stillborn: the dialectic of history that began in Greece never had a dispensation of Being to dasein, never had an intrinsic core, and because of that, this devastating complex of social forces has formed and taken control of the momentum of civilization. This leftist secular humanism has given us an apolitical world- it has shown us what the movement of history always was; a world where political decisions have been replaced by bureaucrats managing the masses of humanity in a purely economic and administrative capacity: Nietzsche was the last to truly believe there ever was a possibility for grand politics. This is why I envision my counter logic to the historical dialectic and my metapsychology, self-valuing, American constitutional political philosophy, and the Russian project of salvaging nationalism, ethos, and identity, as all converging on a metaphysical attractor point, which is gravitating all the marginal history, all that European culture has diffused and thrown away, to itself, upon whose precipice a new karmic aeon can be derived, upon which a new history can begin. A history grounded on the constant reification of cultural inheritance in higher forms, on the continuous derivation of epistemes or guiding images of thought as expressions of various communities' emancipatory potential and identity, each one proving itself not so much in a debate or struggle against the others but in a nomadic bid to prove how effectively they can each capture the momentum of history for themselves. (Ie, a cyclic, as opposed to linear, timeline.)



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sun Sep 25, 2016 6:58 pm
So indeed a big difference between me and Fixed's view is that: I see the leveling of Europe to not only not be finished, but to have not even truly begun. All that happened was, the fire was lit. The migrant crisis is an insignificant murmur of the actual civil war to spill into European streets. The economic bubbles are pre-quakes; the earthquake hasn't happened yet. The illusion that the cold war solidified will be broken, we and Russia will wake up from the dream of ideology, and nothing will be left to hold back the bombs. Indeed the light of Ousia, of Being's pure revelation, of the Event, will be seen again on earth, probably through the flames of nuclear holocaust. And I see this as necessary to initiate the next era of the West, to lay the foundation for a new karma, a new aeon. I fully support the Muslim invasion (to Europe of course, not to the US) and anything else that can hasten this collapse, and over Europe's corpse we and the East will come to bear terms for the new covenant, a new social contract of sorts.


Once that complex of social forces that people unconsciously call leftist secular humanism formed, enabled by capitalism, and won out against fascism and communism, that marked the illusory end to the illusory struggle of ideology, ie. the end of politics, and the first moment of the 21st century. For this secular system was never political, and its economics replaced all political force with the force of capital. The termination of Europe and the globalist program it initiated, will spell the defeat of this otherwise unbeatable complex.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Mon Sep 26, 2016 11:56 am
Capable wrote:
For the same reason that government can never get rid of all crime, crime can never get rid of all government. Government and crime share bureaucracy in common, the mafia families have plenty of their own bureaucracy too. Petty chaotic crime is unable to ontologically structure itself into something socially significant and lasting; this is the problem that both government and the mafia have solved.

The advantage of a crime family over a typical intrusive modern day government is that the former does not make claims to values, only to power.

But the two are related, in that government is nothing besides the continuation of a primordial crime, as Zizek phrases it nicely.

Quote :
It is a problem of diminishing returns from either angle: if you want to get rid of crime or government corruption it is easy to start and deal with the biggest move obvious instances, but as you get closer to perfect elimination the task approaches impossibility. Malice, as you said, is part of human nature and bureaucracy is a perfect system for regulating (not eliminating) malice.

Indeed. It festers.
Whereas in more natural human life, malice is weeded out.

Bureaucracy follows laws almost identical to cancer.

Quote :
I see bureaucracy as a necessary part of human life. If not for it we would not have such things as computers or the internet, for an easy example. We would be restricted to mere localism and barter system type quasi-anarchic modes of life, which to me is fucking pointless. So the trick is to see how bureaucratic forms can evolve over time; this is what capitalism represents, I think. And my position toward globalism is entirely motivated by the fact that I see globalism as inevitable, so my personal feelings either way are entirely irrelevant. I might hate or love the idea of globalism, but globalism is going to be the case either way. Globalism is basically just the logic of the nation-state with no exteriority (with the exteriority posited internally rather than externally). Yes this raises definite problems and risks, I agree. So I want to look at how to mitigate those risks and solve those problems.

I dont think it is fair to attribute scientific development to bureaucracy. In fact I dont believe there is much of a relation - I see bureaucracy in tech mostly as the attempt to make money off geniuses work, or make weapons out of them.

I know plenty of people who built their own computers from scrap. Well, used to know them in the 80's when I was a kid. Who knows what they're building now.

These were also the people that built most of the internet in Europe. Just a network of students and hackers. A bunch of them now work for a company called xs4all. I certainly do not consider universities to be esse4ntially bureaucratic, as much as todays establishments pretend this is necessarily the case. That precisely is what has led to the death of education and the loss of Europe. Why I have turned to internet philosophy, and why my and our power is so immense.

All the old powers of mind are either dead or like writhing on the ground. I consider our clan nothing less than the monarchs of the coming intellectual order. You people are the only ones I have ever read or met in this age that have the capacity for intellectual integrity, the hardness and depth for it. Of course I am well aware of the megalomania that speaks out of this - - bit I am not the one sending drone armies to bomb schools to bring "world peace"... I dont think Im the megalomanic one, even if I would claim to be the origin of the universe I would still not be as megalomanic as Hillary Clinton or such very-far-from-humans. Ive never killed a single man. let alone half a million. Plus, the actions that I do perform usually have results more or less in concordance with what I aimed for.

We can not seriously continue putting trust in these butchers, and the system they propagate.
Globalism is, in realistic terms, nothing besides the instrument in the hands of a group of unfathomably dark butchers.

Quote :
In my view time (history) only moves in one direction -- forward -- and never backward. Like a mind, history is always looking back and recollecting things, reanimating them in the present moment but this is always done at the express logic and behest of the present moment posited forward toward its predictable future/s. The past only lives in the present because the present is the condition of possibility of that past-recollecting; and the ways in which the present is able to posit-predict its possible futures is going to determine the ways in which the present recollects elements from its past. If we look at the last 2500 years we see a clear progression of history.

My values force me to object here. I consider everything that happened between 400 BC and 1400 AD to be regression.

Quote :
I have not studied anthropology and pre-ancient Greek history enough but I assume that if we were to extent that to say the last 10,000 years the same would hold true... but even if it didn't, modern history of the last 2500 years is sufficient to demonstrate the case that we are now on a more or less linear track, and globalism represents the limit of that linearity in so far as positing itself under the old models of interior/exterior mediation of forms. Society itself needs to be rethought once a truly global situation presents itself. And with the re-thinking of society comes the re-thinking of the subject and its psychology as well -- Marx for example understood the globalizing nature of capitalism, and Marx thought that this global capitalism would reach its limit and then collapse into world communism.

Well it will, except the "communism" is civil war, man against man, war penetrating into families. In Europe this is already under way, has been for a decade. Parodites says that it has yet to begin, but this isnt true. Europe is already dead. This is why I am here. Sure, a lot of violence and shit will still follow, but what was once proud and alive is now forgotten. War will be a revival of life there, not the death of it.


Quote :
The only justification of capitalism is that it organizes production so efficiently that it is able to produce all the objects, machines, technologies, capital etc. that will later be distributed throughout the world in a communist State; his idea of communism was a post-global capitalism situation and not really the kind of nation-state communisms that we saw in the last century and which mostly all failed. (Not saying that I agree with his idealization of the world communist state, of course, I think he was utopian just like Nietzsche was, namely precisely where they were positing their higher values in imagined future forms of a theoretically pure or total absolution.) Capitalism will always eat such communisms, but only until capitalism reaches its final limit and collapses; that is Marx's idea anyway. But Zizek uses Hegel to point out that it is impossible to envision this collapse and reformation in advance, that any attempt to achieve a revolution is doomed to failure yet it is precisely that failure and the how and why of it that is the condition of possibility for the later realization of the ideal of the revolution as such, albeit in some other form (modern capitalism is the realization of the revolutionary spirit of the proletariat, we have won out freedom "from" the old labor systems but this freedom is only a freedom "for" converting ourselves into subjectivity-as-labor as such, the self as its own commodity, for example.

I consider Zizek a brilliant author and epistemist, but completely savage and blind as a political philosopher. Communism only ever worked within parliamentary democracy, if we're talking about not mass-murdering but being useful. There are that I know only 2 countries where it ever worked; Holland and Italy. But remember that communism is only the psychedelic format Marx threw over simple workers revolt out of England. If there has not been a Marx, workers right would have been much stronger now, as a result of mere humanity, rather than psychedelic ideology of bloodthirst.

The Concet of capitalism is only value-exchange; the alchemical knowledge that values increase as they are intelligently exchanged.

The system has been derailed quite a bit, as the concept of value is far from perfectly understood by the middle men who have to justify the actions of the top men, who likely often damn well understand, and use that knowledge, but the system works like nature works. It is pure chemistry. Communism is only a mechanical, clunky, very clumsy idea, it has no chemistry, it's stupid and murderous without limit.

Zizek and other communist are utterly in the dark about value. This world will not progress toward anything without value ontology.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Mon Sep 26, 2016 6:39 pm
Fixed, trying to hit on all the points that you raised:

If bureaucratic government is the original "criminal act" that makes claims to values (as opposed to the mafia type crime that supposedly does not make claims to values (I'm not sure about that)) as you say, then I would say that bureaucratic government is a superior form of mafia criminality simply because bureaucratic government is reaching toward values. A point where I disagree a little bit with Kant is on his idea that simulating (faking, through polite conversation for example) values that we do not really hold can lead us to ultimately embracing those values and thereby becoming more refined, sane, moral; this isn't the justification, valuation as such needs no justifications like that. Values self-justify.

And yes, technologies are invented often enough by genius individuals in garages, but it takes inherently bureaucratic systems of infrastructure and policy-making to scale up those inventions to the level of society at large. Ford needed the assembly line, he needed to make production "bureaucratic" to even make cars a feasible thing, General Motors needed to corrupt politics to buy out railways and streetcars to pave roads, for example; so much more so with computers and the Internet.

Government often gets the values wrong yet I claim this is mostly because it gets them wrong in practice, namely a failure at the political level. Similar to how I see human error as a means to overcoming that error, government is a means of overcoming that in government which is still in error. The solution is not to give up on the attempt, but to keep attempting. "Keep trying, try better, fail better".

Cancer is a loss of the principle of limitation at the organic level, repetition for its own sake; an empty symbolic obsession for its own sake. We often repeat this error at the level of psychology and sociopolitics. But we can cure cancer without killing the patient -- the very idea of a society without class distinctions, as I think Parodites mentions above, is just the basic communist idea as such. The impossible ideal that serves to mobilize reality toward its higher state.

The kind of globalism you mention that the butchers use is not the kind of globalism we need. This isn't even globalism at all, it is the impossibility of globalism (see my other post on the philosophy of culture). Tools are appropriate to butchers because those tools work; we should not be trying to reverse history and undo the existence of such tools, we should progress in that tool-development so that we become the masters of said tools.

I see there was much work still being done in the dark ages, I don't at all write this off as pure reversal. Christianity needed the dark ages as a long enunciation of the depths of error within Christianity (the Romanized "Jewish Buddhism" that Christianity is). Such periods are necessarily dark because such ugly errors cannot be worked out directly or consciously.

I can't speak to the state of Europe, but I imagine something like a new dark ages is upon it. Not its death, but its deeply unconscious process of working through certain ugly errors.

I agree with what you said about communism being a stupid clunky system compared to capitalism. Communism is either a pure ideology or a merely absolutely practical drive to overcome classism at the "earthy" level. I respect this latter aspect of communism but not the former aspect. Capitalism is indeed about values-exchange and yet the pure core or repressed truth of capitalism is that market forces left to themselves would destroy themselves, some kind of "stupid bureaucratic government" is needed to pose a limit to pure market forces. Look at market speculation today, we have whole countries economies hinging on a market system that can be sunk almost immediately by mere rumor, we have huge bubbles right now (artificially high stock and commodities markets) that is due to the excessive psychic impulse behind capital-transacting at the level of individual speculators-- market forces are not some kind of Divine as libertarians think, they in fact are an exacerbation of the economic Tragedy of the Commons; but of course markets are good and necessary, its just that their pure logic unchecked leads to massive, world-level self-destruction. Capital for its own sake replaces proper values-determinations that should really be guiding economic transactions, yet those values cannot be properly accounted due to the system we have now of not only billionaire-level swaps of speculative capital for immediate short-term gain (the wiping out of time, the end of long-term valuing; we can see examples of this in modern corporate charters, by which shareholders can actual sue CEOs if those CEOs prioritize long term growth and stability over immediate quarterly gains) but also the fact fhat computers are trading millions of shares in a microsecond. This isn't globalism, it is "nationalistic" (fetishized and narcissistic individualism) capitalism without proper political (human) delimitation. True values can still appear, but only very narrow kinds of such values, and the general prohibition of values appearing is much larger than is the sphere of values that are able to appear within this system we have today.



___________
"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." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Sep 27, 2016 9:51 am
Clarifying my position on the leveling of Europe:

I mentioned that the current karmic aeon has been paralyzed by the weight of its own history, and that the masses must realize a new episteme from the creative potential of their collective soul (an Asiatic mirror for my idea of the episteme in this scheme is the mantra, which is an auditory semantic-memetic sigil chanted in order to provide a point of gravity around which to begin generating the seeds of a new karma for a new soul) with which to generate from the preceding aeon's surplus energetics- from its daemon, the foundation for the next karmic aeon. This current paralyzed karma, our current dying aeon, is identified with the Messianic order that runs like a memetic infection from the decadence of the post-Hellenistic philosophers to our leftist secular humanism and its idea of linear time and social progress: the European karma was overlaid in Greece by a strain of Platonizing egyptianism imported from the East, which was taken up again to further poison the West by the Jews with their Abrahamic god, a blasphemy against the cyclic conception of time intuited by the original proto-Indo Europeans: this destructive karma is what broke the wheel of the Roman Empire, the first Reich, from within and later the Third Reich from without. It will break Europe when the true completion to the leveling is finished: the dying karma has been reifiying itself in tighter circles of time, through the collapse of the Roman Empire, to the collapse of the Reich, to the final collapse of Europe, the most important regression and repetition of time. [The pride and vitality of Europe was forgotten as far back as Rome, the completion of the leveling requires much more than forgetfulness.] Both the Reich and Russia attempted and are attempting to piece together a new national ethos and identity with the broken shards of European intelligence amid the sea of non-European karma that has been heaved on top of the Western soul, in order to dispense from behind history, in the revelation of Being unfettered by historical distortion, the foundation of a new political order to dasein: but the Freemasons brought America into existence upon a set of metapolitical philosophic principles which were intended to provide the masses with the capacity to express their emancipatory potential against the tyranny of the state. Putting the two designs together, we see that expressing that potential through the reborn national identity, instead of using the power of the State to impose that identity as the nazis did, as all the three Reichs did in their own way and Russia presently, will alone offer the means of defeating globalism.


The epistemes. We generate the idea of stasis as a negation of the observable motion that characterizes the natural world, and so it is that all our concepts originate out of negative-reflectivity, as a series of primogenial antitheses formed in relation to the Kantian sphere of empirical datums corresponding to observable reality, as we are given to understand in the epistemology outlined in Plato's Phaedo. Yet, the border between negative reflectivity, its intellectual contents, and the empirical sphere penetrable to the logos, is not perfectly established until reflection reproduces its own negativity as an object of thought, as an episteme, and so it is that the concepts we have formed, like stasis, are eventually re-absorbed into the sphere of the logos, wherein their thetic arrangements, motion in this case, are organized- ie. the meta-language of philosophy dissolves into the object-language common to conventional human witness: at that point a new antithesis develops for negative reflection and, just as the concept of stasis was formed in relation to the empirical datum of observable motion, now a new concept, namely entellecheia, forms as an antithesis in relation to stasis, with a corresponding transformation of motion taking place, the later becoming energeia, so that a wholly new series of antitheses have developed- entellechia and energeia from stasis and motion, with the conceptual tension preserved or reified rather than dialectically relieved, namely in a higher order of terms approaching the episteme. The dialectic (agnosis) only describes the process of modification through which the empirical datums like motion are transformed, while a new logic (gnosis) must be developed in order to describe the process by which the epistemes are created from the reification of negative reflectivity's contents, like stasis in this case. To further explore it, I use the two forms of logic employed in the West by the Greeks and the Jews. The ten sephirot stand as the ten fundamental point-principles in Jewish thought- the ultimate abstractions. For example, the sephirot Keter or unity. These abstractions combine in different arrangements in a dynamic process of reconfiguration rather than an Aristotelian category-logic or a dialectic, which is the major difference in Greek and Jewish philosophy. The Jewish logic is simply life itself, the dynamic process of configuration and organization, and pathos and logos are not separate. The philosophic point principles which the sephirot represent, are also the basic human emotions, or alternatively the ten basic numbers 0-9, etc. This ability of Jewish logic to transfer information in a text on human life or ethics directly to a seemingly unrelated text on the nature God, back to a text on number theory, etc. and then a discussion of sexuality, is kabbalah. The cabala and Judaic logic of the sephirot are equivalent to a semiosis of the generative moment of speech itself- indeed, the full text of the Talmud is taken as a single, long divine name for God by the ancient Jews. The Kabbalah is a kind of synthetic logic that interpretatively combines and recombines all linguistic datums across all domains of knowledge which nonetheless requires in the Organon of the Aristotelian categories and its basic counterpart, namely Greek logic, which delimits rather than interprets knowledge, a means of restricting the infinite potential of its constructive hermeneutic. As Abulafia recognizes all languages as mere shards of the perfect language that must be fit together rather than merely translated from one to another, a way of fitting Greek and Jewish logic together is needed, as well as the Greek mythologos and Jewish prophecy. Greek logic is simply agnosis; Jewish logic, gnosis.

Now, the distortion of European karma by the East and the Abrahamic faith was not arbitrary; the history of that distortion corresponds to the unfolding and the agnosis or differentiation of the topos or epistemes in Greece, from which point man has progressed through the three foundational epistemes- the ontic, immanent, and transcendent, while the history of the episteme, the history of gnosis, itself is very different, to be concluded once the negative core and intrinsic lack of the former history lived out in the dilution of European intelligence is itself understood, reified, and reproduced as an object of thought. Only the Event can bring that reification and understanding. The event that concludes the leveling of Europe with such poetic clarity that its negative core is reproduced as a positive object of thought, as the episteme for a new karmic age. The Event that is to come.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Sep 27, 2016 3:17 pm
And to be blunt about the Event: A world economic crisis of unprecedented scope combined with civil unrest thanks to the loss of national sovereignty and the migrant crisis will precipitate a third world war between the EU superstate that has yet to fully form but is well in the process of forming, the US, and Russia- a war which will culminate in at least the partial destruction of the European continent by nuclear and conventional bombardment, with the US and Russia in the end coming to a new political arrangement and a territorial agreement after bartering the remains of Europe between themselves, forming two new political forces, a Western and an Eastern empire, with the US expanding its new imperial force over the greater part of the remains of EU territory in exchange for Russia taking more territory in the East, to even greater than Soviet-era levels of occupation. The coming event is not something I wish to happen or am advising people to actively engage in bringing about, but rather, a prediction: it will happen, I am only interested in comprehending its meaning.

The right-left paradigm is liberalism; it is liberal secular humanism- one is either to the right or left on those issues now characterizing the modern political discourse, those issues revolving around the premises and values of liberal secular humanism, ie. the universal rights of man, social progress, racial and cultural equality, feminism, etc. Because liberalism is just the concealed mask for an entirely non-ideological complex of social forces empowered by capitalism's tertiary function, the left-right paradigm (which pretends to be the political expression for what is in reality an apolitical system) is nonsensical. The fact that it is nonsensical and doesn't mean anything- that it in fact never meant anything, is something the world is simply waking up from- hence Brexit and Trump. Communism and fascism (the far, far left and far, far right of the left-right spectrum grounded in liberal secular humanism) emerged as political alternatives to an order (ie. the liberal progressivism that came to dominate American politics and fueled the globalist regime of Europe) that was mistakenly interpreted as political itself: as the later was never an ideology or politics, the political and ideological alternatives to it that fought in the 20th century are also nonsensical. The end of history was a myth that allowed man to continue believing there was an ideological and true political struggle underneath all the death and war: none of it was ever political, and the nonsensical reality of the left-right paradigm and its alternatives that stained the 20th century with so much blood is the dream that man is now waking up from. Hence what I wrote:


[ Insofar as kinesis is a movement of the
imperfect toward the perfect, following Aristotle's definition, the kinesis of the polis is a
movement from present material conditions toward eudaemonia or happiness, from
reactivity coordinated within an organism toward the timeless perfected activity of a soul,
but since this movement takes place on a passive ground it can never arrive at its object,
for the polis, in its organization of re-active forces, creates the very dimension of time or
kinesis which it wants to escape from- a dimension we call history. History is the
reckoning of its own end.]

That passive ground is what is being removed from the equation, for its own intrinsic negative core will be reproduced for thought as an object of thought; the kinesis of human civilization toward the eu-daemon will then be truly enabled. Hence my own version of self-valuation:


[ The perfect, timeless activity of philosophy is that which supplies the passive ground of
value or meaning, it is in other words the creative act, but philosophy is not constituted by
the value it creates. This is the central problem of Plato's Phaedrus. This asymmetry is
inexplicable at present, standing beyond the scope of Nietzsche's various schema, and
requires a new language, which I inaugurate with a term "reification". The Will-to-Power
is then quite simply the fact of this asymmetry, which must be corrected for by the
creation of a value whose affirmation is the affirmation of philosophy, of valuation in
Nietzschean terms, itself. In what I have written of the Daemonic, the real-ego and ideal-ego,
as time and eternity, or freedom and necessity, transcend themselves within one
another but also transcend themselves as a relation, thereby stabilizing this asymmetry,
for this later transcendence- the transcendence of the relation, which I call reification,
(just as I identify relation with language) also constitutes the form of the logos, that is, the
form of philosophy itself, in its perfected activity, in its self-grounding. ]



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Sep 27, 2016 10:22 pm
To the above -- yes, the form of reification is as you say, and I've been refreshing on Hegel and found already the perfect description of this in Phenomenology of Spirit, which is many pages and I will re-type here to post soon, but the point Hegel also makes here is one that we must carry forward to the polis as such: most people can only actualize this reification by "denying" it, which means specifically that they do precisely what I've been saying is the root of ideology and which apparently Hegel already described way back then in this book: sinking themselves into the contents of their consciousness, contents as such, which is precisely the form of non- or pre-philosophical reason and nothing besides, and this "unconscious reification" is the activity of universality in so far as we cannot help but perpetuate a fidelity to our own Ends even as those ends are, not even denied, but not at all are these people, this polis, capable of realizing that this is what they are doing. Modern liberal humanist values are these realizations, these unconscious reifications that achieve their ends because they resist and deny those ends, which means that paying fidelity to the "false" ideals here (false only from the perspective of a "higher" philosophy) ends up pushing that truth in the false and which grounds it. No merely empty moralism on the world scale has ever been just emptiness, simply for the fact of propagating itself at the world level.

Philosophy demands too much, this is philosophy's error: to expect the seed to be that tree which it will only yet become, to judge the seed as a failure precisely because it is a seed. Humanity today, the polis, Europe, modernity as liberal humanism as a mask for pre-political drives and "archaic psychologies" is this seed, and the tree it will grow will shed that fruit which is and has been for 2500 years in the works. Russia lacks the masks; Russia is still directly Marxist in believing that the pure drives themselves can succeed as masks for the Christian, while Europe has achieved the realization that new masks are needed and are already upon us. The truth is in the masks and in the need behind their realization, not in some kind of "pure Christian soul", which is the irony for Russia since the mask they employ is pre-existent even to the false Christianity that "truly" grounds the Russian ethos.

It is true that Russia and the US are alike in this way, but Europe has already transcended that. The power games at the level of "the real" of the US and Russia are not a transcendence but a stalling, a stasis as the relative youth of both US and Russia at the cultural levels (Russia and US were both made in the late 1800s to early 1900s) still cannot deal with the much more developed culture of Europe, whose cultures are actually roosting in US and Russia who now instantiate it at the political and "real" levels. Europe is ancient from both the perspective of Russia and the US: the joke is that Russia and the US were both made by Europe, Europe created each of these world powers. Russia and US really only exist today at the symbolic level, attested to by the fact of the orgies of military prowess and drive-psychology out in the open and asserted by Russia and the US as if any of that constituted a fucking personality or an ethos, which of course it does not. At the ideal level it would be hard to say that Russia or the US even exist, evidenced by the silly political games of dick-wagging and the fact that US cultural hegemony constitutes a fucking coke bottle. Only Europe continues to drive something like values from within Capital. What is the EU, then? A German joke, or a capitulation to the silent logic of vegetative law?

Europe has created Russia to the east, US to the west. In Russia is the grave of Kant, Eastern Europe is still "Russian", Marx is still the love within the Russian heart even as Nietzsche competes with his "post"-modern formulas of radicals reconstruction of the values-constructs and US culture bleeds into Russia from all over, Russians still make that culture thoroughly their own. Putin is the internal principle of tension holding the subjectivity of Russia together from the early 1800s to the 1920s, but that tension cannot last forever. Precisely where the greatest shows of crude power are, there you may look for the collapse that will come. A nuclear bomb is not non-philosophical, it is anti-philosophical.

Speaking of nukes. The US, Britain, France and Israel have plenty between them to erase Russia from the fucking map in any event of open warfare. Even without Israel which might not be counted upon in such a situation, US nukes in Europe plus those owned by France and UK are plenty to decimate Russia forever, yet of course Russia could lay waste to all of Europe as well. It's a nonsensical horror story, it has no meaning.

Europe is still the Mind that governs the "bodies" of Russia and the US. A body does not survive without its mind. Neither Russia nor the US have been able to build a mind for themselves, and for good reason: both are still, unlike Europe, thoroughly Christian. Liberal modern humanism, so called, is just a system of guises and mask-logics with which to force the faint stirrings of Mind into both US and Russia, and by extension to the rest of the world. Equal rights, tolerance, transparency, non-pathology, and creative playful liberation, these aren't political values, they are the values of consciousness as such.
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: 6578
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:28 pm

"We should be clear that only those who have worked through Christianity have minds; Christians themselves do not and cannot have minds. This is just philosophy. The entirety of Europe is essentially always already this having worked through Christianity, that is literally what Europe is made of, post-Christian refinement. The US people are so interesting because of how they are combinations pre-philosophically of both Puritan repression and "immoral" joissance-like freedom, a sort of weirdly enlightened yet stifled "egoism". Americans are children, and children are pretty cool. I suspect it's much the same with Russians although I've never been these so cannot confirm that.

Systems of ideology deployed at the level of the State are like the fences around the playground of American and Russian children. You can't just expect those fences to be removed and anything but chaos and confusion to follow. Americans have no idea what to do with power, which is why they are so good at pushing power for its own sake, it's all they can do, it cannot be used/spent for anything coherent except to sell coke bottles and hamburgers, which is also why American power in the world is so destabilizing and works so well with tyrants and petty dictators. The European soul is much deeper and older than is the soul of Americans, I suspect it's the same with Russians too that their soul is still highly youthful. Youth is good, but we can't mistake it for some kind of philosophical telos capable of guiding truly mental efforts and values. Youth is great. But the love of youth stifles youth itself, since youth only exists to eventually give birth to trees from seeds. Complex ideological systems prescribe limits in which youthful energies are forced to turn upon themselves in interesting ways, so that minds can somstimes develop out of that, youth transcended as it is supposed to be. And we should also realize that youth achieves its fullest being in the knowledge and perspective that age brings. The being of youth is read backwards from the position of post-youthful subjectivity, in such a position youth is truly able to be realized meaningfully, if the heart is both strong and light enough in its wisdom for that. Trump for example is someone whose aged heart is neither strong nor light, therefore he is not post-youthful wisdom (philosophy) able to read back the being of youth in the present moment, so instead of that Trump is just a child in an adult body, like many people are. His many fits and tantrums and bullying behaviors are just the lashing out of a kid with family problems at home.

Emotions are not non-philosophical, emotions are the seed-logic and guide growth. Mind is delimited by what it is not, its "other" is a mirror in which self-reflections can developed. "Guilt is only the first form of knowledge; and pride, not even the first". In this sense the German joke might be an expression of a more refined pride, and can be read ideally as the stirrings of mental activity but read materially as just the "oppressive parent figure" who children are supposed to lash out against. Bodies are never aware of minds, the mind is just, to the body, an alien principle that forces it here and there. Equating mind with body as Nietzsche/Foucault/Deleuze do from one direction and eastern mysticism does from the opposite direction is just a convenient mask to justify this situation to the body, to form a small sphere of mental activity that never needs to generate in itself any guilty feeling, and so isolates itself from what could properly be called "Spirit" in Hegel's sense. Geist is mind-spirit, the body can accept this fact only when it forgets it, when it "falls into it" as the pure activity of the free play of contents at the drive-level and this is even below the contents of the unconscious reification that we were talking about, although those contents at the pre-universal level give raw impetus and cathartic potency able to negatively work universalism into and as world activity although again as a kind of delimitation of excesses, as Christianism.



___________
"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." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Sep 28, 2016 10:14 am


" And yes, technologies are invented often enough by genius individuals in garages, but it takes inherently bureaucratic systems of infrastructure and policy-making to scale up those inventions to the level of society at large. Ford needed the assembly line, he needed to make production "bureaucratic" to even make cars a feasible thing, General Motors needed to corrupt politics to buy out railways and streetcars to pave roads, for example; so much more so with computers and the Internet.

Government often gets the values wrong yet I claim this is mostly because it gets them wrong in practice, namely a failure at the political level. Similar to how I see human error as a means to overcoming that error, government is a means of overcoming that in government which is still in error. The solution is not to give up on the attempt, but to keep attempting. "Keep trying, try better, fail better".
"




I don't see what the government has to do with managing the Internet. It's just a bunch of computers tied together with networks, there is no centralization or top down management.

About automobiles. Let's take a more obvious example. A bunch of workers are using an outdated technology for agriculture, someone then creates a technology that does what 100 men do with the energy requirements of a single man. That puts a whole lot of people out of work. But it is a short term consequence. Because what has happened in reality is that a bunch of human labor has now been converted into free potential labor- as new industries must appear in order to make the technology market-viable. There is also always a bunch of unemployed people wandering around asking for jobs; the infrastructure that would need to be built around the new technology that originally put that group of people using its precedent out of work would need to be created. The demand for employment would cater to the transition; the corporate powers employing the new technology would be able to satisfy that demand by drawing on the pools of now free labor. So for example the automobile is invented; a bunch of stage coach making douches are out of work and will try to prevent the automobile from taking off; but the pools of free labor that exist create a demand for employment among the populace, so the infrastructure required to bring the automobile to market and make it viable would itself potentially satisfy that demand and thus the infrastructure would be able to be easily created without government intervention, simply by fulfilling that demand in the masses of unemployed workers. In order to bring the automobile to market, many factories would need to be made, and that would satisfy the constant demand for increasing employment, as it would allow whole new markets to exist, like steel, like oil, etc. No government intervention is or was required for this process to take place: in fact, exactly the opposite- the less government intervention, the more smoothly it all goes. With intervention, what occurs is a delay between the freeing up of potential labor and the emergence of industries centered around new emerging technologies that might satisfy the demand for employment in the populace. This delay in the primary and secondary cycles of capital transference I talked about awhile ago created by government intervention is the reason why we aren't using more solar power right now.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Sep 28, 2016 10:43 am
Modern liberal humanist values are not values, they are merely the complex of social forces enabled by capitalism's tertiary function that I talked about some time ago. They are not a mask for anything; they are a barren womb. The generation of epistemes is a process divorced from the metamorphosis of concepts in the dialectic, that dialectic is not the womb out of which the episteme or transcendent relation emerges, which is why Hegel and his geist will deceive you:

" In what I have written of the Daemonic, the real-ego and ideal-ego,
as time and eternity, or freedom and necessity, transcend themselves within one
another but also transcend themselves as a relation, thereby stabilizing this asymmetry,
for this later transcendence- the transcendence of the relation, which I call reification, "

This relation transcending as relation is what I was talking about with stasis and motion transcending itself as a relation through entelechy and energeia:

" so that a wholly new series of antitheses have developed- entellechia and energeia from stasis and motion, with the conceptual tension preserved or reified rather than dialectically relieved, namely in a higher order of terms approaching the episteme. "




You said: " Systems of ideology deployed at the level of the State are like the fences around the playground of American and Russian children. You can't just expect those fences to be removed and anything but chaos and confusion to follow. Americans have no idea what to do with power, which is why they are so good at pushing power for its own sake, it's all they can do, it cannot be used/spent for anything coherent except to sell coke bottles and hamburgers, which is also why American power in the world is so destabilizing and works so well with tyrants and petty dictators."

Your defense of this totalitarianism is obscene to me, but I take it as a result of misunderstanding rather than character. As I've been saying, liberal secular humanism isn't an ideology. Liberal secular humanism is just the mask for an apolitical complex perpetuating the myth that there was ever an ideological struggle by posturing itself as the end of that struggle. Globalism, a European force with a European origin, which was forced upon America by the corrupt politicians you seem to think are necessary, is what has been making deals with tyrants and dictators and fucking off in the middle east. Is that the great "European mind" that still governs the US? It's an octopus with its tentacles in the empty heads of the corporate rulership that has been forced on the US, that's all. Our founders told us to do exactly the opposite. We were supposed to utilize our geographic advantage and create a continent independent from the rest of the world, where the masses were truly empowered and the polis was mathematically balanced in the branches of government, a true society to carry on the Greek spirit that was snuffed out so long ago before ever attaining its destiny. And that was stolen from us.



You said: " It is true that Russia and the US are alike in this way, but Europe has already transcended that. The power games at the level of "the real" of the US and Russia are not a transcendence but a stalling, a stasis as the relative youth of both US and Russia at the cultural levels (Russia and US were both made in the late 1800s to early 1900s) still cannot deal with the much more developed culture of Europe, whose cultures are actually roosting in US and Russia who now instantiate it at the political and "real" levels."


You have misunderstood much of what I have said.

Europe hasn't transcendent shit. Europe is a regression that is in its death throws. Europe has diffused the core of its original Hellenistic insight through the infection of non-European ideas from the East and then the Jews, through the dialectic- it has identified philosophy with the dialectic, and the original insight that was lost is being reified in the agon of these collected shards of true Western intelligence- through the episteme, shards and seeds which Europe threw away and the US and Russia have been collecting. And through them a new ethos will be created, an episteme for a new political order. Christianity is simply the process of this diffusion, a waking up from the infection of non-European ideas, of foreign karma, which was perhaps needed in order to create the dream of history within which to mature these shards and seeds in secrecy until the time was right to establish a true independent order among the world-powers. In order to get back to the beginning of it, to reawaken the original intuition that transformed the barbarian Doric tribes into the first philosophers- we must go through to the end of it, hence history is the reckoning of its own end, and Christianity is simply the womb within which this has been taking place. Christianity was the mask, the dialectical womb for the episteme and the final revelation of Being, the final emancipation of philosophy, and it has not yet been thought through or gone beyond by anyone: liberal secular humanism is just a corporate byproduct of cokes and Iphones, of economics masquerading as politics. And Europe has thrown Christianity away to exchange it with liberal secular humanism! And the infection of European ideals and globalism is attempting to convince America to forsake it as well. And this liberal "culture" you claim Europe to have: is less than a joke to me. It's an anti-culture.


Haha, Trump a "bully." See, this pretend higher than thou "culture" to me just sounds like a prating old woman, a school teacher's moral loft. Europe is an intellectual vacuum, the original heart of Hellenistic enlightenment has been totally diffused from it, the empty dialectic of history has absorbed it and ground it away with the rocks of foreign soul, and the womb of Being's true revelation, namely Christianity, has been imported to America and Russia, and America will liberate the episteme that has quietly matured in it once the masses realize their emancipatory potential.





___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud


Last edited by Parodites on Wed Sep 28, 2016 10:58 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Sep 28, 2016 10:50 am
Parodites wrote:


" And yes, technologies are invented often enough by genius individuals in garages, but it takes inherently bureaucratic systems of infrastructure and policy-making to scale up those inventions to the level of society at large. Ford needed the assembly line, he needed to make production "bureaucratic" to even make cars a feasible thing, General Motors needed to corrupt politics to buy out railways and streetcars to pave roads, for example; so much more so with computers and the Internet.

Government often gets the values wrong yet I claim this is mostly because it gets them wrong in practice, namely a failure at the political level. Similar to how I see human error as a means to overcoming that error, government is a means of overcoming that in government which is still in error. The solution is not to give up on the attempt, but to keep attempting. "Keep trying, try better, fail better".
"




I don't see what the government has to do with managing the Internet. It's just a bunch of computers tied together with networks, there is no centralization or top down management.

About automobiles. Let's take a more obvious example. A bunch of workers are using an outdated technology for agriculture, someone then creates a technology that does what 100 men do with the energy requirements of a single man. That puts a whole lot of people out of work. But it is a short term consequence. Because what has happened in reality is that a bunch of human labor has now been converted into free potential labor- as new industries must appear in order to make the technology market-viable. There is also always a bunch of unemployed people wandering around asking for jobs; the infrastructure that would need to be built around the new technology that originally put that group of people using its precedent out of work would need to be created. The demand for employment would cater to the transition; the corporate powers employing the new technology would be able to satisfy that demand by drawing on the pools of now free labor. So for example the automobile is invented; a bunch of stage coach making douches are out of work and will try to prevent the automobile from taking off; but the pools of free labor that exist create a demand for employment among the populace, so the infrastructure required to bring the automobile to market and make it viable would itself potentially satisfy that demand and thus the infrastructure would be able to be easily created without government intervention, simply by fulfilling that demand in the masses of unemployed workers. In order to bring the automobile to market, many factories would need to be made, and that would satisfy the constant demand for increasing employment, as it would allow whole new markets to exist, like steel, like oil, etc. No government intervention is or was required for this process to take place: in fact, exactly the opposite- the less government intervention, the more smoothly it all goes. With intervention, what occurs is a delay between the freeing up of potential labor and the emergence of industries centered around new emerging technologies that might satisfy the demand for employment in the populace. This delay in the primary and secondary cycles of capital transference I talked about awhile ago created by government intervention is the reason why we aren't using more solar power right now.

I agree, I see it this way also. American capitalism at this level fully demonstrates the power of free market forces. But the point is that this power is so radical that it ultimately undoes itself, as once you convert so much human labor into mechanical or technological labor thus concentrating labor and displacing workers, the burden of the unemployed is just a cost to society; an available pool of unemployed potential workers drives down the cost of labor which is good for capital owners but there is no inherent mechanism in that situation of having a large pool like that that would inherently drive production in new ways: those unemployed workers can just as easily be used to dig sewers or work on assembly lines or whatever else that already perpetuates existing economic relations and products, it doesn't inherently develop new relations or products. And in the increasing rate of displacement in modern capitalism we have millions of people becoming obsolete because their labor is replaced with non-human labor, all the largest corporations today employ relatively few workers (Google, Apple, etc.) with the exception of Walmart and fast food, but soon those workers will also be replaced by robots and besides that work-labor is menial and should be replaced anyway.

I'm not at all against free market destruction of old industries to make way for progress, but my point is just that at a certain point this destruction runs away with itself; machines and computers can theoretically displace almost all human labor, it's just a gradual process we are on of doing that, the economy and society as a whole can only handle a limited displacement because too much unemployed reduces spending by consumers, raises prices, drains social reserves of capital for welfare, and can cause civil unrest and increase in crime. It's a balancing act, and the economy can more or less find that sweet spot on its own, yet at the point we are at today with automation technologies the ultimate logic is that 90% of people will have no surplus labor to sell to the capital owners, this 90% will be essentially unemployable except in ways that utilize the lowest standards as humans can be pushed into extreme menial poverty-producing work simply out of desperation, so that the cost of sudh marginal cheap labor can actually be lower than the cost of running robots and computer systems.

That isn't s good end, to have 90% of people either unemployed or employed in the lowest kind of work simply out of desperation. This is something I remember reading in Marx, he criticizes Smith's idea of the economy because of how Marx saw there is an inherent imbalance between the position of the worker selling his labor power and the capital owner buying that labor power: the imbalance is precisely that the worker is immediately desperate for a job, while the capital owner already owns capital and by sitting around renting it to workers he isn't desperate in that same way, he can always liquidate his capital and move it to other enterprises or simply into cash, market investments, etc.

Also my point about government bureaucracy was actually about bureaucracy itself and not really about government: bureaucracy appears in the private sector as well, every corporation is a small bureaucracy, a "little government" of sorts. The Internet may self-regulate like nothing else in the history of mass mobilized technology yet to build computers, electricity, to make code, to homogenize systems and code to each other so the Internet can be more or less universally accessible by any device, all of that takes serious corporate-level bureaucratic organization, the imposition of strict hierarchical structures upon workers and which structures are heavily administrative in nature. Likewise, to make sure computers don't explode sometimes or leak dangerous radiation, to make sure companies aren't polluting, etc. we need bureaucratic administrative systems at the level of society as such and which systems are divorced from a profit motive, so that the goals of those systems can be pursued without recourse to conflicts of interest and corruption that would ultimately reduce the effectiveness of those systems in pursuing their goals (making sure products are safe, making sure companies aren't polluting the environment or hurting workers, etc.) There is a division in economy here, the point isn't that the government should take everything over, that would be a disaster; the point is that neither should the market take everything over, that would also be a disaster.



___________
"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." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Sep 28, 2016 11:14 am
To your other post, the difference between our views I think reduces a lot to our different understandings of what "liberal" and "dialectic" mean. To me, liberal means the values of equality (all are "created equal"), human rights including freedom of speech and assembly, tolerance (the actual societal and economic (but certainly not "absolute") instantiation of the notion of equality, namely equality under the law), and creative expres​sion(science, art, philosophy-- learning as a value in itself), emotional sanity (romance, friendship, basically not seeing other as mere objects). To me these aren't even political values, they are purely rational values, they are literally the values of self-consciousness or "mind" itself.

There is another dimension of liberalism called neoliberalism, which isn't at all what Ive outlined above and which you seem to mean when you use the term "liberal". As I see it: neoliberalism is an excess of true liberalism that was made possible as excess by the rise of modern capitalism, the converting of capital as such info direct sociopolitical value, the takeover of the political by the economic as you said. We agree here. But I divorce liberalism as Ive outlined above from its more recent excess of neoliberalism; they aren't at all the same thing. People like Clinton use the image of liberalism to push their neoliberalism, for them liberalism becomes a convenient mask to hide other agendas entirely, and yet they are still required to wear that mask in public and to at least a little bit pay fidelity to the mask. That is the key: the Clintons and other neoliberals are playing a dialectical role of synthesizing two opposite forces, the forces of true humanity (politically identified by the liberal values I mention above) and the forces of neoliberal domination, objectification of humans, crude physical power, capitals accumulation as an end in itself, etc.

I want to have a dismantling of the neoliberal dimension too, but I don't think that can just happen overnight or by some world nuclear war, because the internal conflict must be totally realized namely capitalism must be reckoned with true liberalism, true civilized rational human values. What are your civilized rational values, do you have any? You mention the Hellenistic project; equality, freedom of speech and assembly, tolerance, creative development of sciences and ideas and art, all of those things I just mentioned were present in Ancient Greece. Yes they had slaves but that is just because they didn't have machines to convert human labor into autonomous labor, as we have today. From what I understand the Greeks didn't even treat their slaves that poorly.

I think you and I want the same thing, more or less, unless you reject the values I outlined above, in which case what are your values here?

As for the dialectic, there are two ways to read it: that things develop as a result of their inherent internal contradictions, or that the developments is external as two different opposing ideas come together and are only overcome by being enveloped by a third, larger idea that retroactively reorganizes and defines those two original ideas. I see both forms of the dialectal logic are at work in humanity and the world. But I'll keep reading Hegel and let you know if and when I find in him the principle of the daemonic and the excess, and the logic of reification as you've laid out. It seems to be erroneous that Hegel is often thought of as proposing a totalized Absolute toward which history progresses, as if the internal tension of difference in the material-ideal could ever be totally dissolved; I don't see him saying that at all, his point seems much subtler than this, as I was explaining in my newer post on self-valuing. But as I said I'll keep reading and report back what I find.



___________
"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." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Sep 28, 2016 11:31 am
Hegel thought that the dialectic emerges because matter is imperfect. That's the reason history exists at all for him. Because matter, because Being itself is imperfect, so nonbeing emerges as its negation. Then the two terms struggle and synthesize creating spirit or geist, in a process attempting to extract the original imperfection, and we go on and on. Absolute spirit is the perfection of logic toward which history is progressing in Hegel. Not that subtle.



Exactly as you said- freedom of speech and treating people equally under law aren't values. It's just basic social contract stuff. Those are not my values, because they aren't values. They are things I agree to under a social contract because without them society could not function. Liberal secular humanism, out of which both the common species of leftism and neoliberalism have emerged, is not that simple: it involves the myth that the struggle of ideology has ended and that it is that end, it involves the myth that Christianity has been surpassed and God has died, etc.

Neoliberalism is connected to what I called liberal progressivism, which communism and fascism proposed themselves as alternatives to in the great war of the 20th century. It's evolved into the SJW feminist black lives matter shit because it is naturally focused on rejection social forms associated to the true ideological conflicts in Christianity, it is focused on turning over the power of the masses which they concentrated in their religions to the hands of the State- all these ideas of having gone beyond those forms of society, the nuclear family, marriage, Christian based things- all that is just brainwashing by the State to convince people its good to renounce their emancipatory potential and turn their power over. But both it and the liberalism you speak of as equality of races and relativity of cultural values- they are both expressions of one thing: liberal secular humanism, born of the Enlightenment era. The left-right paradigm is an expression of that basic source in liberal secular humanism, which Nietzsche championed as the death of God. That basic source is as I read it just the result of "Identifying philosophy with the dialectic itself", which I talk about at the end of this message. Through it, politics has been brought to an end, as capitalism in its tertiary stage was enabled by it to form a devastating complex of social forces, connecting military, media, science and globalist regimes together under one will.




" Russia and US really only exist today at the symbolic level, attested to by the fact of the orgies of military prowess and drive-psychology out in the open and asserted by Russia and the US as if any of that constituted a fucking personality or an ethos, which of course it does not. At the ideal level it would be hard to say that Russia or the US even exist, evidenced by the silly political games of dick-wagging and the fact that US cultural hegemony constitutes a fucking coke bottle."


These globalist European motherfuckers are the ones that infiltrated our system through corrupt political classes and convinced us to become their central puppet in the bid for a globalist superstate, by granting access to our military to foreign nations, fucking around in the middle east and moving around the chess pieces in the game of power for the benefit of our European allies, sending tens of millions to Israel every goddamn 24 hours, etc. This military dickwaving you are talking about is the result of the globalism you defend; it is the result of European manipulation, not American spirit, which is based in completely opposite intentions.


The anti-Americanism and pro-globalist, pro-idealogy, pro fascistic, pro-European, pro politically correct liberal stuff is difficult for me to take, so restating myself as objectively as possible with no personal feeling about it: Christianity is the dialectic of history: it has absorbed the material of foreign non-Western cultures. Identifying philosophy with that dialectic has produced liberal secular humanism and its "values", which are actually nihilism, enabling economics and the social complex formed around capitalism to masquerade as politics. But the epistemes born of the reification of our cultural inheritance I talk about are connected to a completely independent process of emergence, the epistemes- ontic, immanent, and eventually the transcendent episteme, are the result of reflectivity reproducing its own negation from that leveling dialectic as a positive or guiding image of thought. By reproducing the negative core driving the dialectic for the dialectic, the dialectic is dissolved and transcended by the episteme. Thus Christianity will eventually reproduce its own negation as its object of thought and reignite the flame of Hellenistic insight, the transcendent episteme to serve as the fulcrum for a new wheel of time.

In Hegel's system you cannot even begin to claim that the negative core is in the dialectic: the negation appears only after the affirmation of Being is made, which contains the original seed of imperfection that the dialectic is attempting to dig out of matter. So in Hegel, the dialectic is generative- it is what is making the philosophic ideas, it is creating them. But in my system it is leveling them, it is an artificial process began in Greece that is destroying the primordial intimation of Being that Heidegger didn't understand and which transformed the ancient tribes of Greece into the first philosophers, and the true process of philosophic creation has been stalled culminating in the diffusion of European culture, and will only begin again after finishing the project of Christianity as I mentioned above.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Sep 28, 2016 11:43 am
Your use of entelechia and energeia seem to mirror Hegel's use of material and ideal, the logic is that actuality is always already the "work" for the sake of the ideal which it can never truly reach or realize in practice (because of how energeia and entelechia remain eternally apart) but nonetheless which can be reached and realized as the transcendence of the relation between these into higher forms. I think Hegel might agree that the original tension is preserved, yet even in that preservation new possible forms and ideas are emerging, new "epistemes" if that is close to your use of the word here. New modes of human subjectivity. The way an Ancient Greek saw the world is quite different from the way we see the world, our respective subjectivities are different in part because of how the older relations between entelechia and energeia as categories of the self have transcended over time as new contents develop and push new forms. I tend to see this development as somewhat minimal, in that the rational values of consciousness are still the same now as they were back in Ancient Greece and those old Greeks were still understanding those values to some extent just as we are today. The mind must basically reckon with non-mental reality, pure physical need and imposition of crude force; this imposition is always trying to drag life back down toward its lower dimension of energeia without entelechia, but could never really succeed in doing that because of how the physical material are already organized "ideally" to begin with in so far as we are speaking of being as human being; and this points to the accumulation over time of cultural artifacts as ideas that increasingly fill out, with both clarity and confusion, the content-spaces of expanding human consciousness.

My understanding of the reification is that it is a preservation of the original tension and the application of that tension upon new domains. The classic example of the French Revolution being one excess posited as reaction to another, leading to the pendulum swinging from too far in one direction to too far in another direction; the tensions (internal contradictions, essential split of entelechia and energeia) latent to the original position reappeared in the tension of the new position as reaction, and these are precisely the same tension in both cases, yet the transcendence here is that the tensions are negative or passive in the original moment and become active in the present moment. The "synthesis" occurs when the new moment's momentum collapses and a still newer moment appears, one that works the tension as activity partially back into the passive ground of the original moment, yet not as passive as it had formerly been in that original moment. The tension is still there, a political and economic tension for example, but it has moved a little from passive to active, meaning that the tension is slightly more able to reshape existing relations in society and the world.

After the French Revolution and even after Napoleon it wasn't as if the original tensions which led to the revolution were now gone; they were simply moved a bit more out in the open, as new ideas of legality and democratic participation were allowed to seep into the idea of monarchy. This isn't an immediate relief of the tension, it is using the tension in a new way to reshape existing sociopolitical and socioeconomic landscapes. And those landscapes in turn also end up reshaping individual subjectivity in the sense that individual subjectivities are always in a large way locally produced by the forms and dominant ideas and relations of the society in which the individual comes up in. To me this all speaks to what you say about reification, but correct me if I'm wrong.



___________
"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." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Sep 28, 2016 12:09 pm
It's important for me to point out that I didn't say those things weren't values, I said they weren't political values; I said they are rational values, values of reason as such, values of (self-) consciousness.

Do you not agree? What do you think are the rational values of self-consciousness as such, qua self-consciousness? I know you don't believe in social construction, but do you really think these I listed (equality, tolerance, freedom, creativity, emotional sanity (non-pathology)) are merely social contract theory and nothing besides? That sounds like pure social construction theory to me; the social contract doesn't come from nowhere, it comes from the rational requirements of self-conscious being qua that very self-consciousness itself, applied socially as it always is going to be since there is no "pure individual", in a self-conscious species the individual is a created thing (thus the very meaning of the ideal, entelechia, the universal, etc.)

Edit: I feel obliged to also point out that I am not a totalitarian.



___________
"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." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Sep 28, 2016 12:41 pm
One example I can think of easily where government intervention produced great results, and when dealing with massive unemployment shows how the government is a key player in helping this situation out, was the Civilian Conservation Corps. CCC was created by FDR during the Great Depression, it gave work to millions of unemployed men in creating infrastructure, conservation and forestry. The government is basically a giant pool of money in this sense that it can fund large scale projects like this. Millions of people got real work (they weren't just digging holes and then filling them back up again), conservation of the environment was progressed literally and in the understanding of the public, and the workers gained valuable marketable skills that were later used in the economy at large after the program ended. Much of the infrastructure that was build by CCC still exists today and is used every day, easy example is state and national parks. I've heard interviews with old guys today who were in CCC, they were saying that it was a great experience for them, they learned real skills and got paid so could support their families back home.

I want to see more stuff like this today. The dogma of those like Trump and the modern-day GOP/tea party movement is that such projects are inherently bad, wasteful, economically disastrous, yet in the case of the CCC it was a huge success. If I detest any idea thoroughly it is this idea that government is inherently evil; yes government can be evil, but so can private citizens and corporations, and none of these entities need be evil but may be given certain circumstances, yet may also be good as well. The extreme anti-government idea today in modern Right politics is pure ideology, it is another radically hyperbolic claim among so many others and Trump is just dumb enough to say it all out loud without a filter, so we can get a nice glimpse inside this particular brand of pathological thinking. Just because I reject the idea that government is inherently bad or evil doesn't make me a totalitarian or a fascist, nor does it make me an apologist for the actual evils of governments.



___________
"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." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Sep 28, 2016 2:21 pm
In my system, the core of negation is driving the dialectic (in Hegel it is driving physical reality, it owes itself to the imperfection of matter itself) to constantly reify conceptual tension in higher terms, from stasis and motion to energy and entelechy and onward. Because the dialectic for me lacks the affirmative core that it has in Hegel, it cannot stabilize the relation and arrive at a synthesis. Without a synthesis, the dialectic cannot generate new concepts, it can only reify the original tension in higher series of abstractions. But if the dialectic reproduces for itself its own negative core, an episteme is generated: so far two have been generated, the ontic with the Hellenes after grappling with Asian and Egyptian concepts, then the immanent by the Jews working off the Greeks, with the transcendent appearing in Christianity but not yet accessed. When the episteme is generated, the dialectic is annulled and the original intimation of Being which Heidegger longed for is grasped, shining through our historical, dialectic distortion, if only as a fragment: the circle of history is drawn back and re-initiated and a new subjectivity emerges along with a new karmic aeon or order of the world, again, so far two have been completed, the Greeks and Jews, with the ontic and immanent episteme. The transcendent episteme will bring us back to the full witness of Being: which, as opposed to Hegel, has no imperfection- the original insight witnessed by the Doric tribes was a perfect seizure of transcendence into the world and turned them into the first philosophers, they willed Greece into existence on its foundation, which we have lost to the distortion of the historical dialectic, which only appeared because the original Greeks let themselves be infected with foreign systems of thought- imperfect systems, which introduced negation to what was a purely affirmative mode of thinking.


Europe with its aristocracies and tyrants and monarchies and now the EU... The US was founded on the first temple dedicated to the people; from our founding documents there was outlined the system of government through which a new order of the world would be established, a self-administered polis, the first truly free populace, free of political elites and centralization and ideology- the first populace free to think for themselves and generate true values; that's our culture, not fucking coca cola. Coca cola is what we were left with after our globalist leaders betrayed us and sucked up all our power. But in this new continent, the dialectic which has diffused the European soul can still be broken through, and the episteme generated for a new age. But the tools needed for that transformation of the soul of the masses, Christianity, have been damaged, through liberal progressivism, and our politics manipulated by Europe, through its globalist reach from out of the Reich's failures- the fucking krauts set up the basis of the EU when they seen they were falling. But Europe's failure is already assured, America can still rise, and claim the destiny that has been denied to it by the scheming world powers, its destiny of novus ordo saeclorum, to inherit the soul of the West and become the central cultural beacon in the world, with Europe declining into an afterthought, a refuse, an atavism, a failure, a ghost, as merely ceremonial as its monarchs are.

And in this new order of the world, once the transcendent episteme is realized, man will return to what the Doric tribes witnessed, and the last age will resemble the first. Spontaneously there emerged in the ranks of the proto-Socratics fully formed philosophies, and a similar cultural explosion will take place- in America, not Europe. Europe renounced and gave up its future.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Sep 28, 2016 2:26 pm
As to what my values are? Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to god. The US was based on a self-governing populace. The kind of EU style top down centralized government- indeed, that is always evil.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Sep 28, 2016 2:42 pm
The centralized federal government points a gun in my fucking face and tells me to do shit. That it sometimes does good and that private self-administered powers can sometimes do bad is meaningless. The self-administered government springs from the will of people; the centralized, from the few- it's involuntary, it's tyrannical. I'm opposed to top down government centralization, not bottom up government from the will of the people.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Sep 28, 2016 2:44 pm
I think the one thing I don't see yet is how the core of being is affirmation. Nietzsche definitely thought this, I used to think it too, but I don't see it that way anymore. Pure affirmation in itself would be meaningless, an endless circle collapsing to nothingness without a constant input of contents to keep that circle going. I think the self and being as such is indeed affirmation, but not "at bottom"-- at bottom this affirmation is a logical structure of self-reference that requires constant input from the outside in order to maintain itself coherently, in order not to collapse into non-existence (madness in the human sense). Could the ideal ever fully assume the entirety of its contents into itself without remainder? That seems the only possibility for pure affirmation, yet that project would only come at the end of being and never could be the case at its beginning, for the simple reason that once the self-affirming logic obtains it begins eating its experiences in order to convert affirmation into 'real substance' and if it did not do this then it would simply sit there, not doing anything.

How exactly do you see the core of being as pure affirmation in itself? The way I see it is that affirmation arises as a consequence of the relations among contents, a kind of "storm" in being."
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: 6578
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:28 pm

"Parodites wrote:
The centralized federal government points a gun in my fucking face and tells me to do shit. That it sometimes does good and that private self-administered powers can sometimes do bad is meaningless. The self-administered government springs from the will of people; the centralized, from the few- it's involuntary, it's tyrannical. I'm opposed to top down government centralization, not bottom up government from the will of the people.

But the point is that the will of the people is never adequate to the realities (natural, social, economic or otherwise) in which that will must manifest itself. The people can never fully and perfectly (without errors, remainder, inconsistencies) actualize such a "will" even if they had one in such coherent terms, which I don't think they do.

This will isn't one thing, one coherent being, rather I see it as a collection of many different things often in contrast to one another, necessarily so. Human being is a sort of actively self-modulating compromise among all those variously different parts.



___________
"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." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Sep 28, 2016 2:57 pm
Capable wrote:
Parodites wrote:
The centralized federal government points a gun in my fucking face and tells me to do shit. That it sometimes does good and that private self-administered powers can sometimes do bad is meaningless. The self-administered government springs from the will of people; the centralized, from the few- it's involuntary, it's tyrannical. I'm opposed to top down government centralization, not bottom up government from the will of the people.

But the point is that the will of the people is never adequate to the realities (natural, social, economic or otherwise) in which that will must manifest itself. The people can never fully and perfectly (without errors, remainder, inconsistencies) actualize such a "will" even if they had one in such coherent terms, which I don't think they do.

This will isn't one thing, one coherent being, rather I see it as a collection of many different things often in contrast to one another, necessarily so. Human being is a sort of actively self-modulating compromise among all those variously different parts.


The US constitution and founding documents were designed in order to provide the masses the instrument by which to express- as perfectly as possible, that will. It has been corrupted as I said by the centralized federal government. The founders also hoped we would even make further improvements to it, as opposed to fuck it up like we've done.


As to affirmation:

Could the ideal ever fully assume the entirety of its contents into itself without remainder?


Schelling had a vision of man returning the remainder of the divine to the divine through the vehicle of matter; he buried his will in the under-will of the universe in order to return it to god, though he based that on Jewish theology. In this case the whole point of the creation of the world itself and human history literally was just that: to self-enclose the divine and return the remainder, to allow god to absorb himself in his own divine radiance without remainder.

And my idea of the transcendent episteme is about absorbing the contents of the dialectic within itself by reproducing its own negative core as positive objectification. This will take place through the drama of Christianity, going back to Christ representing the psychic incorporation of death, in a positive orientation of man to nonbeing.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Sep 28, 2016 3:07 pm
And by my own admission, my views on Europe's eventual collapse and the idea that we should just bid it farewell into the dustbin of history- that's a radicalization to my thought I don't expect you to accept, it's just my personal feeling about it. I favor America's rise over all other powers of the world. The generalized point is simply that the torch of the West is passing to the Americas because Europe gave up the tools of its liberation with the globalist centralization and repudiation of Christianity in lieu of liberal secular humanism. Perhaps it can save itself, limp on and join the Masonic brotherhood too one day if only in spirit. At least the British brex'd themselves before they wrecked themselves.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Sep 28, 2016 3:44 pm
And basically, this election is couched in two paradigm shifts that are occurring: one is political, the other cultural.


First: the left-right paradigm itself is collapsing. There is no left-right anymore. The underpinning of liberal secular humanism on which that political axis of the left-right is based is demonstrating itself to be the product of mere social conditioning and manipulation, of the tertiary stage of late capitalism I keep talking about, and an instrument of the alliance between the media, the military, and science (Think of that bullshit Michio Kaku type global civilization nonsense) with globalism. Think of this: why is there an "alt right" and not an "alt left" right now as well? It's because the liberal secular humanist basis of the left-right paradigm is itself collapsing, and because it is itself based in values the left claims to advance as its very identity in the name of social progress, with its degeneration there is nowhere remaining for the left to "alternate" to, the left has no more conceptual space to fill- there is nowhere further left for there to be. The alt-right isn't really right, it's a symptom of this asymmetry built into the political axis that is only now becoming obvious. There was never a center in the dying political axis; it was the result of social conditioning and never a proper ideological structure. It was a grand conspiracy set up to guide us into the globalist superstate and away from the fulfillment of the social forms dominant at its inception, hence Europe's repudiation of Christianity, the collapse of marriage as an institution, the destruction of the nuclear family, and on and on.

Second: A cultural revitalization that takes the form of Russia piercing together a national identity with the shards of Christian orthodoxy, and the rediscovery of the emancipatory potential of the masses in America, with rising calls to decentralization and a return to true constitutional philosophy. A new political axis is evolving based around pro statism/anti statism and pro nationalism/pro globalism. There is no left-right anymore, now there is nationalist-globalist and statist-antistatist axis. Instead of center, moderate right, hard left and all that, you can now only be described in terms of a nationalist statist or a nationalist antistatist; a statist antinationalist, a globalist statist (the kind of globalism espoused by both neocons and neolibs, by the Bushes and the Clintons, its an international alliance) or a globalist antistatist. (the kind of globalism where you erase the borders between nations and deprive all national sovereignty- rather than an international alliance, you have an actual superstate like what the EU wants to become.)



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Sep 28, 2016 9:34 pm
Quick point on Trump: Fixed raised the great point that at least Trump lies like a human, and not like an "institution" or I would say, as a robot (as Hillary and most politicians lie, Obama included).

This is a fantastic insight. This really captures the essence of his appeal perfectly. This is why his supporters do not care that he is lying, and this is also why his opponents do not care that he is also telling truths as well (he is by default "always telling the truth" even when he openly lies, simply because he lies like a human being; and from the other side he is also by default "always lying" even when he speaks truths, simply because of how he refuses to employ the standard robotic lying of the "systemic violence" of institutional psychology).

But my real question to all this is: yes, but do we really need such broken personalities in order to galvanize a mass political attempt at speaking truth to power? If so, what does this tell us about politics and humanity today?



___________
"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." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Thu Sep 29, 2016 4:47 am
It's more about the fact that the social complex in late tertiary capitalism- it's hold on our political machine, is too strong to simply speak them out of power. Trump is simply the only person with enough pre-existing media presence and monetary resources to do this, to challenge the political establishment and open the way for a new order to emerge. He also has been planning for 30 years to do this, waiting for the opportunity when the current political paradigm was at its weakest to put his plan into action. I'd rather it have been someone else, there's people who could do this better than Trump, maybe not the actual winning of the election because like I said he has a skill at this apparently but people that could allow the real philosophic undercurrent enabling all this to happen to speak through them more eloquently and completely, people more knowledgeable about politics and the like, but Trump happens to be the person who had both the physical ability to win and the will to do so. More than anything else he is a mouthpiece or avatar for these paradigm shifts, not the actual origination to them, he's the muscle not the brain behind it.


About affirmation: My system of topos, dialectic, and episteme, is in essence the philosophy of how Being's original affirmation becomes self-enclosed without remainder. So the three epistemes- the ontic, immanent, and transcendent, correspond with the rise of post Hellenistic Greece, the Judaic religion, and Christianity. But each of these three epochs has an ontic, immanent, and transcendent episteme subdivided in it. That's what I mean by enfoldment. Christianity was latently enfolded all the way back before even the Jews arose. So there was an ontic, immanent, and transcendent revelation in post-Hellenistic culture, that last bringing about the transition to Judaic enlightenment about the immanent, faceless God of Abraham. And each of those subdivisions has its own further sub-sub division of ontic, immanent, and trasc. episteme. And so on and so forth, down into seconds and microseconds and the Planck scale. History- time itself, is this intellectual structure of enfoldment. Every moment in the dialectic of history can be unfolded into one of the epistemes or re-enfolded. This is what I mean by cycles of time. And with each transition, from the Greeks to the Jews to Christianity, these cycles get tighter; the enfoldment more severe, the subdivisions more interconnected, and the last transition that will soon come will allow us to escape from time from within time as we reproduce the whole residual theophany of the transcendent object behind history, which will cast no further shadow into the physis of nature, the bound monad. The enfoldment will become self-enclosed entirely in its severity and the pure affirmation of Being realized, without remainder, without the shadow of the real, breaking the diamond of the world-ontos on a beam of light without imperfection, without the negation fueling the dialectic of human history as a distortion of the affirmation, of Being. Technology will serve to facilitate the expression of transcendence and preserve it, a tool the ancient Doric tribes did not possess.



While I'm against the technocratic Messianic ideal aligned with the pseudo-politics behind the globalist superstate and planetary government, unlike Heidegger I'm not against technology itself. Our technology will serve to engrave the transcendent revelation of Being upon the Anthropocene, whereas the ancient Doric tribes only had writing and oral traditions.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud


Last edited by Parodites on Thu Sep 29, 2016 8:34 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Thu Sep 29, 2016 6:40 am
About the Zizek quote in your signature- this speculative dance of capital I am going to briefly talk about after I restate what I said a long time ago about the three stages of capital:

[ The problem is that the surplus wealth must be centralized in the hands of a few, otherwise it will become too evenly distributed for any re-investment to be made in a kind of two stage process I will describe, whereby capital is being moved around, from a first stage in which free labor is converted into capital, and a second at which capital is re-converted into labor- specifically working, or utilized labor. This equation is very important, because if we as a species fail to work out the balancing act implicit in it between free and working labor, between expansive and contractive/centralized or monopolized capital, then a lot of us die; this is the structure that keeps society from falling apart. And we've gotten it incorrect on our first two attempts at it, the world wars.


You can see this movement of the surplus wealth in two recurrent stages. Capitalism in the early phase is marked by the emergence of free trade and the rising of innumerable small businesses and entrepreneurs- this is where the world was before WW1. At this stage the surplus wealth created by all these little businesses is fairly well distributed. Marx theorized a point of no further expansion possible, "State Capitalism," in which these small businesses- the little Bourgeoisie, will be absorbed over time by the proper bourgeoisie out of which the elite class precipitates as the bearers of centralized wealth; this centralization takes the form of Mcdonalds, Apple, Microsoft. Monopolies absorb the small businesses, that is, the little-middle-class of successful smaller scale entrepeneurs who have done well for themselves, and re-concentrate the much more distributed surplus wealth created in the early explosive stage of capitalism. Now, in this later stage, in state capitalism, a very small number- the proper elites, have gained enough control over surplus wealth to simply charge people for rent and make money without expending much if any labor. This is the necessary step that leads to all the surplus wealth and therefor power being stripped from the common masses and handed to the select few, that it may be re-invested in the next cycle of innovations. This next cycle creates within itself a kind of pseudo-controlled mini first phase capitalism again, that acts explosively as many smaller businesses crop up over night to take advantage of the various new avenues that have opened up with the new tech produced in that cycle, ie. everyone going after domain names in the dot com thing in the 90's, or the profusion of more different kinds of cellphone than you could count in all shapes and sizes before the Iphone appeared. This bubbles out for awhile and then pops, the surplus wealth is reabsorbed, and so on, ad infinitum, each time strengthening and further concentrating the surplus wealth in the last cycle into fewer and fewer hands, a smaller and smaller "elite" class, the designated 1 percent. Now, because this didn't happen when free trade was first established, before WW1, the surplus wealth was too evenly distributed and dried up; the products of this failed first phase however were not iphones and web domains and sneakers with lights- they were bullets, bombs, and machine guns, and all of the surplus wealth, now in the hands of the people- an unemployed and impoverished people after the failure to reincorporate the surplus, used it to create the first war of the people rather than of small trained armies: they used the wealth surplus and the means of production to manufacture the necessary agents to kill themselves instead of recentralizing and investing it in a new cycle of innovations.


This is why, as you say, pure capitalism is impossible- pure capitalism meaning an infinitely distributive and unencumbered period of first phase free trading and small businesses. Socialism simply aborts the second phase and replaces it with government intervention on the economy, and that has the effect only of drying up the surplus wealth created in the first phase, as the democratic and governmental modification on the economy, the workers controlling the means of production- for all taxation and government intervention has that effect of shifting control over productive capacity to the people if only indirectly, cannot properly mobilize the surplus wealth toward the development of the next cycle of technology. So socialism is not viable for that reason as well.


If you collect taxes and use it to build a road, through governmental intervention on the economy, then you also have a bunch of businesses and innovation that was not created and could have been created with the same money- but only if society is in a state of economic equilibrium, because if there are a bunch of unemployed people at the time, then now their unused labor capacity is being utilized to construct the road, and labor is not being diverted from anything that would have been getting done otherwise. That is one justification for socialist policies. Yet it actually is being diverted from expansion, for the following reason. Through this tax, money is collected from workers operating in an expansive state of the movement of capital, in that mini unencumbered free trading bubble reproduced within the second phase, and then redistributed to those currently unemployed and converts their unused labor capacity into public goods like a road, so that as I said, what is happening is power and productive capacity is being re-bestowed to the people, aborting the second phase or state-capitalism from completing itself in the movement of capital that would redistribute the wealth surplus to an elite class who would be able to reinvest it properly and create tech and sector bubbles which mobilize a fury of human labor toward new innovations and maintain equilibrium. As the first phase converts free labor into capital, the second phase must convert capital into working labor: this socialist intervention converts free labor into "nothing", ie. as opposed to working labor, my concept of working-labor meaning more or less capitalistic expansion: it converts a previously unemployed guy in a state of unused free labor now building a road into an invisible piece of fiat currency- for unless the wealth surplus is centralized at the end of the second phase in the cycle then it dissipates, and each piece of free-labor that is being taxed by a construction job for a road is just that- a dissipation of the wealth surplus. Obviously we need roads, but this is the effect of acquiring it and anything else through taxation. Taxation is simply a dissipation of wealth surplus, a prevention of its being centralized in preparation for its reinvestment by the elite class. Taxation and socialist policy prevents the formation of the little-middle class, so that the middle class proper spreads its cumulative wealth so much that the elites have no way to siphon off surplus wealth into their monopoly, and thus no capital concentrates anywhere, and cannot be reinvested. In short: working-labor must be kept equal to free-labor with reference to the third term of capital; working-labor (or expansive trade) minus free-labor (potential trading, ie. my work for your money) must equal capital, (the material that can be expansively traded, which includes human beings in a state of free-labor) and this equation is accomplished by centralizing surplus wealth and reinvesting it in new technologies at the end of each of these two-phase cycles. Socialism is basically adding free-labor to capital and saying it equals working-labor, but it does not, because free-labor is already contained implicitly in the value of capital.



This two phase recurrence is the problem for both a pure capitalism- the first phase without the second, as well as socialism, and I'm not aware of any solution. If the first phase is pushed too far, then countless small businesses distribute all surplus wealth to the extent that it can no longer be collected in one place and reinvested in new technologies, and capitalism hits a dead end and regresses- that is what happened to bring on the first world war, as, in the fascination of the human species with the new free trade idea, we were finally woke up from its dream into its nightmare; if the second phase is replaced by a governmental intervention, if taxes are utilized to give control over productive capacity to the people, then the surplus wealth from the first phase gets starved and dried up- the attempts to shift this productive control to the people on a large scale amounted to the failed communistic regimes, and ended in the second world war. Now in the US at the present time and in other places in the world we are attempting to apply a very small amount of intervention or socialist policy, not completely aborting the second phase, and modern socialists like Sanders want to accomplish that by laying taxes on the elite class, the 1 percent in particular, and this has and will have only the consequence of making the starvation of surplus wealth much more slow than it would be in an overtly socialistic or communist state, and through attrition will take us into another war, as we will find this method works as badly as the other two. A small business can get by on balancing costs with revenues whereas a large business that tries to do that will simply get bought out or out-competed by a more ambitious large business producing more total surplus value. The only real solution I can see to the problem is that a large enough field of capital and economic agents exists such that both processes, stages 1 and 2 can co-occur alongside each other at all times; therefore limited bubbles coming into existence and collapsing without disturbing the entire society and economy as a whole, but also being effective at spurring expansions and bubble-based inflations to such a degree that productive increases produce society-wide significance. "


Indeed this has led to a third stage which I haven't mentioned yet. The rise of the banking system.


I found out yesterday that Lenin had a similar analysis of the cause of WW1 as mine. The surplus value created in what I call the first stage of expansive free-trade he called a product of colonial imperialism and said that this surplus could not successfully be exported from one nation to another, and this led to war.


So the first stage, that of expansive free trade, creates a large surplus capital value but it is so widely distributed among competing small businesses that it cannot be centralized and that is the reason why, as Lenin said, it cannot be exported; because it cannot be exported, it is instead concentrated in monopoly companies and re-invested in new technological enterprises, while these monopolies recreate expansive bubbles of free trade and smaller businesses within themselves in order to re-absorb and further concentrate any wealth still external to them, creating the "1 percent" class; the third stage appears as international banking systems, which coordinate transfers of this concentrated wealth on a larger scale and deal with the exportation problem between nations. This banking system is supported by alliances in general and unites the various capitalist countries through tenuous relations of debt- ie we owe a lot of money to China, therefor China can continue manufacturing because it knows we will buy its products, and the global economy can keep functioning with the US as the center of the debt and the international bank system. This third stage leads to the US, as the center of this debt, losing its own manufacturing capabilities, as the companies move their means of production to other nations and the globalist EU becomes empowered more and more. ]


So you see that the "speculative dance of capital" or the volatility of the stock market exchange is actually just a corollary to this tertiary function of late-stage capitalism where the international banking integration emerges: with less integration, (countries can manipulate their currency to intentionally provoke this difficulty in integrating) the stock becomes more volatile, as the smaller economic excitations in the second stage become more easily manipulated as they fail to produce exportable capital.


1. Free trade. Explosion of small businesses and creation of a large amount of homogeneous distributed nonexportable surplus capital.
2. Larger businesses absorb the smaller ones and concentrate wealth so that it can be reinvested in creating new tech. and exportable capital.
3. The international banking system emerges, which negotiates this transfer of wealth. Wealth not transferred in this stage through the global economy is easily manipulated, leading to a volatile stock market, the "dance of capital". This manipulated wealth is a residual defect in this system and only exists on paper. Hence the danger in getting rich by playing stocks. When the integration in the tertiary stage starts occurring again and concentrated surplus capital becomes exportable, all that imaginary wealth evaporates. That's what an economic bubble or crash actually is, it's the tertiary stage kicking in again. But each bubble has just been venting the super-volcano so that it can all go on a bit longer- the true bubble will pop soon.

That first stage was pushed as far as it could go and failed, hence WW1 like I said in the repaste. Then the second stage was developed and pushed as far as it could go, failed, WW2 occured, and then the third stage emerged with the globalist superstate taking form around it. And now this third stage is being pushed as far as it can go, it's going to fail, WW3 will take place, and then we'll see what happens going forward.

America's geographic and economic independence is what led the globalists to corrupt our politics and turn us into their primary instrument: grounding the tertiary stage in America ensured that the system could always recover from any crashes, as America's independence would protect the greater hub of global capital from diffusion. But America is now waking up to the parasite, and that the globalists only wanted to push us out of the world stage as a sovereign state and make use of our power and advantages for their own ends. They turned America into simply their protective shield around global capital, hence they are the ones that replaced our culture with a Big Mac.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Thu Sep 29, 2016 10:28 am
Here is my take on these important issues:

Wealth concentrates upward simply because this is the nature of capital to be inherently organized toward increasingly totalitarian status. Most people either do not act on a totalitarian impulse or simply cannot act on it meaningfully, but the small number that do have that impulse and act on it end up drawing capital to themselves like a gravity well. Before modern capitalism wealth was always in the hands or held at the behest of the political-military aristocracy, totalitarian form-as-such; this is simply because force is used to compel capital transfers to those who have the use of force on their side. The genius of capitalism was to find a second mechanism for how large scale mobilizations of capitalism could occur, namely through strictly economic (inherently non-political-military) exchanges, and thus led to a rise of new powerful entities in society, the wealthy business owners and eventually large corporations. Ostensibly these are separate from political-military powers, of course that isn't absolutely the case but capitalism did create this counter-object of the economic-as-such against the historical object of political-military-as-such, when it came to how large scale mobilizations of capital might occur.

Capitalism separates out economy from politics, again it does this regardless of the obvious fact that economics and politics are still highly entangled; the separation is still very real.

WWI was caused by many things, most notably by strong nationalistic sentiment and colonial ambitions, basically by a misplaced sense of pride that could be easily damaged. German "weltpolitik", British imperialism, Austrian racism against Serbs, Russian meddling in the Balkans, entangled national defense alliances, German provocations in colonial territories (Morocco, Congo), naval arms race between Britain and Germany, and the slow spread of the idea of socialism throughout Germany, Russia, Italy, France and Austria. But basically it was a hell of a lot of "national pride" that created the situation of tense buildup of hostilities and political minefields to where the assassination of the archduke to Austria by a Serbian nationalist, in Serbia, was enough to spark the fire.

Plus, in the typical blindness of nationalistic fervor, most countries and people felt like a war would be quickly over, with their side winning obviously.

The beauty of NATO and the EU is that it is meant to solidify such a large bloc of European powers together that this kind of complex, nationalistic, racist, rivalry and entangled alliances situation wouldn't occur again. If one opposes such large blocs of economic and military cooperation and wants instead a return to 19th and early 20th century isolated nationalism then one simply calls for another major land war in Europe. The real problem isn't these new blocs themselves, the problem is that they aren't strong enough and may break down: EU is already having serious problems and if other countries withdraw it could collapse, and NATO is a target of Trump's and other disaffected American nationalist conservatives who think we should go back to the good old days of isolationist protectionism, not realizing that any large land war in Europe is something that affects America just as must as it affects the Europeans.

This idea that America should sit back and happily watch Europe burn is so disgusting to me, I can only interpret it as a kind of psychological compensation for the belief-set that holds to the isolationist protectionist racist nationalism. If one's beliefs are implicitly nationalist oriented like that, then it would become impossible to psychologically value any other national and cultural group except for one's own, and thus in today's system of large cooperative blocs like EU and NATO it would further be required to feel strong antipathy for other nations and cultures, in order to defend oneself against what seems to be a personal threat against one's diehard nationalist fervor.

I'm speaking objectively here about the beliefs and paradigms of these various ideas, and not about anyone in particular. I always separate out ideas from the people who "believe" them, and I want to direct philosophy at ideas themselves so as to provide better opportunities for individuals to adopt and work with ideas.

Now, all that was the cause for WWI. WWII was basically caused by a failure to rethink the playing field and the logic of the "only game in town" after WWI was finished; namely, extreme nationalism still existed and Germany had been decimated and not allowed any chance for serious economic recovery after WWI. Colonial aspirations still existed in the Middle East, N Africa and Asia with western powers fighting over who would effectively control these developing or undeveloped areas. Germany had been cut out of the game, and wounded pride had nowhere to go except into desire for a Fuhrer. Just imagine, Germany had been the philosophical powerhouse in the 19th century, it's philosophers fundamentally altering the world with new ideas and ways of thinking, yet now Germany is reduced to almost nothing after WWI. You always need to give people a way out for their wounded pride, and a means to recover their self-valuing after it has been damaged, otherwise you feed radicalism, spite and irrationality. Nationalism itself is a mild form of this very same axis of radicalism-spite-irrationality, created by how societies by default fuck with and suppress people's self-valuing. Just as, which I've written about recently, ideology is the general more mild case of "schizophrenia" (paranoid delusions, also at times hallucinations) just as schizophrenia is a specific more severe case of "ideology".

Back to capitalism, yes I agree that these cycles of boom and bust end up concentrating wealth further upward, again I see this as basically the totalitarian tendency of capital: capital is itself neutral so will be used to potentiate anything at all, which means that the wider aspirations for employing larger reservoirs of capital will naturally create that very possibility by virtue of what capital already is; namely, average people who do not aspire to totalitarian mobilizations of capital for their gain of person power of force-use will only mobilize small amounts of capital, while people who want that kind of totalitarian status will mobilize larger amounts of capital. What was needed was what capitalism brought, a new way of motivating the desire to mobilize large amounts of capital other than for personal political-military power of use of force. But eventually even this "free" system of "pure" economic mobilizations of capital becomes political-military in nature because of how, at the upper levels, the political and military mobilizations of capital further the economic mobilizations of capital (think neocolonialist global capitalism, outsourcing, etc.). So even as capitalism introduced a great new dimension into how social and labor capital can be organized, at the upper echelons this sill merges with the old systems of political-military mobilizations of capital. Thus as wealth "naturally" concentrates upward it also naturally tends to become more totalitarian in nature and even "free capital" ends up feeding the existing political-military orders.

Specific to the UN, EU and NATO: the only reason to reject these sort of blocs is that one thinks large scale warfare is preferable to inter-state and inter-personal tensions sublimated into economic activity. By "economic" here I also mean scientific, cultural-artistic, and ostensibly humanitarian activities. When a situation of large scale war is absent then the people of various nations are free to cooperate with each other across national borders for enhanced economic, scientific, cultural, and humanitarian work; when war is the case this kind of cooperation dries up or is restricted to certain peoples who happen to be in alliance with each other at the moment. "Peace" (from large scale military mobilization and warfare) is a basic condition of a rational, sane world of self-conscious beings; warfare is not some kind of necessity of cleansing of the tensions but rather a low form of catharsis for those tensions, a catharsis that only indirectly addresses those tensions themselves and the real causes for them. War had been necessary, yes, but only because humanity is still so many apes fighting over pieces of the ground and fighting to defend their petty wounded prides. The necessity for war is a symptom of a relatively low stage of self-conscious species evolution, although only philosophy can really understand this because of course we have no other self-conscious species to compare ourselves to or draw from to see what that kind of evolution really looks like over eons. Philosophy must derive this curve of the evolution of the self-conscious species in general. This is an absolutely necessary task that only philosophy can accomplish.

I would rather work toward that task than capitulate to low-stage (in that overall evolution of the self-conscious species in general) logics that see war as inherently necessary or good and global cooperative blocs as inherently unnecessary or bad. Yes global blocs and organizations also serve to instantiate old-style political-military capital mobilization at a higher level of subtly totalitarian power, but a good tool can be used equally for noble or ignoble ends: we should not abandon the nascent projects of forming collective will, ideas and action amongst people and nations simply because it takes a lot of work to push back against that tyranny, we should be trying harder in our pushback, we should reaffirm the value of the evolution of the human species toward better ideas and larger capacities to cooperate and operate at "global" (nationally cooperative without the presence of war) levels. Otherwise we are going to return to a WWI and II state except this time the advent of nuclear weapons, biological weapons, drones, probably military tech we don't even know about, all of that would raze humanity to the ground and simply lead to a collapse of civilization on the worldwide scale, a return to isolated tribalisms, petty local dictators, a loss of the ideas and cultural and scientific products of civilization that have been accumulated for the last 2500 years. No amount of American or Russian "national pride" could ever justify that.

We should be working to improve globally-oriented systems, by bolstering national-level incentives for cooperation and economic activity that is outside the sphere of the political-military, to bring out the best and most civilized, rational instincts in humanity. I will never work for a tyrannical fascist globalism, but neither will I stop working for the idea of a true globalism, one founded on the absence of war and the presence of those core rational values of a self-conscious species that I mentioned in a former post. Those values hold and are grounded in the necessary logic of what self-consciousness means and requires. Self-valuing at the level we humans are at and can ascend to requires asserting such values; we can debate the specific forms of the values and which should be included or given greater priority, and how to translate those values into the world practically and continently, but we must accept the existence of such "primary values" as a basic condition of our philosophizing at this critical stage of attempting to philosophize toward the political.



___________
"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." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson


Last edited by Capable on Thu Sep 29, 2016 10:38 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Thu Sep 29, 2016 10:33 am
We should give people and nations better, higher means of defending their pride and asserting their self-valuing then simply through recourse to political-military outlets. But that will require an enforceable suspension of warfare amongst nations, enforceable until such time as the ideas have evolved to the point where human beings no longer see any interest in asserting their self-valuing physically against others in displays of brutal use of force and violence.



___________
"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." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Thu Sep 29, 2016 10:54 am
Your causes for the world wars I simply do not accept. As I've been writing, there was no ideological reality behind the world conflicts- there was never any real politics, politics was just an illusion following the decay of Christianity (and the loss of any potential fulfillment of the transcendent episteme) into liberal secular humanism and the false political axis now being broken apart predominantly in America, and virtually the entire logic behind the wars was economic in nature, culminating in capital's tertiary function and the rise of the global superstate. My explanation of capital's various stages of transfer explains both the impetus for the wars, what enabled the wars, and the mechanisms by which the wars were fought. I am not championing a third war, but it will inevitably follow the third stage of capitalism that we're in as the other two wars followed the first and second stage- because like the first two, it doesn't work, at least in the long term.


As for this: "This idea that America should sit back and happily watch Europe burn is so disgusting to me, I can only interpret it as a kind of psychological compensation for the belief-set that holds to the isolationist protectionist racist nationalism. "


What, am I racist against other white dudes in Europe? Their model as I've been saying has closed the transcendent episteme to the dialectic of history at the philosophic level, and at the level of the world stage their model- globalism, has bankrupted my country, hijacked our politics and eroded our original constitutional philosophy that guarded us against tyranny, destroyed our culture and turned us into a fucking brand name, a big bank, a Big Mac, among many other ills, so fuck Europe. This country was founded by people who despised European culture- a culture of monarchs and rituals and moralisms, to such an extent that they were willing to risk death crossing an ocean and put up with savage natives in order to start a new world. And the globalist system has done nothing but strip away American sovereignty and power as well as the sovereignty of the very nations it comprises in order to give political power to a bunch of shit-eating unelected beaurocrats. That this superstate was formed in order to prevent escalating war is a myth; it was created merely to bring capital into its tertiary function. And predictably from that model I am proposing, it has deprived the masses of all emancipatory potential and empowered a useless political class of bureaucratic administrators. Britain left the Eu for that reason- they were being oppressed, by tyrants. Not because they were racists.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Thu Sep 29, 2016 11:31 am
No I am not at all saying you are racist. Even if I thought that, which I don't, that isn't at all my point. My point is that the idea of nationalism itself inherent includes the extended idea of racism ether in overt or covert form, and that the idea of racism is a stupid and non-philosophical idea.

Belief in one's nation's superiority could theoretically not include any kind of beliefs about the superiority of one race over another, but in practice the way of thinking that the idea of nationalism represents perpetuates other kinds of ideas; racism, sexism, inability to rise above contingent biases, this is as I see it a form of thinking that manifests in different ways. I am not saying that in a practical sense one race, culture, gender, nation cannot be more accomplished in certain areas at any given time, but I am saying that the form of thinking that treats such differences as essential and essentially meaningful as within the sphere of a larger reason, is itself a bad form of thinking. I know you probably disagree with that, but it's fine for us to disagree on this point. Of course I do realize that real differences exist, for example I am on board with your idea that intelligence is somewhat heritable just as I am on board with your idea that males and females have somewhat different innate desires and find different sort of things pleasurable and rewarding. But philosophy requires that we universalize ideation and think from the higher position of reason-- not in order to deny those differences but to sublimate them into higher ideas and meaning. Also it is required to do this for the secondary reason that human pathology and low-quality (non-philosophical) thinking naturally thrives within the form of thought of which racism etc. is a part.



___________
"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." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Thu Sep 29, 2016 1:49 pm
Your association of racism and nationalism is a result of the distortion of the current dying political axis. In the new axis, beyond the left-right divide, racism has no meaning anymore.

The old political left-right axis is grounded in the values of liberal secular humanism, which arose with the decay of Christianity: perhaps, as the result of its decay. The ideas that defined your position in that axis like rather or not you agreed that faggots could get married or there was inequality between the races- were always the myth of ideology, a false politics. Because of this: in US constitutional philosophy, things like that, or rather or not pot is legal, all of those liberal secular humanist principles are simply things to be decided by individual communities, ie:

[ The Left, this new Melos, has no vision for America or for the human species in general. That's why the democratic platform is essentially about nothing more than meaningless social issues that don't even have a place in the larger politics that any bid for the presidency should be focused on. Rather or not faggots can get married isn't even political, it's a social issue. I don't care who marries who, I don't care what bathroom people use. That kind of shit should be something figured out at the level of local communities and individual states within the US, not federally mandated and imposed from the top down. That is how it was envisioned by the federalists. Why? Because if you take a consensus vote by the country as whole, and come out with a majority wanting gay marriage, that does not take account of the fact that ideologies are not homogeneously spread out across the nation, and there will be many communities or even states where that is not supported by a majority: so you have to leave shit like that to individual communities and states to settle, [from the bottom up] and if someone who wants gay marriage lives in a state where it turns out the majority does not want it and the state votes to disallow it, well then that person should move to a different state with a community he would get a long with better. The federal government has no business deciding on what marriage is or isn't, the only task of the federal government is international policy and our money. The Democrats talk about nothing other than these meaningless apolitical social issues because they don't have any answer for the larger problems- for the truly political, nor do they possess any vision for the nation-state, for the US. ]

I would add that the institution of marriage was never one of the State and had to do with religion not politics. The state became involved with it in order to create a binding contract between couples for the sake of their children's wellbeing.

The real politics was always hiding in rather or not you thought the federal centralized government could impose things like this from the top onto the local communities and the will of the people, rather or not you were a statist.

The new political axis has three poles: statism, (top down centralized government) globalism, nationalism. (ethic or cultural nationalism, the ethos, the will of the people from the bottom up through the emancipatory potential of communities instead of institutions.)

I would, in this new axis, be an anti-statist anti-globalist pro-nationalist- the true meaning of American constitutional philosophy; you would be exactly my polar opposite, a pro-statist pro-globalist anti-nationalist, the European way; The Nazis were and Russia is a pro-statist anti-globalist pro-nationalist type, and then Plato's Republic and Fixed with the idea of philosophic rule but no tyranny from the top down government would be a kind of anti-globalist anti-statist anti-nationalism. The obverse to this final term would be all positives, which is logically nonsensical. A pro-statist pro-globalist pro-nationalist doesn't make sense and is a contradiction in terms. If you're for statism and globalism you can't be a nationalist; if you're a nationalist you can't be for both statism and globalism. Because of this logical termination point, this political axis is truly centered and self-consistent: it is centered on nationalism, with pro and anti nationalism replacing left and right, liberal/conservative.



___________
A sik þau trûðu"
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: 6578
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:29 pm

"On racism specifically, I don't buy into the whole political correctness of today where no one can even talk seriously or "naturally" about race at all, how it's so awkward now to even bring it up unless one just repeats the empty mainline statements of the PC expectation. I like how Fixed put it a while back when he was saying that a certain degree of racism is natural and even healthy, that one race should be able to poke fun at another in a kind of half joking half serious way, like a release of tensions arising from the obvious fact that different races are indeed different in many was from each other. That is my interpretation of what he said anyway; Zizek has said more or less the same thing.

But there is also on top of that a certain "line" that should not be crossed when it comes to really hatefully targeting people based on racial groups; it all comes down to motivation I think, which also goes deep into one's subjective philosophical content and how one thinks and emotes, how one values. Point is that we should not be so hyper-sensitive that a light hearted racial joke or observation of differences between races would cause us to be so deeply offended and uncomfortable, certainly not for people to lose their jobs over it or get publically shamed on social media, which often happens now. "Racism" in its light form is very natural and normal, even healthy; the dangerous two paths are the extremes of 1) real hardcore hateful racism or 2) politically correct "anti-racism" which amounts to a closure of real human natural spaces.

I read another point somewhere that when white people/society imposes these politically correct forms upon everyone it is actually more degrading to the minorities that PC is supposed to "protect". That's because PC makes the assumption that a minority is both defined by their racial (or gender or religious or sexual orientation) group, which may not even be the case, as well as the assumption that the person is so insecure in themselves as to be hurt by someone else merely talking about race in a normal way. Of course some level of mild PC is always good because it just reflects natural limits on civil social discourse that prevent the kind of radical hardcore hateful racism that should definitely be opposed. This kind of "true racism" is much less common, and is highly irrational as based on false assumptions, misinformation and deep pathological issues that such "real racists" have, but again this kind of racism is very uncommon and the danger of modern PC is that it treats natural mild "racism" exactly the same real hardcore racism. Such an equation of the two is entirely false, and indeed dangerous.



___________
"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." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Thu Sep 29, 2016 2:21 pm
Parodites wrote:
Your association of racism and nationalism is a result of the distortion of the current dying political axis. In the new axis, beyond the left-right divide, racism has no meaning anymore.

The old political left-right axis is grounded in the values of liberal secular humanism, which arose with the decay of Christianity: perhaps, as the result of its decay. The ideas that defined your position in that axis like rather or not you agreed that faggots could get married or there was inequality between the races- were always the myth of ideology, a false politics. Because of this: in US constitutional philosophy, things like that, or rather or not pot is legal, all of those liberal secular humanist principles are simply things to be decided by individual communities, ie:

[ The Left, this new Melos, has no vision for America or for the human species in general. That's why the democratic platform is essentially about nothing more than meaningless social issues that don't even have a place in the larger politics that any bid for the presidency should be focused on. Rather or not faggots can get married isn't even political, it's a social issue. I don't care who marries who, I don't care what bathroom people use. That kind of shit should be something figured out at the level of local communities and individual states within the US, not federally mandated and imposed from the top down. That is how it was envisioned by the federalists. Why? Because if you take a consensus vote by the country as whole, and come out with a majority wanting gay marriage, that does not take account of the fact that ideologies are not homogeneously spread out across the nation, and there will be many communities or even states where that is not supported by a majority: so you have to leave shit like that to individual communities and states to settle, [from the bottom up] and if someone who wants gay marriage lives in a state where it turns out the majority does not want it and the state votes to disallow it, well then that person should move to a different state with a community he would get a long with better. The federal government has no business deciding on what marriage is or isn't, the only task of the federal government is international policy and our money. The Democrats talk about nothing other than these meaningless apolitical social issues because they don't have any answer for the larger problems- for the truly political, nor do they possess any vision for the nation-state, for the US. ]

I would add that the institution of marriage was never one of the State and had to do with religion not politics. The state became involved with it in order to create a binding contract between couples for the sake of their children's wellbeing.

The real politics was always hiding in rather or not you thought the federal centralized government could impose things like this from the top onto the local communities and the will of the people, rather or not you were a statist.

The new political axis has three poles: statism, (top down centralized government) globalism, nationalism. (ethic or cultural nationalism, the ethos, the will of the people from the bottom up through the emancipatory potential of communities instead of institutions.)

I would, in this new axis, be an anti-statist anti-globalist pro-nationalist- the true meaning of American constitutional philosophy; you would be exactly my polar opposite, a pro-statist pro-globalist anti-nationalist, the European way; The Nazis were and Russia is a pro-statist anti-globalist pro-nationalist type, and then Plato's Republic and Fixed with the idea of philosophic rule but no tyranny from the top down government would be a kind of anti-globalist anti-statist anti-nationalism. The obverse to this final term would be all positives, which is logically nonsensical. A pro-statist pro-globalist pro-nationalist doesn't make sense and is a contradiction in terms. If you're for statism and globalism you can't be a nationalist; if you're a nationalist you can't be for both statism and globalism. Because of this logical termination point, this political axis is truly centered and self-consistent: it is centered on nationalism, with pro and anti nationalism replacing left and right, liberal/conservative.

The way I described racism with respect to its connection to nationalism is that racism shares a form of thought with nationalism. I don't have a good word for that form of thought; if we had a good word and clear concept for it then racism and nationalism wouldn't be tenable ideas anymore, but they still are considered tenable because, again, there is no way to articulate very well the error at the deeper level of thought. Philosophy (should) naturally remove such errors in thinking, but does not always do so. The closest I can come to explaining the error is to bring up my working definition of "morality" in the social-political sense: treating and valuing human beings first as individuals and only second as members of groups. You would certainly agree, I think, that group membership or status does not define an individual, since I know that you recognize high value to the category of the individual, as do I. Individualism is the basis for rejecting primarily classifying people based on their race or nationality, which is precisely what racism and nationalism are (they are valuing in a primary way human beings based first on their race or nationality and only second, if at all, on who and what they are at the level of individual person), which is why it is so surprising to me that my rejection of racism and nationalism seems to be something you deeply oppose.

I am not against pride in one's nation, but I am against extreme pride and radical patriotism. It isn't black and white for me, there is plenty of room to enjoy and value one's nation for many different reasons without that turning into a kind of pathology and de-valuing of others based on the fact they aren't in one's own "in group". I've already elaborated my "core values of reason", the values I think are necessarily the case to be asserted given a self-valuing self-conscious species; the value of equal rights and human rights generally rests on a universalizing of value to the species proper, not intended to wipe out differences and assume all humans are the same but quite the opposite: to propose a level ground of equal default valuation as expectation of a commonly held standard so that real differences and inequalities can be noticed and addressed. But racism and nationalism in their "hard extreme" forms (again I have no issue with what I would call mild racism or mild nationalism) literally prevent any such common ground-standard from emerging and thus sink actual differences between people into unrecognizability, because one cannot think past the group-classification level.

Your new categories are interesting, but again I am not a "statist" (totalitarian or fascist in my view) unless by statist you simply mean that I think we should have a (federal) state. Yes, I do think we should have a federal state, and more than simply to give us money and national defense or sign foreign treaties. Life is far too complex to think that a kind of libertarian quasi-anarchic "localism" with a barely existent federal level could actually work. Maybe I'm cynical here, but I detest the idea of anarchy in any form, and I see the ideal of near-absolute localism and "states rights" as little different from anarchy; yes to have state level local governments is not the same as anarchy, I agree, nor is it philosophically the same as federal level government, I also agree, but my subtler point is that 1) we already have states rights and local governance, and municipalities and states are very very different from each other from one corner of the US to another, and 2) there are simply some issues that are proper for a federal level to determine. If we have everything run by popular vote only then slavery would still exist, and homosexuals would still be going to prison.

I value states rights but I also value the balance of this with the federal level. I agree that on some issues the federal level over-reaches, but in general I think it is fairly well balanced; if literally everything were left up to the states except maybe coining money and negotiating to foreign governments then we might as well disband the US as a single nation as every state will effectively becomes its own micro-nation. This idea was proposed and fought over, that was the primary impetus behind the American Civil War. I also see a large degree of hyperbole and unjustified paranoia in most libertarian conservative people (not you, I don't throw you into that group) who champion anti-federal government, pro-states rights causes in the extreme form. These people seem literally insane to me. I've been to tea party rallies, I've listened to conservative talk radio plenty, and I've talked to these people in person and read their books and studies their ideas... I just don't see much there except a kind of weird paranoid fear and strongly ideological clinging to the simplistic concept of "federal bad, state good". Again I am not lumping you into that group at all, but I can't seem to find any huge differences between the kind of ideology these people spew and your own view of states rights that you just laid out (the implication that "social issues" should be entirely determined at the state or local levels by popular vote). I just don't buy it. I think it's more of a negotiation between various levels which includes the federal one, and there is a negotiation also between the level of public opinion, subject matter experts and scientists, and the various branches of government; I like this division of thinking when it comes to social policy. I simply do not trust public opinion alone to be setting policy in any absolute way.



___________
"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." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Thu Sep 29, 2016 2:28 pm
I do like the axis you propose with statism, globalism and nationalism to replace left and right, but since you and I mean very different things when we say "statism", "globalism" or "nationalism" we are still a long way away from being able to use your new system to compare each of our respective positions in that way. We need to iron out the definitions of the terms and what each of us really means when we use those terms. I think we're already well on our way to doing that.



___________
"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." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Thu Sep 29, 2016 2:40 pm
I like true federalism as a system because it properly subdivides the entity of a society and nation into different self-valuing regions: city and county levels, state level, and federal level. Each of these three levels has within it the division of executive, legislative and judicial functions. I like this setup very much. It allows public opinion a strong input through various channels but does not allow public opinion to govern directly, which would be a disaster.

Edit: in other words, I see right-wing bashing of the federal government as mostly a way to score political points while being deliberately obstructionist and petulant in one's unrealistic demands. I want more compromise and finding common values between people and parties rather than people and parties radicalizing to the polar extremes and refusing to compromise like a bunch of little spoiled children. Fuck that. Politics and social policy are nowhere near exact sciences, every "side" has valid things to bring to the table and no one is ever going to get exactly what they want in the entirety. To me that's just an irrefutable requirement as just a basic starting point for getting anything done at all. I also like to emphasize that I want each individual issue or subject or policy given rational treatment and careful objective examination without the intrusion of ideological presuppositions such as what "the federal government ought to be doing". That is up for the courts and legislators to decide, and only reflects a false conflation when that is evoked in response to real issues and policy debates. Yes we can and should debate on what each level of government ought to be doing, but when we have real problems that need working out it is irrelevant to "address" the problem by simply taking about how the federal government is too big, intruding on the states, etc. And again I don't give that view, so common today as a kind of manufactured populism, any serious weight; I used to give it weight, but I just no longer see it as anything but a largely useless series of excuses for not wanting to think through issues directly and impartially. But again, that's just my position on it. I understand many people seriously worry about the size of the federal government. I would worry about it too if it really affected me in any adverse way (it doesn't) or if I thought that the size of the federal government is such a serious issue and problem that we should effective push aside nearly all other issues and problems in order to debate on this and try to cut down the federal government first (I don't think that).

The federal level of government is just a tool, and like any tool we should try to use it wisely and as effectively as possible. The fact that a hammer can hit my finger as I'm using it isn't going to make me demand that we remove all hammers from existence (bad analogy I know, but I'm sure you get my point).



___________
"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." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Thu Sep 29, 2016 3:16 pm
A few specific things in politics that I would probably support, just laying all the cards on the table: we should abolish the electoral college and have direct vote by majority count for all elections; we should remove gerrymandering of districts and assess districts objectively based on clear criteria meant to maximize political local influence on those voting districts; we should repeal Obamacare and work on instituting some kind of single payer healthcare system and abolish health insurance companies; we should increase funding for arts and sciences, reform education by ending teach to the test and common core and getting rid of vouchers; we should raise taxes slightly on the upper income bracket (5% or less) to reduce deficits and increase funding to cities and states so they don't have to keep upping property taxes to cover costs; we should repeal corporate personhood and "money as speech" and have serious limits on personal spending requirements in elections, replaced with public financing of elections; selling private student loans should either be illegal or regulated and the inability of students to discharge sudh debts in bankruptcy should be abolished, and debt restructuring and lower interest should be enforced on any existing private loans; government should loan for student aid only at zero interest or very low interest just to cover admin costs and inflation; we should make teaching religion to children illegal (haha just kidding... sort of); civilians buying military weaponry should be illegal; bans on flavored cigarettes and excessively high vice taxes should be removed; increase funding for carbon capture tech and solar and other renewables, including ending bans on people collecting their own solar power on their property; computerized micro-trades on the stock market seem insane and should probably be banned; hm what else?

I don't know, that's a decent place to start.



___________
"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." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Fri Sep 30, 2016 10:13 am
To phrase my anti-statism and anti-globalism as positively as possible:


We can have all of this, all of this civilization- and more, without any centralization- without the State. That was the whole point behind the grand political experiment began by the forefathers. That is the glorious risk. To risk it all on the chance of having a world- without any masters. A true equality, in a world without masters, without kings, and without imposition of any kind, where law itself is transformed, where law means the will of the people not the will of the government; a world where no man has any more power than any other man. Through the masses, not through the top-down, imposed vision of a bunch of elites, the will of humanity rather than the will of the few can express its emancipatory potential and realize the true values you want; a communal spirit emerging from the bottom up through the dialogue of independent prides, independent nationalistic sovereignties- (this communality is what I mean when I say nationalism- forget that "American pride" bullshit) a spirit emerging not from racial ties and petty bonds, but from the ethos working through the instruments outlined in our constitutional philosophy, from the collective will of local communities bubbling up into larger statehoods and further still into political virtu. The idea of America- and our constitution was only the first brick in the edifice that posterity was meant to continue building but has abandoned, was to continue working out the political tools to allow this process of bubbling up from the bottom to the top to occur. I mourn the fact that this great vision has been lost, and the work began with our founding- aborted.

It is because this vision behind our form of government was so different from any other, that our founders urged us to embrace the ocean separating us from the rest of the world, realize economic independence, and opt out of all international alliances- so that we could develop these tools I am talking about. We were geographically, economically, and culturally- lacking a history, in the unique position to set about the task of constructing this stateless state. This continent could have slowly become the stateless state, the world without masters, that way. Then, after having built this independent world, other regions on the earth could take the tools we had built and use them to make their own master-less kingdoms, and eventually the bubbling up of the human spirit could take place on a planetary scale.


This is why I am so vehemently contemptuous of Europe and liberal secular humanism, of the old axis, of the left; I judge them as having robbed this new world of the great vision, of our destiny at constructing the first masterless kingdom, of fulfilling the emancipation of the human spirit itself, in order to bankrupt us for their own pathetic and petty bid for world power, in order to turn us into a walking brand name, into a Mcdonalds. I despise them and everything they stand for, this globalism.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Fri Sep 30, 2016 11:12 am
I also would welcome this kind of society that you envision. But I have a hard time imagining what it would look like in a practical sense. The requirements of managing economy, law, infrastructure, development and progress seem dauntingly complex and it seems inevitable that people need to organize in some "top down" structures to be able to work and produce at a high level. Work needs to be divided, expertise needs to be divided, and if anything is complex it is reconciling different people and situations to each other practically, namely administering human rights and conflicts. Then there must be guiding visions overarching progress at the societal levels, in other words I can't see how we could really make society work without "administrators" of some kind. I think the scope of a problem needs to have solutions on par with that scope; if a problem is truly global in nature (such as an epidemic, global warming, asteroid impact, nuclear proliferation, etc.) then such problems seems to mandate global level solutions. I would like to see a benevolent globalism focused on human rights for all people, with rational vision for the future.



___________
"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." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Fri Sep 30, 2016 4:09 pm
And I cannot see how a global institution could be given the power to effectively combat climate change without being also given the power to commit great tyranny against the populace. The administrative capacity to effectively combat something like climate change would logically also bestow the capacity for great tyranny. I'll level with you and say: both my and your politics have great risks and great possible gains. In the new political axis perhaps we need each other's polar, opposing politics, as the Left once needed the Right, in order to define the new dynamics of this next era in Western civilization.

One other thought, going off what I said in the post that starts "The old political left-right axis is grounded in the values of liberal secular humanism, which arose with the decay of Christianity: perhaps, as the result of its decay."

I would add:


The alt-right doesn't even really exist. The left has come up with that term and they are unconsciously naming a group of people (increasing rapidly in size) who have woken up to the reality that the old political axis is becoming nonsensical and disintegrating as the basic asymmetry that marked its defect from the inception, its foundational lack of any true center, has enlarged to the point of pushing the Left so far out that it has no conceptual space left to fill- in other words, the Left is so far left that any opposition to it must be immediately reformulated as far-right, as racist and sexist and all that, (hence sjws and neofeminists) because the Left is unable to reformulate itself, there is no space left conceptually for them to retreat to in order to claim some higher moral ground, which is what they used to do: (this is why Bernie was unable to break the Dems on the left but Trump was able to break the Republicans on the right and relaunch the party) "alt right" is their spooky boogieman term for this disparate, diverse, disconnected group of people who may not have anything in common with one another save for the fact that their ideas simply cannot be categorized or made sense of in the limited terms of the left-right paradigm which the establishment and the majority of people are still operating in.


Also, because the new axis has three instead of two polarizations, I see a stabilization coming in three parties rather than a two party system. Our two party system is Hegelian and dialectical: a thesis and antithesis, two poles, Rep and Dem, battle it out and come to a synthesis through the vote. But this new axis I conceptualize expresses my own anti-dialectic, as two poles (like my anti-statist anti-globalist pro-nationalism and your pro-statist pro-globalist anti-nationalism) reify their polarity and conceptual tension by going through a third pole (anti-globalist anti-statist anti-nationalism) via reproducing the negative core of this tension for itself, reproducing it continually as a new datum in third open slot which negates the terms in the others, like Fixed's Platonic republic style anti-statist anti-globalist anti-nationalist position, leading to the creation of new concepts, new possibilities of political praxis, rather than synthesizing given terms and giving us a middle road.

So the logical processions:

pole 1/ + anti-statist anti-globalist pro-nationalism (American)
- Pure negation: anti-statist anti-globalist anti-nationalist (Platonic)
pole 2/ + pro-statist pro-globalist anti-nationalism (European)
-- Reification: pro-statist anti-globalist pro-nationalism (Russian)



As I mentioned before, the center in this axis is the nationalism, as one cannot both be a nationalist and for the other two poles simultaneously, statism and globalism. The center is self-consistent unlike the center in the old axis, as globalism implies statism, but statism does not imply globalism- hence the Russian project which is based in statism but rejects globalism does not have a polar opposite (signifying its status as the reification) in a possible anti-statist pro-globalist nationalism, as globalism implies statism and statism does not imply globalism.


So the category of pure negation, the reproduction of the negative core of the conceptual tension as its own object, (through the triple negation in Fixed's style politics, what I call Platonic in this) synthetically insoluble conceptual tension, the category of reification, etc.- all my own concepts for the anti-dialectic come to life to describe the functioning of the new axis.


All four of these politics are needed to define the new dynamics of civilization, so I abate at realizing your politics is necessary as mine is; as the Left once needed the Right.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Fri Sep 30, 2016 7:57 pm
And as matter of definition, statism just means: you think the State should... exist. It takes many forms, from the simple statism most people hold to; that the State exists to organize roads and collect taxes and administer the military, to the extreme statism of communists, Russians, and the Nazis. Obviously you're not the later; globalism is simply the belief that it is necessary to sacrifice some or all national sovereignty and boundaries in order to form international alliances to combat climate change, poverty, refugee crises, etc. I understand that you're not endorsing the current globalist regime, in its corruption, though my essential criticism is that the kind of power necessary for globalist institutions to combat these things will inevitably also bestow on them the capacity for tyranny. Nationalism in this new axis as I said is an ethic or cultural nationalism, the basis of the American project, where the masses realize their emancipatory potential by utilizing certain tools to bubble up political virtu from small communities to larger, to states, etc, so that a communal spirit emerges without imposition by foreign agents or the state.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Fri Sep 30, 2016 8:58 pm
Nationalism is indeed the answer to the very problem nationalism created. The EU was built on the rubble left by the square-off between two titanic spirits of war; Napoleon Bonaparte and Otto Von Bismarck. The latter was a response to the former, and the former a response to so very much that is too complex to define, other than French Nationalism surviving the Revolution and the enemy it made out of old Europe.

Nationalism was quenched by the EU, that was its purpose. But since nationalism is simply the spirit of appreciation of ones own people and gratitude for ones language (depth) and place on Earth, to condemn it is to condemn valuing, which is indeed what the EU is, a condemnation of existence itself. I tell you, my friends, that Europe is already flatlining, and that any violence erupting could only bring back valuing. Having my family there, it is strange for me to speak like this - my parents live at a Teutonic mooring place, my family is East Sea Jewish Russian and North Sea Teuton Dutch. I look forward to proving that we havent exactly given up on nationalism up there.

All things are born of war. War is born of the negation of values. All things are self-valuings.

My government of muses is not so much Platonic, i.e. metaphysical, as it is a kind of chtonicism of the soul; I take muses to be women, surely, but also nations, peoples, languages, holy trees for which we so happily kill Christian priests... drives, if you will. But by the name muse, these drives become liberated and beautified.

Next I will go into Russia and the USA.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sat Oct 01, 2016 12:53 am
Some more thoughts on Europe

As European forces regroup, which hopefully will be in the form of two unions, a northern and a southern one, the latter including all sorts of Mediterranean nations willing to break free from the Islamic straitjacket, the first being ruled from the Amsterdam "Zuid-As" in an initially evil alliance with all economically ruthless nations. This South-Axis is where at this point the weapons manufacturers that for example produced the notorious BUK missile that shot down the Malaysian Airliner which they are still trying to pin on Russia - the ironies run deep in Europe and convex in Amsterdam, Rotterdam (the largest port of Europe, crucial to all German industries) and Den Haag / The Hague, where the most powerful dimplomatic house of the world resides, the Nassau Family, which during WWII bridged by sheer aristocracy the abyss between German and Briths weapon manufacturers, and arose after the war as the main hand of global trade lubrication. Dirty business executed with the class that queen Beatrix epitomed in the 90's. Dutch and English peoples are cool headed enough to endure queens; they withstand storms shifts with glee, as they are natural sailors - and of those the Dutch have no morals only sentiment; their ambitions are childish and generous, therefore they can rule in this age. Amsterdam becomes the center of the EU, because it can endure it; even I, who avoids people in general, would know how to contact a dozen organized crime organizations inside a few city blocks. Society and crime is quite understood to be of the same fabric, the penal system is extremely mild, give or take a few radical exceptions being made to push back civil unrest - and the links between politicians and lawyers and lawyers and crime-family heads are both extremely familiar and widely published. We have no morals, truly. So we will survive.

France will go through much similar turmoil as always, I trust fully in the resilience of their tastes, which is all that matters in their case; this is where they are unconquerable, their tongue. It is what they have taken from the ontic; they took the body of Christ and made it of flesh. The french language came to me as a poetic erotic revolt against the virgin cult. All of it is blood, and it will endure many wars and only grow deeper.

Germany is another story. Germany is fucked, unless they become rational rapidly... I think it has been proven now that a female leader is a dangerous thing. Under Merkels leadership, the EU has become an absolute disaster. But the Germans still think that they are the part that works properly. Their leadership is virtual; they rely for everything on Holland. They lack the finesse to do logistics on a global scale.

For Europe, which has Germany, France and Italy at its heart thus will never not produce the worlds most desired goods, it becomes a matter of pure logistics, which gives Dutch and Italian nationalism a boost.

Austria is a nice special case - it produces money presses for the US and EU, it is home to Glock and all sorts of arms industries, it builds American firetrucks - Ive been marveling at this before here - when I was in Austria - Vienna, a city that seems as far from dying as death itself.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sat Oct 01, 2016 5:30 am
One other thing about anti-statism. The founding fathers explicitly told us not to even form a standing army under the control of the federal government, of the State. They didn't even want the state to have control of military administration, let alone as much as it has control of now. Instead of a standing army, we were supposed to have "well regulated militias." That way, it would be basically impossible to go around invading other nations or entangling ourselves in foreign affairs, but we would be just as capable if not more capable of defending ourselves, if we had to, from outside attack. Having control of nukes at the level of private society may be scary, but we would have never made as many nukes as we did in the first place if we had held to this course. A couple heads of some private tech companies that would be in control of things like this aren't any more likely to press the button than some heads of state as I see it. Maybe they would be even less likely.


And yes,"Nationalism is the solution to the problem nationalism created", is a good way of saying it.


Your faith that Europe will recover may not be misplaced, but I have my biases. I am still awaiting the stalling of the third stage of the absorption of capital, the tertiary era of late-capitalism, to take place, and initiate a third world conflict as the two other stages did when they failed. Then the myth of ideology will be broken through on a larger scale, and the new political axis and its function that I describe will take precedence over any other theoretics of the 21st century political landscape.

The current globalist regime emerged out of this tertiary stage, at which an international banking system emerges, and when I talk about the myth of ideology, I mean that the current politics, the politics of the dying axis we are now leaving, the politics about culture and race and all that, is just "ideological subversion" without any real political underpinning intended to convince the masses to empower the globalist order, hence the immigration and multicultures, the migrant crisis, hence the opening of the borders, and the rise of Islam- all of which empower the political elites, especially economically.


I only call your philosophic rule "Platonic" in the sense of Plato's republic, not in terms of it being metaphysical. I recognize all four of the types I've described as being necessary now, for a global process, for a grand politics.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sat Oct 01, 2016 11:51 am
I don't think about race, don't give a shit about someone's race, it has no relevance to my politics whatsoever. But as a philosopher- I cannot help but wonder why there is an obvious difference in the cultures surrounding the races, why there is a difference in apparent IQ, why even the different races exist at all. And this is my own theory that's probably completely wrong, it's truthfulness is irrelevant to me, I wouldn't care either way if it turned out wrong or right. I just have to abstract things and understand why. This is the "why" I have arrived at about race through researching and thinking about it for some time:

The original humans were black Africans. That much is pretty certain. But at some point a small group of these original homo sapiens left Africa, and migrated north, where they encountered a completely different species of upright walking intelligent monkey-creatures: the Neanderthals. The Neanderthal was of course not merely a different race of human- it was a completely separate species; it had a different brain and bone structure, looked physically different, had different behavioral patterns, had a different form of society and culture. When most people think of "caveman" they recall an image of something like the Neanderthal- very strong, just stupid. But that's only half true. Neanderthals were indeed very strong, their bones were several times denser than our own- but they were't stupid. In fact, they were smarter than humans. They had much larger brains, even after accounting for differences in their larger body mass. You see, the original humans had a highly evolved linguistic capacity the Neanderthal lacked, a capacity which also contributed to the Africans' very gregarious society, high birth rate, etc. Humans don't need to be geniuses down to the last man- one genius can write a book, a million others can read it, then gain the same knowledge: and there's always a million others waiting to disseminate the knowledge rapidly, because we fuck a lot, unlike the Neanderthal. The Neanderthal was xenophobic, highly tribal, lacked a religious instinct, (no evidence has been found of their worship) and did not possess a linguistic faculty as evolved as our own. So they compensated for this deficient by quite simply being all geniuses. Every neanderthal individual had to be able to rediscover everything all on its own, hence their larger brain. Every Neanderthal had to carry the race. But when the African migrants crossed far enough North and encountered them, they did what humans are often wont to do, and fucked them. They created a hybrid species that inherited the linguistic gift from the original human Africans as well as the higher IQ of the neanderthal: as well as its white skin, which, adapted to the Northern climate, absorbed the rays from the sun, and also its xenophobia and tribalism, its more warlike, conquering nature, all of which manifests today in psychiatric ailments like autism, psychosis and psychopathy, schizophrenia, depression, bipolar disorder, etc. (people with those illnesses often have high concentrations of N. dna.) Black Africans, through genetic testing, are shown to have 0 percent Neanderthal DNA. "White people" have anywhere from 10-12 percent. And then a small faction from this new race of human, the crackers, moved even further north and experienced a secondary inter-species breeding episode with other Neanderthals, giving us the Asian races, which have as much as 15 percent Neanderthal DNA. This is why the average IQ of an Asian is only 2-5 points higher than a white, but a white's IQ is on average a whopping 15-20 points above a black guy. We have much more N. dna in relation to the African than the Asian has in relation to us. And then those Asians eventually found their way to North America, crossed the Bering Strait, experienced a third and final breeding episode with Neanderthal when they were probably on their way out as an evolutionary dead end, giving us the Native Americans, who have as much as 20 percent N. dna. (They were ferociously tribal, at war with one another for century upon century, developing the most diverse language group, innumerable isolated religions, ritual systems, etc.)

I just took a couple findings from completely mainstream science sources and put them together: a study that shown segments of N. dna might be related to autism and bipolar disorder, anthropological findings that Neanderthals had larger brains but less connected societies and didn't have any evidence of religious activity, the fact that Africans have zero percent N. dna and the other races have varying concentrations of it, evidence of human migration events, etc.


Now a black guy can still have a high IQ, a white guy can not be a psychotic mentally deranged school-shooting freak, an asian can still have a low iq, a native american can still integrate into a western society- but this is the reason that, on average, there is a glaring difference in the average IQ of the races as well as the cultures based around them.

The human "races" are actually differing concentrations of Neanderthal DNA spliced into the original human genome. Genetic testing has confirmed that Africans have 0 percent, whites 10-12, Asians 15, and N. Americans 20.


Like I said this has no effect on my politics. This is just a completely inconsequential, abstract conclusion I arrived at for myself to settle the reason for genetic differences in the races. I'd welcome being shown wrong on this, it doesn't matter to me.



___________
A sik þau trûðu"
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: 6578
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:30 pm

"Very interesting thoughts, Ive often tried to fit in the Neanderthals in the evolutionary narratives - there were a lot of them where Im from. I always feel related. Very funny story about the brain types and geniuses. Funny because it evokes images of very awkward, but noble and honest situations regarding thought. This in combination with the traditional image of a Neanderthal is refreshing.

I was going to go into the ideas about Russia and the US. I like your classification using the criteria of statism, nationalism and globalism and agree that Russia is a reification of the nationalist-statist angle. Putins rise to power itself speaks to this, out of the system, completely systemically, under all radars, and very cleanly sanitizing the entire power structure that had him float up because it underestimated his nationalism.

The tertiary phase then. It is the phase of technocratic orders of capital, right? One of the points Id like to go over is CERN, and everything Swiss. Switzerland has been intact since sat least as long as the Romans tried to conquer it. It hosted the nazis but didnt surrender to them. Now it has Cern, a funnel for so much tertiary stage capital. I dont feel its about to be excluded from a tertiary capitalist phase - then again its elides are evidently well prepared for any type of war, nuclear holocaust not in the least. All those things bunker complexes are good for.... imagine the cities running underneath the alps.

Of course none of this is of any guarantee to the cultural and social integrity of the continent - but as I say, that integrity will not dissolve much further than it has now - at this point the regrouping, the revaluation of values in social terms, has already begun. We have the disposable corporate workforces, what Nietzsche called the malleable, educated mass of democratic Europe that to his mind would serve as putty in the hands of the artist tyrants - a class of hypothetical humans that hasn't been attained in the heights - because we philosophers are here, not there. Nietzsche overlooked much of the implications of his political methods... which is for the best, as had he made keener observations here, our completely fresh and independent position here would not be possible. It is a blessing of literally cosmic depth that we began as utterly 'outcast' - the center of power that we have gradually become is utterly self-valuing, a proper center of a world. Because these elites havent happened like he hoped, the ground forces (human individuals and sheep) will be directed differently and not quite fit into his artistic plans... as Odins rise indicates - as the nature of Odins re-rising indicates. Not quite what the Odin-infatuated fascists had aimed for.

You have calculated the consequences of things using a method that appears thoroughly sound - I ask you to collide with the idea of Switzerland as a starkly sovereign center of global technocracy, home to globalist molochs like Nestle, the company that is working to privatize water across the globe.

It is a very possible outcome that Europe will become a large warzone around the untouchable Alps, from within which the elites are watching... with armies of drones... of course these elites are international, travel safely across the oceans, using Europe as a forge, a fire forming new types of hardened humans must emerge like the US prison system might be suspected, by someone who has thinks about conditioning like Nietzsche, to be aimed at - and yet it will be different. What will rise will be pure soil-magic, which is anarchic to the bone.

The othe thing is - whatever the fuckers at Cern do, they will need value ontology. Ive resolved what the Higgs Boson is with it, and Im able to resolve most any matters of nuclear physics, especially when Capable throws his weight into it, there is no scientific force more powerful than we are. Ive known this since the inception of VO theorizing, because Ive been starkly aware of the epistemic contradictions 's that govern modern materialism, starkly aware of how similarly it works to religion, and how slim the chance is of anyone besides ourselves figuring out what theyve been missing. Perhaps it literally requires a neanderthal-heavy brain.... haha.

Anyway, so how do you figure Cern into the Russia/US order that is positioning to reify itself?
I take the US military complex to have originated in nazi hands, in fact - Eisenhower (Eisenhauer, a German name meaning iron-rammer) gave as much indication directly after the war. The whole cold war is a result of Bismarckian tactics. I dont see the Germanic wolves disappear from the picture as swiftly as you suggest - nor the north Italians - northern Italy is fortified and made subterranean much like Switzerland, and it is home to the lions share of pharmaceuticals - the entire northern land is littered with chemical manufacturing plants there - etcetera etcetrera. Not surprisingly, these nations, Swizerland, Italy, Germany, are the nazi strongolds. Austria, as I mentioned, is also heavily leveraged. A Time magazine article of 2011 spent eight pages complaining that Austria is an annoying exception to the rule that all nations need the US more than the US needs them - theyve been building their industry to this end, evidently, and they are the wisest people about high culture there are on the planet, Ive become convinced of this after waking up for two years to Austrian radio - always philosophical and/or classical. With that radio on the background I wrote my first couple of hundred posts here.

I guess what Im saying is that the European nations have some cards up their sleeves that they never meant to reveal until it is time to cash out. I just dont know. I do know that I want Amsterdam to be the capital of a new northern European financial alliance where it bridges, like it has always done, the abyss of valuing between Germany and Britain.

If the collapse you predict happens entirely, northern Europe will fall in the hands of the old criminal strata, which are not that different from the governmental strata - noting even that religion-wise, the criminal strata are possibly preferable, since government in Europe has never been anything other than primordial crime - in this sense it is an absolute fact that the USA is superior, with its very sound philosophy as its spine.

All we have to do with our philosophies to benefit the USA is wait until the USA stops listening to outside noises and takes a look inside. VO especially ties in flawlessly with the original philosophy - and it will be a nice task to make an adaption of sorts. Ive astrologically placed task, as I conceived of it in 2011, as a thing to be completed after the coming presidential term. As this term is approaching we can see the correctness of my placement - whoever wins, the 4 years to come now will rearrange everything, and convince everyone with power that they need new logic.

Summarizing - Ive been preparing for the war on two fronts; the ground, commanding by rune magic, and the technocratic apex, where the lionic self-valuing logic is knocking at the door of the weasels.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sat Oct 01, 2016 2:43 pm
What separates Trump from a typically anti-political fascist opportunist? And if little or nothing separates him from similar figures in the past, then why do we expect the results to be different this time?


"The Republican Party’s attempt to treat Donald Trump as a normal political candidate would be laughable were it not so perilous to the republic. If only he would mouth the party’s “conservative” principles, all would be well.

But of course the entire Trump phenomenon has nothing to do with policy or ideology. It has nothing to do with the Republican Party, either, except in its historic role as incubator of this singular threat to our democracy. Trump has transcended the party that produced him. His growing army of supporters no longer cares about the party. Because it did not immediately and fully embrace Trump, because a dwindling number of its political and intellectual leaders still resist him, the party is regarded with suspicion and even hostility by his followers. Their allegiance is to him and him alone.

And the source of allegiance? We’re supposed to believe that Trump’s support stems from economic stagnation or dislocation. Maybe some of it does. But what Trump offers his followers are not economic remedies — his proposals change daily. What he offers is an attitude, an aura of crude strength and machismo, a boasting disrespect for the niceties of the democratic culture that he claims, and his followers believe, has produced national weakness and incompetence. His incoherent and contradictory utterances have one thing in common: They provoke and play on feelings of resentment and disdain, intermingled with bits of fear, hatred and anger. His public discourse consists of attacking or ridiculing a wide range of “others” — Muslims, Hispanics, women, Chinese, Mexicans, Europeans, Arabs, immigrants, refugees — whom he depicts either as threats or as objects of derision. His program, such as it is, consists chiefly of promises to get tough with foreigners and people of nonwhite complexion. He will deport them, bar them, get them to knuckle under, make them pay up or make them shut up.

That this tough-guy, get-mad-and-get-even approach has gained him an increasingly large and enthusiastic following has probably surprised Trump as much as anyone else. Trump himself is simply and quite literally an egomaniac. But the phenomenon he has created and now leads has become something larger than him, and something far more dangerous.

Republican politicians marvel at how he has “tapped into” a hitherto unknown swath of the voting public. But what he has tapped into is what the founders most feared when they established the democratic republic: the popular passions unleashed, the “mobocracy.” Conservatives have been warning for decades about government suffocating liberty. But here is the other threat to liberty that Alexis de Tocqueville and the ancient philosophers warned about: that the people in a democracy, excited, angry and unconstrained, might run roughshod over even the institutions created to preserve their freedoms. As Alexander Hamilton watched the French Revolution unfold, he feared in America what he saw play out in France — that the unleashing of popular passions would lead not to greater democracy but to the arrival of a tyrant, riding to power on the shoulders of the people.

This phenomenon has arisen in other democratic and quasi-democratic countries over the past century, and it has generally been called “fascism.” Fascist movements, too, had no coherent ideology, no clear set of prescriptions for what ailed society. “National socialism” was a bundle of contradictions, united chiefly by what, and who, it opposed; fascism in Italy was anti-liberal, anti-democratic, anti-Marxist, anti-capitalist and anti-clerical. Successful fascism was not about policies but about the strongman, the leader (Il Duce, Der Führer), in whom could be entrusted the fate of the nation. Whatever the problem, he could fix it. Whatever the threat, internal or external, he could vanquish it, and it was unnecessary for him to explain how. Today, there is Putinism, which also has nothing to do with belief or policy but is about the tough man who single-handedly defends his people against all threats, foreign and domestic.

To understand how such movements take over a democracy, one only has to watch the Republican Party today. These movements play on all the fears, vanities, ambitions and insecurities that make up the human psyche. In democracies, at least for politicians, the only thing that matters is what the voters say they want — vox populi vox Dei. A mass political movement is thus a powerful and, to those who would oppose it, frightening weapon. When controlled and directed by a single leader, it can be aimed at whomever the leader chooses. If someone criticizes or opposes the leader, it doesn’t matter how popular or admired that person has been. He might be a famous war hero, but if the leader derides and ridicules his heroism, the followers laugh and jeer. He might be the highest-ranking elected guardian of the party’s most cherished principles. But if he hesitates to support the leader, he faces political death.

In such an environment, every political figure confronts a stark choice: Get right with the leader and his mass following or get run over. The human race in such circumstances breaks down into predictable categories — and democratic politicians are the most predictable. There are those whose ambition leads them to jump on the bandwagon. They praise the leader’s incoherent speeches as the beginning of wisdom, hoping he will reward them with a plum post in the new order. There are those who merely hope to survive. Their consciences won’t let them curry favor so shamelessly, so they mumble their pledges of support, like the victims in Stalin’s show trials, perhaps not realizing that the leader and his followers will get them in the end anyway.

A great number will simply kid themselves, refusing to admit that something very different from the usual politics is afoot. Let the storm pass, they insist, and then we can pick up the pieces, rebuild and get back to normal. Meanwhile, don’t alienate the leader’s mass following. After all, they are voters and will need to be brought back into the fold. As for Trump himself, let’s shape him, advise him, steer him in the right direction and, not incidentally, save our political skins.

What these people do not or will not see is that, once in power, Trump will owe them and their party nothing. He will have ridden to power despite the party, catapulted into the White House by a mass following devoted only to him. By then that following will have grown dramatically. Today, less than 5 percent of eligible voters have voted for Trump. But if he wins the election, his legions will likely comprise a majority of the nation. Imagine the power he would wield then. In addition to all that comes from being the leader of a mass following, he would also have the immense powers of the American presidency at his command: the Justice Department, the FBI, the intelligence services, the military. Who would dare to oppose him then? Certainly not a Republican Party that lay down before him even when he was comparatively weak. And is a man like Trump, with infinitely greater power in his hands, likely to become more humble, more judicious, more generous, less vengeful than he is today, than he has been his whole life? Does vast power un-corrupt?

This is how fascism comes to America, not with jackboots and salutes (although there have been salutes, and a whiff of violence) but with a television huckster, a phony billionaire, a textbook egomaniac “tapping into” popular resentments and insecurities, and with an entire national political party — out of ambition or blind party loyalty, or simply out of fear — falling into line behind him."
-Washington Post


Why, of all people, would a philosopher desire a Fuhrer?



___________
"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." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sat Oct 01, 2016 4:58 pm
Because he's said nothing fascistic. That whole Washington Post article is jerking off.

Lol. Imagine the power he would wield? ... As much as any president of the US has...


Why aren't you worried about Clinton taking undue control of our government? Did you worry about Bush becoming a dictator? Why of all the people in office or pursuing political office- who have proven records of corruption and atrocity, are you worried about the big orange guy with the funny hair?

I explained the Trump phenomena with the left-right breakdown and what I said about the alt-right. That article is meaningless. Nothing about it is accurate. At no point in its meandering stilted shit-prose did the author even come close to touching upon the current spacetime we're occupying.

It's a collection of readings my own reading surpasses by being more explanatory, (there's isn't explanatory at all in fact) a bunch of armchair psychology, accusations, ad hominems, and straw men.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud


Last edited by Parodites on Sat Oct 01, 2016 6:53 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sat Oct 01, 2016 5:02 pm
Jesus Christ what do you want me to say? His followers don't care about the gay bashing old Republican party of Bush, as the article laments? So? Do you want the Republican party to go back to being neoconservative?



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud


Last edited by Parodites on Sat Oct 01, 2016 6:47 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sat Oct 01, 2016 5:04 pm
[ Republican politicians marvel at how he has “tapped into” a hitherto unknown swath of the voting public. But what he has tapped into is what the founders most feared when they established the democratic republic: the popular passions unleashed, the “mobocracy.” ]

Yeah, by founders they mean one founder, namely Hamilton.



And also- no. I explained what the alt right (which they are referring to by mobocracy) is and why it exists in the posts above. It's definitely "something different from the usual politics" though. Which is what we need. With the breakdown of the left-right axis, a new politics is inevitable. Why are you posting an article lamenting the revision of the two parties as if it was bad? Where is the fascism in anything Trump said? Is it because he wants to prevent mass migration from fucking the middle east? It is well within the power of the presidency to bar the entry of peoples from specific regions in the world.


Last edited by Parodites on Sat Oct 01, 2016 6:48 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sat Oct 01, 2016 5:12 pm
I can't even really argue against the thing because there's no argument, it's just the accusation that Trump's a psychotic ego-maniacal fascist who is going to magically take over a democracy in a country whose government was intentionally designed to prevent that, (though the excesses of statism have done wonders at getting around that design) without any evidence or quotations or examples.

[And the source of allegiance? We’re supposed to believe that Trump’s support stems from economic stagnation or dislocation. Maybe some of it does.]

Wrong again. Again, the source of his allegiance is the political transition taking place into a new axis, which is responsible for creating the alt right which is feeding his rise. The political transition into a new era, a new axis entirely, which most people simply aren't seeing because they're fucking dumbshit media hacks. They predicted Trump would fall on his face immediately. They predicted he would burn out. Predicted he had a ceiling. Predicted he wouldn't get the necessary delegates. Fucking wrong on every prediction they've made since this election started. That's because they are analyzing this from the perspective of a political axis, a conceptual scheme, that is defunct and unable to make any more sense of the present world we are inhabiting.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud


Last edited by Parodites on Sat Oct 01, 2016 6:51 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sat Oct 01, 2016 6:33 pm
" that the people in a democracy, excited, angry and unconstrained, might run roughshod over even the institutions created to preserve their freedoms."


Freedom is not created. Freedom is willed. Freedom is not given- it is taken.

It certainly isn't given by the State. No institution, no power of the State, can preserve, create, or improve- freedom. All it can do is take freedom away and then convince the masses it's good for them.


And the article quotes Hamilton. Fuck Hamilton, I prefer Thomas Jefferson. There is nothing else to argue with in the article because the article doesn't advance any argument of its own. Of all the founders give it to the Washington Post to use that one. Jefferson's vision- one he shared generally with the rest of the founders, was that the federal government should be limited in its power as much as possible. Hamilton was obsessed with increasing its power. Hamilton read the Constitution in terms of "implied powers." I believe me and you are having much the same argument as Hamilton and Jefferson did.


You can't advance a view based around enlarging the scope of the State's powers and international institutions and then claim to be worried about one guy, funny hair or not, misusing his powers. He's said nothing fascistic. He's done nothing that would indicate he's more corrupt than any other politician, and the reality is he's likely much less corrupt.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sat Oct 01, 2016 7:07 pm
All the material I just spent typing out and we go right back to, nah it's just because Trump is Hitler and he's rallying a bunch of angry dudes.


Even Hitler didn't arise just by rallying a bunch of angry dudes. I explained how the Nazis fit into this whole system, why the great wars occurred, why fascism and communism appeared to challenge capitalism, * how the present political landscape emerged from them, etc. Putting your hands up and saying "bunch of angry people" doesn't explain anything, it's useless and never explained anything that ever happened in human history.


And "Putinism" isn't a correct reading of Russia. They are reiterating the Nazi project by salvaging a national ethos with what remains of orthodox Christianity and its symbolism, by imposition of the state- statism, rather than the emancipatory potential of the masses like what I envision for America.


--------------------
*

National socialism is not inherently worse than the other two. It borrows some insight from communism and gives the government the ability to divert capital resources to what it sees fit, particular technological sectors or entire industries, but it takes insight from capitalism and allows the market and competition to coordinate that capital at the level of individual businesses. It has the foresight of a top down vision imposed by the few heads of government as well as some of the hindsight of nature, ie. forces of competition in the market. However, this makes national socialism incredibly statist, which is no good if you wish to separate culture and government like I do. The national socialist government has direct control over the culture because it can divert capital to industries it values and take it away from those it does not, and they easily foisted a hyper racial supremacist pseudo-mystical vision on their populace.

" Dialectical
materialism (communism and Marxism) cannot produce the episteme necessary for
effective revolutionary consciousness and the mobilization of knowledge in the form of
empowered political action, that is, the component of energeia or energizing tension,
while the negative-reflective consciousness of tragic subjectivity- the spirit of poetry, art,
and even religion itself in the view of Holderlin, Kierkegaard, and Schelling, (despite
their numerous theoretical differences) cannot produce the component of entellecheia,
identity, and affirmative content... "

The Nazis and Heidegger (and Russia) sought the later, [everyone is always surprised by Heid. endorsement of the Nazis] thinking they could salvage from the decaying dreams of Europe a new racial identity from behind the history of the Aryan people which was hijacked first by the Asiatics in Greece then corrupted and twisted even more by the Jews in the Roman era, and inaugurate a new political regime as a dispensation from Ousia itself to dasein, which would assume the form of a pure Aryan reborn, freed from the distorted history imposed on it by the other races of the earth. Obviously the communists and socialists and now our Leftists seek the former. Neither will win against the spiritually emaciated and philosophically brain dead spirit of liberal American-European secularism, which has no positive meaning, which has no future vision for humanity, nothing with which to establish a human identity in our postmodern techno-apocalypse. Its destruction will come from within, not from without. And as it falls so will the globalist paradigm, which has been the only thing holding us back from nuclear war, a shadow that still looms as much as it did during the cold war.

Capitalism succeeded out of these three for a reason. It is not the most effective- none of the three are very effective, as they all reflect inaccurate understandings of human psychology. The reason it succeeded is because it naturally aligns itself with the Leftist secular humanism, and allows a complex to form between corporate power, democratic processes, the media, science, and military (via globalism) whereas this is difficult if not impossible with the other two alternatives. This complex is very powerful, physically speaking, if spiritually emaciated and lacking any vision for humanity or affirmative content, lacking ethos. It was inevitable that capitalism would win by allowing this complex of social forces to form.

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








So fascism absolutely did have a coherent ideology. [inasmuch as it, like the other systems, preserved the myth of ideology] This article you posted is so empty it's laughable.

And yes Fixed this technocratic social complex around capitalism enables the international banking system to evolve, and that empowers globalist policy, bringing the absorption of capital into its tertiary stage and ending the myth of ideology, out of which the postmodernist state developed. The degeneration of the political axis itself which we are all experiencing now is the next inevitable consequence in this chain of events- as a response to the myth of ideology and its hypnosis plaid out in the great wars.

1) Myth of idealogy. Fascism, Communism, and Capitalism, all emerge as responses to the breakdown of Christianity- the death of God, and the consequent development of liberal secular humanism. Heid. read that death as the loss of Being to forgetfulness in the forms of history imposed on the original Western soul, the Aryan (I call them the Doric tribes of pre-Hellenes) by foreign peoples, imported first from the East then the corruption was taken up by the Jews and modified further by the Nazarenes. (I have a different understanding of this, ie. the epistemes and topos) Fascism in the Reich did what Russia is doing now, salvaging from behind history a dispensation to dasein, on which to base and preserve a national ethos, a nationalism. Communism went in another direction, but both emerged in order to try and fight back against the death of God- not to restore Christianity, but to find a replacement for the dead deity. Communism in essence subverts the populace in order to enlarge the power of the State, it takes statism to its furthest height as a solution. How did they accomplish this subversion? Well our far left, our liberal progressivism, copies their technique. They took the principles of liberal secular humanism and simply credited them to the beneficence of the State. This core axis divides the left-right paradigm with a false center I have been talking about- that false center lies in things like equality, equality of people, cultures, etc. If you read the texts of every religion, especially the Bible, you will notice that the very idea of equality is never even mentioned. Christianity, unlike liberal secular humanism, has a completely different idea: you escape sin by being reborn in Christ, and as long as you are so reborn, it doesn't matter if you're a saint or a murderer, white or black, etc. The idea of equality is just an empty expression there. Without that Christian basis that gives equality meaning, how can equality be provided to the masses? Through the State. This subversion benefits the globalist regime, hence the need to import migrants and form a multiculture.

And capitalism? Capitalism simply embraced it, the death of Christianity. Capitalism put the left-right axis based in liberal secular humanism into action.

2) This is why capitalism won: it did not win in a conflict of ideology, on a truly political basis, it won on an economic one. It was the conclusion to the dream of human history, to the myth of ideology. A complex of science, military, media, etc. formed around it, and this enabled an international bank to emerge on top of a technocratic model of society in order to bring capital into its tertiary stage of absorption. The technocracy is one aspect to this complex, another is the military industrial complex, another is the mass media.

3) Globalism finally becomes a coherent force through the power bestowed on those statehoods entering into this international capital relation, the global bank.

4.) With the end of the myth of ideology proper, our current left-right political axis loses its center and begins a process of disintegration. This is postmodernity. There are no real political debates anymore. It's all gay marriage and the like, and rep. and democrats have identical foreign policies- all globalism. Neocon and Neolib are the same because of that. Postmodernity is itself the process of this disintegration. We see that the same thing is happening all over the world that is happening here with Trump; Brexit, the re-emergence of the Right in Europe, all mirror images of what we call the alt-right here. The reason it's all happening at the same time all over the world is because it is the one process driving it, this breakdown of the old left-right axis.

5.) Now that the old axis is dead and that disintegration is complete, a new era is beginning. I believe I have understood the new political axis taking shape. I predict that the tertiary stage of late capital absorption will stall like the other two stages did, and a third world conflict will begin.


So in my theory, you see that every single thing that has happened since WW1 has fallen like a domino after a domino after a domino, including the rise of Trump and the alt-right. And the next logical domino to fall in this scheme is a third global conflict.




I will consider Switzerland.



Here's the two ways this goes:

Clinton wins. Well the government is about out of cash and will have to cut benefits soon, before interest rates increase too much and China quits repurchasing bonds. But the the dependent class who uses those benefits are the one's that would be responsible for Clinton's election. [90 percent of Muslim migrants are in this class] So you think the BLM protesters are asswhipes, well just wait. In response, the alt-right, pissed about Trump's defeat, will start engaging in protests of their own. Then we have a kind of civil war. What the communists called the "destabilization" of the target nation on which to host the ideological parasite. America eats itself alive and we lose our standing in the world-stage, and the base of operations for the tertiary capital is relocated abroad. The globalists are now preparing this transfer of tertiary capital (they don't give a shit if the US eats itself, they have no true national bond and they will go wherever the money is) because they expect to defeat Trump. Perhaps their arrogance can be used against them. One example, ICANN passed and the US has given away a large amount of influence it had over the internet, opening it up to the influence of foreign governments. Brilliant move by the globalists. It could allow multiple separate Internets to emerge in control of different governments, dramatically impacting our economy in the US. Excellent way to prepare the transfer of tertiary capital from the US, which is presently the hub in the international banking system. The only reason they would be making these drastic preparations is that they actually do expect to defeat Trump- it's not a bluff, it's not Leftist posturing, which should be alarming to those who like me oppose them, and they expect the civil war-esque scenario to play out over pulling the legs from underneath the dependent class. It's the end of the US.


Trump wins. The transition into the new political axis is completed, the absorption of capital stalls, global conflict. A true war of ideologies will begin: the three poles of the new axis, embodied by the US, Europe, and Russia. The possibility for a new world.


America is the last ground to defend. If it goes, there is nowhere left to defect to, to escape the globalist regime and mount a defense. Unless you want to go live in Antarctica. Therefor Trump must win.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sun Oct 02, 2016 1:27 am
Hillary is far closer to being a fascist than Trump, but she is something worse, as fascism wasn't ever aimed to exalt the deformed.
Trump has indeed said nothing fascist. He is only a nationalist entrepreneur. Probably the sanest candidate since JFK, who might have ended Vietnam if it wasnt for that Van Buren shit.

The narrative the Hillary machine is spinning is, as always, to blame the other of ones own sins. When she gets elected, we will see such repression as Hitler would not have dreamed of, in all continents that US does not suffer; anyone voting for Hillary is complicit in such atrocious crimes as never have seen the light of day - don't. Just fucking vote for Trump, he is a sane American egoist. The best type of person to rule a world full of horrible creatures.

Trump and Putin are friendly, which speaks for Trump, as Putin is the worlds leading rationalist. Hillary is antagonizing Putin like there is no tomorrow, and I wish that was just a metaphor.



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


Last edited by Fixed Cross on Sun Oct 02, 2016 1:52 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sun Oct 02, 2016 1:38 am
Point blank, the truth is that Trump cannot be avoided. The people will be heard.

It is bad politics to throw an evil politics monster at him. Best to work with the man.

Take it from me, we tried to fight our own popular voice president, and it just made everything a million shades darker. We should have worked with the man.

That's just me. Plus, I like Trump. In politics, it isn't abut how smart you sound, it is how smart you can get away with being while sounding as stupid as you have to. And by stupid, I only mean not yet smart. So does ol' Trump.



___________
dionisius against the cross...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sun Oct 02, 2016 7:45 am
I obviously like him too.


Many great leaders in the past were "buffoonish" or a bit of a clown, as Trump admittedly comes off as sometimes. It's almost intentional on his part, with the hair and everything.


And about his "Muslim" ban- it's actually a bar from migration coming from key regions in the world. It's a power covered in the Alien and Sedition Acts and its recodification. (in 1918) This document was made under a similar situation, as we were compelled to assume the allegiance of the many French staying in the US during the war was to France, and reserved the right to deport them in the interest of preserving national security. Not fascism. We do not have to assume the allegiance of many of these Muslim migrants, because they openly proclaim hostility to the US and its principles of government. We should not allow a bunch of migrants hostile to us into our country, clothe and feed them at our own expense, then give them a voice and political power to act on their hostilities. That's stupid. If a US citizen wants to subvert our government and national ethos, that's fine, we have freedom of speech. But to allow foreign nations to send us their populace and in masse and allow them to dramatically alter the course of our elections: no.

Jefferson repealed this act in its original form, one thing I disagreed with him on.

The recodification of 1918 is still legally in effect: this is what Trump intends to use to accomplish his ban. This is not fascistic. It's a perfectly sound application of executive power under existing law.


Now, Trump has also enigmatically talked about "going after the media." In the original Alien and Sedition Acts it was illegal to publish statements critical of the US government: if they were provably false. And talking provably false nonsense about people is all the media does now, as they continuously evidence with regard to Trump himself.

It also made it very hard to become a US citizen- which is as it should be. If US citizenship and ethos is to mean anything, it must be hard to obtain. Anything easily obtained isn't usually worth very much. These Muslims should have to prove to us that they don't think Sharia should trump (pardon the pun) the US constitution in priority, that they don't intend on having a daughter and surgically removing her clitoris to discourage sexual activity, that they haven't participated in honor killings or the like, that they have no history of terrorist activity, etc.



As far as Trump sounding as dumb as he has to while being as smart as he can: he could have got on stage and explained all this reasoning and authority for the ban he wants. But he didn't. It was more conducive to his winning the primary to be bombastic about it. And the point of this tactic Pezer alludes to is not to rally the passions of the masses: because Trump supporters all know about this legal basis for the ban, the only people who don't know are the ones against Trump. The point of it is to allow him to fly under the radar of the media and the establishment figures, who will only start taking him seriously right around now, when he is close to winning.




"His proposals change daily."

He was saying the same thing he is now 20-30 years ago in interviews. Clinton's change daily.
Trump's program as I said is not "machismo", it is a reflection of a political transition into a new axis and the fact that new terms must be advanced to address a world vastly different from the one we were left with after the world wars. From another post:


Trump and what his supporters believe is very clear. (1) All utopian and Marxist thought is base and dysfunctional, for the Government must be diminished in the scope of its power, not given more power like the dems want: (2) the two parties are essentially the same when it comes to important issues like globalism- (Bush and Obama's foreign policies and economics are essentially identical) they only diverge on completely apolitical and meaningless social issues that should be determined from the bottom up by individual communities and states not top down with federal imposition, like rather or not faggots can get married or the legality of pot, plus both parties have sold out their own voter bases and have enshrined outdated and masturbatory doxa that have nothing to do with America and have everything to do with their insular moral visions of what America should be. (3) Globalism is a paradigm that has done nothing but bankrupt our country and precipitate endless wars across the middle east, killing innumerable lives on all sides and must be stopped: it has fucked everyone over save for the corporatist vampires that feed on our political machinery and it has also, by upsetting the balance of power in the middle east, unleashed on the world a form of Islamicism that had been subdued and remained dormant for hundreds of years. (4) The nation state has historically proved the only thing capable of soothing the tendency of man toward war: nationalism has also proved that politics can go beyond mere economics and see through the binary party system and party politics in general and unite a people by a shared ethos. (5) The media and the whole political correctness movement mixed with the multiculturalism thing has changed our culture in the West in a negative way and it is basically just the newest incarnation of slave morality or moralism. These issues are very specific and Trump's standing on them is very clear. On these issues there's no middle ground, you either accept their validity or not: and on these points I see Trump as perfectly and completely- correct. The ideal of the West, of western civilization, is the highest ideal yet attained by humanity, and I will not see it destroyed by pathetic spineless moral tyrants and the Muslims whose sand covered nutcases they can't keep their useless mouths off of.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sun Oct 02, 2016 8:32 am
As I said in the two scenarios, if Clinton wins then the world economic crisis will not arrive, a US one will, tertiary capital will be reabsorbed and the US will fall out of its central position in the world economy, the dying political era and axis will be zombified and put in place as the mask for a hyper statist regime, (as Fixed indicated) and globalism will continue its march over the world- only with nowhere left to retreat to this time. That eventuality cannot be allowed, otherwise this will be the lamentation for future ages looking back on the opportunity we had right now to bring Western civilization into its next stage of evolution:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xl0heBdYF04

TOPKEK


" This really tickles my snozzberries. A great memeological sermon for the post-apocalypse; something to gather the masses in metapolitical prayer around."


The course of human history is being altered in the next 37 days: https://days.to/election-day-in-us/2016


And really about Trump's bombastic behavior: look at previous elections. Adams railed about Jefferson's use of prostitutes, Jefferson published pamphlets claiming that Adams was a hermaphrodite in order to mock his idea that publishing provably false information against the federal government should be illegal. Fucking hilarious. Then Adams comes back and does the same thing but more extreme in order to mock Jefferson's mocking of the idea, by publishing material stating Jefferson had died so that's a good reason not to vote for him.


Trump's behavior isn't anything we haven't seen before- in fact by comparison it's modest."
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: 6578
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:30 pm

"And for my own convenience, I wanted to note that my description of the second stage of capital absorption where monpolization begins, mirrors Braudel's understanding.


[Braudel argued that capitalists have typically been monopolists and not, as is usually assumed, entrepreneurs operating in competitive markets. He argued that capitalists did not specialize and did not use free markets, thus diverging from both liberal (Adam Smith) and Marxian interpretations. In Braudel's view, the state in capitalist countries has served as a guarantor of monopolists rather than a protector of competition, as it is usually portrayed. He asserted that capitalists have had power and cunning on their side as they have arrayed themselves against the majority of the population.[22] ]



This second stage I will then start calling "Braudelian capitalism". The first is as I pointed out similar to Lenin's view of it.

The state gets involved in the second stage in a way similar to what Braudel describes, then in the third stage states enter into the international banking system based on debt, with the US at the center, allowing the current globalist regime to put itself in place. The understanding of capital going through certain definite stages of state-absorption is integral.


This three-stage mechanism is on top of a centuries long process in which capitalism got to the point that the first stage could be initiated. European feudal society was based in a redistribution of wealth and resources, but in America a transformation took place: the central redistribution involved, not "capital" generally conceived, not goods and resources in the abstract, but rather, surplus-value. Hence our slave plantations; the idea was to get more value than is required to feed the given industry. But this surplus-value thereby produced tends to only pass through social strata in the respective society producing it, creating a wealth disparity between not so much classes of people as geographical regions, until it can no longer be exported in order to generate value from the host society's true capital: (hence the capital is lost to the process of state-absorption) slave labor created certain things, then those things were transferred to the North where slaves could not prove profitable, where the surplus-value could not be created. Eventually, the surplus-value accumulates in the form of a wealth disparity between, in this case, the Northern and Southern US: that caused the civil war. But leading up to WW1, this stalling of the capital-absorption took place on a much larger scale, as I've gone over: in Lenin's language, the surplus-value could not be effectively exported, and from that economic destabilization, WW1 began. Then the second stage, Braudelian capitalism, took effect, stalled, and brought on WW2.

In this second stage, the State gets involved as Braudel says. But for a different reason. The State must make sure that surplus-value does not stagnate in a disparity between social strata and remains exportable. Monpolization begins. Once that failed, an international banking system was created in order to ensure the exportability of surplus-value: through egregious unpayable national debts between those countries participating in the globalized system. As long as the terrific debts hold, surplus-value keeps being created and exported between nations, thereby generating value from the true capital holdings of those states, preventing the capital from being lost to the ongoing state-absorption. And it is this third stage that is now ending, or stalling rather.


So you really have to clearly separate certain ideas in this: value, surplus-value, [began in the first stage in America, ie. slave-labor and plantations] exportable value, [what is needed to generate value from a state's actual capital- without it, capital becomes useless and economic destabilization begins] capital, [land, resources, etc.] capital-absorption, [began in the second stage with Braudelian monopolization] and state-absorption of capital. [ie. tertiary capital proper, also the fundamental mechanism driving the three stages from behind: the process whereby the State gains utilization over actual capital, a nation's resources. Reaches its peak in the globalist banking system around national debts.]

This is the force behind the global-state, behind globalism, the full relinquishing of the world's capital to the State's control. This process can be broken right now, when it is weakest. If Clinton loses anyway.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sun Oct 02, 2016 2:40 pm
Also, how did the State intervene to help monopolization in the second stage?


Taxation. Complicate the tax codes and make it so that very rich people at the head of companies alone can afford to hire the legions of lawyers necessary to negotiate a lesser tax burden with the State, while the common man cannot do so, he can't afford to pay for the legal expertise. The common man will continue to lose out while the companies concentrate more wealth. That is a big way this monopolization is given assistance by the State.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sun Oct 02, 2016 8:25 pm
The tertiary stage will finally rearrange the whole human scheme into a pyramid, if we give it a few nudges at the pressure points you identify. VO can provide the means to the means of applying the pressure, Capable may be able to produce the direct means, the math that the Germans must come to adopt. The thing to replace nano banking, which is the ionosphere that keeps the globalist molecule together, is a system of growth of wealth that exceeds the old slow Saturnian harvest cycles and allows for the turbo charged profiting that our times titan Uranus requires - the technocratic fruit-squeezer in service of which the third world operates, but instead of expanding that third world by producing essentially worthless products, reducing it by producing worthy items. In the purest most Greek sense, new architecture, new cities.

Human deserts are the philosophers gold mine.

Hence the funk.

Meditate on this ideal Cultivation of the 'earth-molecule', a term Pezer haphazardly produced last year, and now rejects somewhat - it is however the self-creative poesis-genius identified by value ontology that forges such concepts. The earth molecule, to which the blood wants to stick.

[.....T]he cauldron that Europe is, has been, and likely will continue to be. The continent was never intended as a whole like the US is, and for it to become a whole it would have to be entirely free in its diversity, whole upholding a few basic common values, which I reckon must be values of 'madness'; look for fucks sake at all the Europeans of some worth; have not all of them been violently mad, and madly violent?

We will reseek and refind ourselves instinctually in Rome; many of us hope for a full scale attack from the muslims. The fundamental right of a European thus far has been to fight to the death for his values. The way the wars were ended put a stop to that, but not to the instinct.

Instinct is what always determines the outcomes of war. Why the naxis lost, is because they did not have instinct, but only intellect. The French had instinct, De Gaulle ws purely instinctive. Churchill acted on instinct and so did Stalin. FDR swooped in at the right moment and claimed victory, but it wasnt balls on his part, but calculation. That is not European.



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


Last edited by Fixed Cross on Sun Oct 02, 2016 10:23 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sun Oct 02, 2016 9:56 pm
Also properly consider this force.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOS1SFt2VbM

Incidentally, this was shot during the second month of BTL - the first one I was in Vienna.

But I consider all of my travels in an ontological light.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sun Oct 02, 2016 10:27 pm
What I expect is that Europe is actually the locus of the tertiary stage, the axis Italy - Scandinavia, running through Switzerland, France, Germany the Netherlands, England and Scotland. A rather inscrutable axis of industrial property has embedded itself there in the geography, and at the plexus of it is CERN.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Mon Oct 03, 2016 1:47 am
What I'm expressing or trying to, Parodites, is that by the very act of identifying this dynamic as you have, which is an astonishing feat, you have created or at least identified the possibility of anticipating such collapse in a philosophical framework - which I do in all fairness happen to have ready just for such a crisis point.
Sauwelios and I have long been speculating on the collapse of Europe, and some very fertile ideas have come up. But I am most interested now in seeing more of this triadic dynamic explicated.

I am almost tempted to go and read Plato with a greater seriousness -



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Mon Oct 03, 2016 2:06 am
Parodites wrote:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xl0heBdYF04

TOPKEK

Breathtaking actually. A new thing.

Does this reconcile in any way with what you once titled speculative ethics?



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Mon Oct 03, 2016 6:47 am
This whole system I am outlining, it's not completely abstract. It is happening right now. Over the course of weeks and days, so my abstraction is responding in real time rather than to something written 1,000 years ago. So bringing my own philosophy, anti-dialectic, speculative ethics, the daemon, into the system is a gradual process.


Indeed as I pointed out, the current regime is preparing to transfer the tertiary capital from the US to Europe, before they sink America and Clinton wins, bringing us into the same statist order that reigns in Europe. They will enlarge the left voter base by immigration also, crushing all possible peaceful rebellion to the global state going forward. Then the current system can endure, with the hub of the tertiary stage reorganized somewhere in Europe, their Cern project among other things would help.


If Trump wins, this transfer will not be allowed to happen, and the third stage will stall as the former two did, bringing on the world conflict I envision, along with the transition from the current political axis into the entirely new one I have conceived.


This election is the last one that matters: if you want the last man, vote Clinton; rebirth, vote Trump. I don't think many truly understand the gravity of this election, what is at risk. Trump is an expression of the political breakdown in the old axis- he himself is an avatar pushed on top of all the bubbles. He was in the right place at the right time to seize this movement that he himself did not create. A centuries long process, this tertiary mechanism that has brought us into the great wars and the myth of ideology, which has governed the formation of nations and society for generations- is culminating in its victory over the human spirit or in its defeat, in a matter of weeks.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Mon Oct 03, 2016 8:04 am
Today marks the new Hebrew year, the year of all this culmination: 5,777.

Obvious playground for numerologists.

Check em trips: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sYFj8SnG98

Triple digits is a sign of good luck.


kek, I just realized I was viewer number 7,555 of that video.

KEK VULT; SIC ERIT.

On 4chan with posts related to Donald Trump and KEK, the cases of double and triple digit post numbers (randomly assigned) started skyrocketing, dubs and trips being a sought after prestige there indicating good tidings.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Mon Oct 03, 2016 9:46 am
Those in power who are now trying to intentionally sink the US economy and vote in Clinton, preparing for the transfer of tertiary capital to Europe and counting on Trump's defeat, are making a big mistake- even if Trump fails. Even with what you said about Europe, I doubt that Europe will be able to sustain the tertiary stage and become the new hegemon after the US self destructs under Clinton. I don't think China or Russia can. Obviously the fucking Middle East can't. So if Trump fails, we will actually have something worse than the victory of the global state over human spirit and merely the last man: what will happen is, the tertiary capital will not merely stall but collapse entirely, hegemonization will reverse, the world conflict will continue to escalate until it reaches nuclear war, and humanity will face a 1000 year dark age taking us back to feudal society only with nuclear fallout. If we do not succeed, if Trump fails, then the third war will be the last, and the three stage mechanism does not stall- it reverses, and human history with it. Humanity cannot survive in a feudal arrangement with nuclear fallout.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Mon Oct 03, 2016 3:30 pm
And one thing about everyone's favorite, good ol' Dolfy.


The people using the image of Hitler in memes and whatnot- they are not actually Nazis. They are using his image the same way that Satanists use Satan's image, that is, ironically; they are using him as a kind of archetypal rebel figure, who stood up against the de-humanization of machine and technology, but also against the dehumanization through the Church, drawing on older more purely "Aryan" religions in the pre-history before the rise of Christianity, and fought both the communists and the capitalists, and who, in the end, was struck down by a kind of grand conspiracy of world powers and thrown into the abyss of historical condemnation like God disposed of Satan. The idea that Hitler was simply a psychotic maniac who wanted to kill Jews and a lot of the German population were also psychotic maniacs who brought him into power- is stupid. Hitler fulfilled a historical function, namely- attempting a third political project to compete with communism and capitalism: the third path opened and he quite simply- walked down it. That path went nowhere. He lost. He lost, and after the German population was decimated by war (that our own country helped initiate) and were cannibalizing themselves to escape starvation, after he had a nervous breakdown and ordered the destruction of all his own factories and industry to deny them to the enemy, he had the Jews he imprisoned originally for deportation physically exterminated and thus committed the atrocities that we now foolishly take were the cause of the Reich's formation- they were actually the result of its defeat. Hitler tried to unplug Germany from the globalization of the world (because it was having a disastrous impact on Germany's economy and sovereign rights as a nation-state, the same way it's having a disastrous impact on America, the Treaty being one of many damages incurred) and re-create an independent state neither communistic or capitalistic: he was, as the Russians are now, in my axis- an anti-globalist pro-statist nationalist. He tried to unplug Germany from the spider-web of world powers, and those world powers, including the US, attacked. I'm as anti-statist as they come and reject the political intention behind the Reich, (not the anti-globalism though) plus I reject its theoretical underpinning in the Heideggarian de-struktion of Christianity, but I analyze historical figures and events, not in terms of good and evil, but in terms of what function they fulfilled. I don't give a shit if he was evil or good, that doesn't help us understand anything. All I want to know is what his historical function was.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Mon Oct 03, 2016 4:32 pm
I started out, as grandson to a butchered Jewess, my Nietzschean studies by trying to identify with the nazis as deeply as I felt I needed to to see where it all came from. The factors you describe were dominant, and Hitler did first make numerous attempts to deport the Jews to Madagascar and other far away places, and even considered Palestine. But none of these lands would take them.

The result of WWII was that the Jews, after thousands of years, got their country back. As a Nietzschean, I am compelled to say that the sacrifice at least is very far from having been for nothing - unlike most genocidal sacrifices. The advantsage of Israel over a great Ottoman-Saudi-Persian world is obviously not entirely unambiguous, but I believe in the historical arc that the Jews carried is of vital philosophical importance; I want that the temple be rebuilt - so as to include the Mosque on its main plateau.




Kissinger and Brzezinski

I'm interested in the reason why Kissinger, about four years back, predicted that Israel would no longer exist ten or twenty years from then. I recommend his book World Order, he has grown subtle, and always ways the most subtle statesman. He is the opposite of the Obama/Hillary camp, is the one who has restored contact with China under Nixon, is the sovereign advocate of a balance of power, rather than globalism. Kissinger is, I think, very much a Jeffersonian of the Nuclear age; that is to say a Jeffersonian forced to think in terms of preemptive interventions. The other East-European high up in DC is Brzezinski, the essential Globalist, whose strategy is destabilization, destruction, scorched Earth method. He has been the dominant force of the Clinton/Bush/Obama line. That is to say the post-cold war US. He got this power by creating the Taliban and so having a large stake in ending the USSR. He could definitely be praised for this on some terms - he should be affirmed at least, as much as Hitler and any butcher that can not be undone - we have to work with the consequences.



Nietzsche and the USA

We have to affirm that we are standing on the shoulders of genocidal men - we have to affirm this precisely because we want the mass-killing to end. There is a machine, of which Clinton is a function, that she can not help but obey, that needs to be brought under control. Trump can do this. Only a man with very many legitimate and illegitimate powers in his pocket can influence the course of this machine.

When this process, which is the alternative to the global political meltdown that Parodites identifies, sets off, it will be all hands on deck; consider now Anglosaxon power as philosophical in the baser, but still proper sense. Hobbes, Locke - in their rhetoric, the most spineless philosophers of all time, yet in their effect the most directly obeyed ones. Diplomacy versus the powers; five philosophers must now attempt to produce a document that can aid Trump and his successors in designing a Constitution that is entirely sufficient to the principle behind the Declaration, which is obviously nothing other than self-valuing logic.

Nietzsche had to appear before the US could be fully ratified as human. Nietzsche has no authority over the US, as the loftiness of its rich soil, vast skies and fresh, vigorous, shaman-rich bloodlines fully exceeds the joys of the Europe that gave birth to him. This is his uncontested nobility; from the dark cauldron of Europe, a vision appeared that does justice to the concept of a higher man.

It makes sense that this man has to be birthed far away from the old smells. The first smelling of an infants - consider that smell is carried by light electricity, by ionic fields, and consider that these fields pervade all the circumferences of our star; the sun is actually in all living scents; when something stinks, it means the sun isnt in it.

Stank - funk - to bring to sun deeper into the Earth. But all that is for Europe!

It is telling that N wrote as little about the US as he did because of what he did write. Most significantly Ive always found an entry in his notebooks that I must paraphrase - The requirement of creating difficult conditions bring about high men; man must suffer danger in the streets and in the heart.



That's what Jefferson didn't mention, but damned well knew, on some level - all of these men were, after all, jurists - so they knew the consequences of their legalistic designs, the very consequences that Parodites mentioned.

Inequality has been implicit in the US code because the conditions on which the equality was superimposed had the shape of a mountainrange; what was considered a system of equal rights was a system of radical wealth differences, within which one was free to continue as one pleased. There never was a beginning; there was only restraint from wealthy men.

That, in kabalistic terms, is Chesed, Mercy, the sphere of Jupiter.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Mon Oct 03, 2016 5:52 pm
I too believe in fulfilling the Judaeo-Christian arc. As I wrote here:


The complete European [Aryan] was looked for behind the distortion imposed on it by the foreign races- first distorted by the Asians through Plato, then the Jews in Rome, and finally Christianity, by Heidegger and the Nazis. Nietzsche got an intimation of it. Indeed that distortion took place, as I have been talking about recently in the threads on globalism. But Christianity became a necessary dream in which the original intuition by the Doric tribes of pre-Hellenes, the true original soul of Europe, was matured in secrecy: secrecy from itself. But with liberal secular humanism and the two great wars, Christianity has been lost to a rabble of disjointed sects, and to atheism. And the current liberal political schema, with the collapse of Christianity, has taken us into the myth of ideology fully, and the false politics of globalization and statism, which has led to the cultural annihilation of Europe.

So to get back to the original Doric intuition- Being's revelation to dasein in Heidegger's language, one must go through Christianity, rather than behind with something like his de-struktion of historical forms of being and metaphysic, or Nietzsche's transvaluation of values.


I do not know exactly where Islam fits in, but I do not take Islam as the consummation or fulfillment of Judaeo-Christianity. It seems to be a regression into more ancient Judaic forms with some Christian appropriations applied to an imperialistic expansionist theocratic structure that never existed in Judaism itself.





And by the way, Trump could be a lot more coherent and presidential- if he wanted to or felt it was necessary to win. As in this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rksd80-FCAw



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 12:48 am
Yes, the beauty of the Doric is unsurpassed. The nobility of whatever men they were is unfathomable, only through a curtain of tears does one approach the stone, it is physiological, stronger than man as he is now. All that came from it was justified in Alexander, his conquest of the playground, setting fires of knowledge here and there throughout the wild Earth, how far he surpassed his 'master', the naive Aristotle who knew the Ram would run into a sea - no but the Ram ran into something vaster, a limit much more treacherous and final; India. The depth of the Earth continues there undisputed, regardless of conflict between East and West - Alexander actually reached India with an army out of Greece to perish of pure spirit. I think this is our only example, the only bravery that counts; to go into the wild. Whatever is the wild to each of us. And none of us will ever forsake that call.

Hail The Anger of Zeus and the Plague Sending Apollon; because this is the good, as the ancients understood it, as they let it erode them, into this doric order, which takes on more splendor as forces smash and grind their souls into it.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 10:52 am
Indeed the Doric tribes conquered the other Hellenes and replaced their culture with what we now call "classical" Greece. Scholars cannot properly explain how this "invasion" by the Heracleidae took place, (it is described not as an invasion but as a return from exile) who claimed descent from Herakles himself, though I ascribe it to the Doric Greeks experiencing a direct intimation of Being's affirmative content, the transcendent. From this first transcendent revelation, the first philosophers emerged, each with a fully formed, unique, spontaneous episteme or guiding image of thought, ie. Parmenides, Heraclitus, all the pre-Socratics; they each advanced a perfectly independent philosophos from seemingly, nowhere. Then that revelation was lost with dissolution into foreign ways of thinking, then all the Platonizing began and the Judaeo-Christian arc took off, though not merely as a forgetfulness of the original revelation as in Heidegger, but as a protective womb.

At the first revelation of the transcendent order, each philosopher intuited a unique image of Being, and this intuition became the mythos, the original, infinitely fertile and creative mythic consciousness in which the human Word grounds itself in its own operative capacity. Schelling says that Nature "stupified" the Doric mind, and from this induced silence or passivity of thought, the Gods appeared: the mythos in essence arises as an autofiguration of man's place in nature and nature's place in man- as cosmos. That is what the Gods are, living symbols: the gods are liminal boundaries upon which the sensible crosses over into imaginative, and the transcendent crosses over into the immanent.


[As limen to the transcendent, human thought is its own illusory center and
boundary, self-evaporating at the margin of experience, whereon it is drawn up through
the scale from nihility to Being as Jean Wahl indicated, gaining if no real content about
the world in which it is estranged, then at least the words with which to pronounce its
solitude, namely as the very Law whose commandment should constitute our
intersubjective medium.]

Levi-Strauss calls this the break in consciousness needed to bring about representative power or logic- the logos, the complimentary faculty to the mythos. The mythos, through which man recognizes his own creative potential and infinitude in the order of Nature, while simultaneously recognizing within himself the power-active of the natural world, when bound to the logos, inaugurates the mythologos or mythology in its self-grounding: the first basic episteme emerges, the Ontos, as man hypostatizes his own essence as the essence of nature and vice versa, and with that episteme a true image of Being was formed, that is, a philosophy.


[The world, that is, being-in-time
or the ontos, is merely a self-nullifying tension of Being within Becoming,
constituted precisely as the movement of the daemon through
corporeal birth-death, never attaining to Being itself, or rising from the erotic premonition
of Being's revelation to transcendence. This never-attaining is the silence in response to
which man created myth, as in Vico, pairing it by means of the reflective mytho-logos to
the tragic poeticism of Holderlin's imagination which he mistakenly ascribed to
subjectivity: here this tragic language is ascribed to Nature itself, a nature without unity- a
nature in which sadness and horror have their register in the philosophic canon, just as it
is presented in Schelling's universe, while man, fathoming within himself the internal
division which characterizes all things and breaks up the scaffold of beings in nature, ie.
the principle of death and life, has gained the possibility of transcendence and reification,
of reinvesting the Ground of nothingness with a positive content. Nature itself is then
given as the primordial text of the Myth, and this myth of nature, that of Being and time,
is written in the language of tragic poeticism, the language of this self-defeating struggle
for Being from out of the void, the language of this never-attaining silence. ]


Given this, why was it necessary for the Doric revelation to protectively hide itself from itself in the arc of Judaeo-Christianity? So that one day we might accomplish

[
the task of fully developing the concatenation and combination of the inner
and outer worlds of man and nature, involuting and extro-verting the original image of
Being into the multitude of created forms, until at last, as Levi-Strauss said, the whole
symphony of combinations stands abrupted at the pinnacle of those combinatorial
resources and collapses into silence. Human speech does not name anything, it verbalizes
or speaks itself into existence and asserts the ground of its own genesis, which is silence:
in the beginning was the word and the word was god and the word was with god. The first
model or image of Being to which man awoke from out of the animal paradise, namely
the model of civilization itself as told by the Sumerians upon the mount Eridu- the image
of creation, which became the sight of our first city, afforded an initial break with nature
and organo-affective unity into mythic consciousness as Levi-Strauss called it, and we
may consider our language to have developed so as to reconstitute the intrapsychical
dimension after this Fall, after this reflective silence as lies both before and behind us,
after the ecstasis, as within a new medium unaccounted for by the natural world- that is,
within the medium of language itself. In summa: the discontiguity of techne and
language, of being and time, of the symbol and the symbolized, of the mythos and the
logos, of the model and the descriptive sign-system, is not the barrier to thought but the
very engine of consciousness and of concept-creation. ]


The silence following the death of God on the Cross, this has not been understood yet.



[ As in Rosenstock-Huessy: “Language is not speech, it is a full circle from word to sound
to perception to understanding to feeling, to memorizing, to acting and back to the word
about the act thus achieved. And before the listener can become a listener, something has
to happen: he or she must expect.” This expectation, this passivity which is transformed
in activity back into passivity and vice versa, is precisely mythic consciousness, which
through the closed circle of the logos is opened up to Being. Giambattista Vico draws
attention to the semantic discontiguity built into the very concept of mythology, insofar as
it combines two antithetical words- myth and logos, the structure of narrative and that of
truth, mimesis and reason, the poetic and the rational, the fiction and the reckoning. His
thesis is that logos cannot ground itself, a thoroughly modern problem that only
reappeared in the light of Nietzsche and Heidegger: the problem of philosophy's self-grounding,
its immanent locus, the point of departure for the vicious circle of the logos.
This is why the logos must enter into relation with myth, for the fictive or mimetic
genesis of what I call the techne or model of the cosmos provides the logos and language
with a point of departure upon which to begin verbalizing or announcing itself. Vico
asserts that the primordial silence of man becomes explicable by the logos from the
standpoint of the mythic model, such that language can begin to evolve as the
externalization of the structure of logos in relation to its mythic foundation in techne.
When language first appeared it was, as Vico points out through the lens of Egypt, in the
form of hieroglyphics, still bound to the natural imagery around whose silence it had been
first inaugurated, enclothed in this way by the shadow of the object, or, in Kantian
language, as so many empirical images not yet configured by transcendental imagination
in a schematism of non-sensible images, in a state more or less of sur-reflection as
Merleau-Ponty phenomenologically designated it- that is, an account of the effects of
reflection in passivity to the spectacle. The specifying and identity forming power of
language- the general language of Being established by logos, when first confronting the
domain of mythic silence before the model of creation- before the cosmic image of Being
itself, spoke the lesser images of beings, of the hieroglyphy, into existence through the
medium of human consciousness. The heiroglyphic stage is the mimetic stage of language
and is the one that most fascinated Mallarme, who identified the mimetic act as a
perpetual allusion that does not shatter the mirror, or one which installs a space of pure
fiction- that is, myth. Within the immanent plane of language so it happened that the
logos enacted within its own vicious circle the continuous submergence of individual
beings within one another, through a concatenation of the natural world, producing men
with the heads of dogs and so on, with the sign-symbol emerging as the discontiguous
threshold of transition between techne and logos, myth and reason, the model and the
word, and all the gods themselves upon the first pronouncement of the mystic syllable
EL.]


And thus the anti-dialectic I outlined is my formalization of this "Within the immanent plane of language [mythologos] so it happened that the logos enacted within its own vicious circle the continuous submergence of individual beings within one another...[this submergence is what myth became within the circle of the logos, the mythos on its own was a pure affirmation of Being in innumerable unconnected forms]" In essence: a logic in which Being does not contain the seed of its conceptual opposite or negation as it does in Hegel, where Being has an entirely affirmative content.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud"
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: 6578
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:31 pm

"C -
Quote :
As a matter of pure taste, Trump is lower than low. No serious thinker, no one with any shred of heart left, could ever cultivate any sort of taste for him. Nor am I interested in petty utilitarian ideological (religious) moralizing and metaphysical prophesizing about "what will happen if so and so is elected", like we're some sort of fucking partisan news commentator on CNN.

I have developed a strong taste for him, so I am forced to disregard this as false. Everything is about taste to me. The basic valuing - I don't rely on anything other than that anymore.

Quote :
Philosophy used to be about taste. I have no idea what it is anymore, but certainly it hasn't been about taste ever since Trump and nationalism came onto the docket.

I'll explain a bit - Trump 'tastes like' organic life to me, Hillary tastes to me like rotting corpses.
That is not some rhetorical trick Im trying to play to bend this to taste where it isnt about it - it is.

My absolute rejection of Hillary is purely taste; she is purely degenerate, pure human rot.

If that isn't a matter of taste, nothing is.

Life is about taste. Not just philosophy. Taste is basic organic valuing. I never say anything here that isnt a direct expression of my tastes. That is the main ethics.

Quote :
Trump isn't a solution to anything, he is a fake populist anti-intellectual puppet and empty sour of brainless reactionary meme-speak with zero political knowledge or experience, and he caters to the absolute worst impulses in people. He is a cheap religious demagogue type, and not only that but he represents the very problems that he is supposedly wanting to fix. He is a wolf in sheeps clothing, plain and simple. There is no magical golden age going to be ushered in yet because a loudmouth bigot with no experience except in business (ending in multiple massive failures and culminating in him bragging that it is smart to cheat the very system he wants to run), and yes as I said in my post but which went unremarked on Trump is little different from the type of fascist totalitarian dictator personality that we already know so well. It's all there in how these people think, or rather how they do not think. The guy is a fucking walking caricature of himself, and he does not at all represent any serious attempt to solve any of our problems, from globalism and immigration on down the line. As I said also in post and which here also went unremarked on as far as I can tell, Trump is the wet dream desire of the globalists. He plays right into their hands, only this kind of monumental ignorance and will to stupidity and low-level thinking and emoting could serve narrow ends of those already in power.

Trump is deeply intelligent, just look at the hearing Parodites posted last, plus no one is proposing a "golden age", but rather two types of crisis.

The US problems as I see them are only financial clutzery, spending too much on shit that causes only death and bankrupcy. Since Bush Sr. this has been the structural policy. Trump has already proven to be a massive genius compared to all these morons, Bush. Clinton, Bush, Obama - what fucking witless butchershop clerks. Unbelievable. You guys should throw them all out of the country. Human waste.

Quote :
To be quite clear, I have literally zero interest in ideology. None whatsoever. As for Hegel, I find it amusing the trepidation he inspires, the loathing and dismissal. From where does this come, I wonder? Well I don't really need to wonder, I happen to know.

I only said that I too have read him (some) and found him impressive.

Quote :
which I usually refer to as "pathologies", I am inclined, by my taste, to turn away.

Ive respected that, this is why I didn't press you to address Trump in the light I see him. But my tastes have found in this place, as always, the one sane and clean place in the world.

Quote :
My hope is that after the election psyches can calm down a little bit, make some space for serious philosophy again.

Ive always said that my aim for my philosophy is to be implemented into politics - that is also the title of this thread - thus in every election season I will heat up, and 'get my hands dirty' - I respect that this is not appropriate to all of our inclinations - and I certainly never meant to suggest you actually value Hillary. It's just, youve been forceful in expressing your disdain for anyones taste for Trump - I had no choice to respect that, as taste can not be argued.

My tastes are so strong, produce such strong reactions, that I am always restraining my output by 90 percent, regardless where I am. But if I am allowed to speak slightly on taste, Hillary makes Hitler smell like fresh apple pie to me. The way she stood there incredulously grinning in the debate - Ive never seen anything quite as disgusting. There is no animal that I would consider lower, and no shit I would regard as more abject, than her and her running mate.

I can almost literally smell the corpses she makes and the shit in the pants of these corpses. Ive seen her work everywhere since I was a kid. Death, death, death, death, death, and sanctimonious grinning. It's hard to endure.

I don't smell death on Trump. Obama at this point is just a greying, decaying skeleton with some shreds of other peoples caramelized meat on him. A terminator whose only virtue is that he has a better taste in style than Hillary - which is actually a disadvantage to me, as it convinced me and so many that he actually had taste of character, and we all got him into power. All of it is taste, politics and all things that are of nature.

I see in Trump the opposite - no taste in style (look at the Trump Tower) but definitely taste in Character (look at him spending his life as a builder in New York).

The following statement pertains strictly to what I experienced during my life as US foreign policy; post Vietnam US presidency has been a matter of fundamentally bad taste. Most of them have been butchers of a genocidal order, and all of them have been using the word "peace" and "freedom" and "human dignity" while sending whole peoples into the darkest deathfate.

Trump is the first one Ive witnessed that does not use this language. He is the first USA president to emerge from below that surface of death and appear human.



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


Last edited by Fixed Cross on Tue Oct 04, 2016 12:01 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 11:57 am
Yes this does somewhat come down to taste, however I think taste can and should be argued.

I see no need to defend, or even attack Hillary very much. We know exactly what she is, a piece of the neoliberal school of thought currently running things. A vote for her is a vote for status quo. I am working on an analysis of this neoliberal model and as I said, it at least must make its pretenses to truth even when it is lying, especially when it is lying. Of course no philosopher could support this model. But in my view Trump is far worse. He is onlt an outsider in the sense he doesn't know what he is doing, and that is even more terrifying because we would entrust him to a task for which he is entirely unprepared both in experience and intellectually, namely we would trust him to dismantle the neoliberal global state. I don't think he can do that nor would he want to (why would he, he is heavily leveraged in international business already.)

He appeals to cheap reactionary fear- and anger-based rhetoric, inciting anger and disaffection and targeting it at certain groups we are supposed to assume are the cause of our problems-- Muslims, Mexicans, the Chinese. That is demagoguery fascism 101, to scapegoat certain groups like that. The Right in US always tries to blame the poor, minorities for the country's problems, culminating in the kind of anti-decadence moralism that gripped Heidegger with his support of Hitler. I see similar logic a thing work here. "Things would be great if we could just get all those (Mexicans, Chinese, Muslims, poor people, Jews...) out of the way." Its just not realistic to look a thing things like that.

I choose not to supporr either candidate because either one violates basic principle values of what I see as fundamental to western civilization and reason proper. I absolutely reject the false dichotomy of EITHER Clinton OR Trump. This false dichotomy itself is precisely the problem: trump and clinton as the two only serious candidates IS the problem, or rather represents the deeper problem. Neither is a solution.



___________
"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." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 12:14 pm
Quote :

I see no need to defend, or even attack Hillary very much. We know exactly what she is, a piece of the neoliberal school of thought currently running things. A vote for her is a vote for status quo. I am working on an analysis of this neoliberal model and as I said, it at least must make its pretenses to truth even when it is lying, especially when it is lying. Of course no philosopher could support this model. But in my view Trump is far worse. He is onlt an outsider in the sense he doesn't know what he is doing, and that is even more terrifying because we would entrust him to a task for which he is entirely unprepared both in experience and intellectually, namely we would trust him to dismantle the neoliberal global state. I don't think he can do that nor would he want to (why would he, he is heavily leveraged in international business already.)

I disagree. Trump has made his fortune himself (with far less of a starting capital than a US president gets to spend) and Im sure all the presidents that came before since pre-war presidents have known less about what they were doing with money. All of them have been gigantic fuckups. All good things in the US have been set up before WWII, except the computer, which was built to construct the H bomb.

Not a single post FDR president has given the appearance of knowing what they were doing in the least. All of them have many pointless deaths on their conscience. Eisenhower had some idea - but no power to address what he saw - and Nixon was the least bad of the rest. But Trump is in a unique position as a non-bureaucrat, non insider-to-failure to break this ghastly status quo that has been going on since before JFK thought he was running the country.


Quote :
He appeals to cheap reactionary fear- and anger-based rhetoric, inciting anger and disaffection and targeting it at certain groups we are supposed to assume are the cause of our problems-- Muslims, Mexicans, the Chinese. That is demagoguery fascism 101, to scapegoat certain groups like that. The Right in US always tries to blame the poor, minorities for the country's problems, culminating in the kind of anti-decadence moralism that gripped Heidegger with his support of Hitler. I see similar logic a thing work here. "Things would be great if we could just get all those (Mexicans, Chinese, Muslims, poor people, Jews...) out of the way." Its just not realistic to look a thing things like that.

Without wanting to be annoying, I haven't heard him say any of these things. He says things about many nations and several ideologies, but all of these are pertinent to some concrete problem he perceives. It is true what he says about Chinese politics, that they are outplaying the us. He is openly calling them geniuses for that, because he understands that is what they are.

Also be careful mentioning the Jews here correctly- Trump is very supportive of them and of Israel.

I did hear Hillary say these things about all the groups I am part of. (Whites, men, Trump supporters, etc).

Quote :
I choose not to supporr either candidate because either one violates basic principle values of what I see as fundamental to western civilization and reason proper. I absolutely reject the false dichotomy of EITHER Clinton OR Trump. This false dichotomy itself is precisely the problem: trump and clinton as the two only serious candidates IS the problem, or rather represents the deeper problem. Neither is a solution.

This moves into territory where we can find agreement.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 12:30 pm
When I talk about the form of demagoguery fascism I mean something specific. This is a certain kind of appeal that has very little to do with actual policies. The contents are irrelevant to the form, the contents (specified issues, policies, real problems) are just a means to the end of (fake) populist appeal. Trump changes his mind on issues not just because he doesn't have a clear grasp on them (his brand of radical right wing Limbaugh Sean Hannity talk radio nonsense ideology, and trust me I've heard him on Hannity many times) but because he doesn't really care about those specific issues. He seriously thinks that we just need to "be tough" and things will get better.

Many of these following points still stand:

"We’re supposed to believe that Trump’s support stems from economic stagnation or dislocation. Maybe some of it does. But what Trump offers his followers are not economic remedies — his proposals change daily. What he offers is an attitude, an aura of crude strength and machismo, a boasting disrespect for the niceties of the democratic culture that he claims, and his followers believe, has produced national weakness and incompetence. His incoherent and contradictory utterances have one thing in common: They provoke and play on feelings of resentment and disdain, intermingled with bits of fear, hatred and anger. His public discourse consists of attacking or ridiculing a wide range of “others” — Muslims, Hispanics, women, Chinese, Mexicans, Europeans, Arabs, immigrants, refugees — whom he depicts either as threats or as objects of derision. His program, such as it is, consists chiefly of promises to get tough with foreigners and people of nonwhite complexion. He will deport them, bar them, get them to knuckle under, make them pay up or make them shut up.That this tough-guy, get-mad-and-get-even approach has gained him an increasingly large and enthusiastic following has probably surprised Trump as much as anyone else. Trump himself is simply and quite literally an egomaniac. But the phenomenon he has created and now leads has become something larger than him, and something far more dangerous.Republican politicians marvel at how he has “tapped into” a hitherto unknown swath of the voting public. But what he has tapped into is what the founders most feared when they established the democratic republic: the popular passions unleashed, the “mobocracy.” Conservatives have been warning for decades about government suffocating liberty. But here is the other threat to liberty that Alexis de Tocqueville and the ancient philosophers warned about: that the people in a democracy, excited, angry and unconstrained, might run roughshod over even the institutions created to preserve their freedoms. As Alexander Hamilton watched the French Revolution unfold, he feared in America what he saw play out in France — that the unleashing of popular passions would lead not to greater democracy but to the arrival of a tyrant, riding to power on the shoulders of the people.This phenomenon has arisen in other democratic and quasi-democratic countries over the past century, and it has generally been called “fascism.” Fascist movements, too, had no coherent ideology, no clear set of prescriptions for what ailed society. “National socialism” was a bundle of contradictions, united chiefly by what, and who, it opposed; fascism in Italy was anti-liberal, anti-democratic, anti-Marxist, anti-capitalist and anti-clerical. Successful fascism was not about policies but about the strongman, the leader (Il Duce, Der Führer), in whom could be entrusted the fate of the nation. Whatever the problem, he could fix it. Whatever the threat, internal or external, he could vanquish it, and it was unnecessary for him to explain how. "

The function of The Will of the People in a democracy is not to know the answers to the many complexities and problems of modern society; the function is precisely negative in general and positive in specific: 1) Negative: to serve as a check on those already in power, that if they screw up too badly the people will toss them out on their asses, and 2) Positive: to ground those who are in power in at least a baseline state of representing the people in general through popular vote. The fact that people in democracy vote isn't because the people should or do know what is best or how best to solve problems, it is precisely formal, to instantiate ground-level Representation of leadership to that society which it leads. But again the other and only primary function of the democratic people is simply to act as a check against severe abuses of power.

This fake populism and nationalism of believing that "the people" somehow know what is best and how to solve society'a problems is just not true at all, it is even a perversion of the true function of the people to their political system. Most Trump supporters only care about one issue, bringing back unskilled labor jobs such as manufacturing. Anxiety about job losses in unskilled labor is prettt much the only serious concern for most Trump voters, and all of his pandering on issues like scapegoating certain groups is aimed decidedly at stoking that anxiety.

Btw my comment about Jews on that list of "undesirables" was in reference to Hitler, not to Trump.



___________
"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." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 12:45 pm
I have addressed many of theses issues in my own terms - we need to respect here that we all have our terms.

Here is what I see; Trump is catering to a traditional conservative 'right wing' segment of the electorate to get them to vote for him. I have seen dozens of lengthy interviews with him from decades back, where he very evidently is a deeply competent and rational man. Very impressive.

If he would act as intelligent as he is, no American would vote for him. Americans structurally vote for morons or fascists.

The other issues you raise are also perceived differently by me; I have left Europe because mass import of sick ideologies made it impossible to live there as a human being without getting your throat slit. Granted, the US is larger than Holland and would not get so clogged, people could still do what they want in deep backlands. But in general it's a bad idea to import nazis, muslims, or other people aborted in their humanity by some non-human ideology, into a country that has many unemployed people. It is just sick and murderous.

I dont know what is wrong with addressing the very basis of American freedom and prosperity; low entry construction jobs.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 12:52 pm
Regarding Islam.

I showed my film, that I made in Amsterdam with a muslim kid, which launched a profitable tv career until I quit in disgust, to Pezer.

Before that, he had always been pressing me on how much he found human in Islam and identified with it - when he saw this film, he was silent.

It is not possible for Americans to know the extent to which Islam has absorbed our homeland.

Watch this, especially from 5:30 on.

I, as the filmmaker, saw only beauty at the time. I might be the least 'racist' person there is in this world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8tD8Jo6b50

The film is meant as a manifesto for religious freedom. Because I gave the muslims all the freedom in the world to express themselves, they end yup revealing much more than any anti-muslim propaganda could.

The guy is still my friend, though it is evidently strained now - his brother went to join IS because he was forbidden a girlfriend by his family, as I understand it. That is all very normal, day to day stuff in Amsterdam, let alone in Brussels or Paris or Cologne.



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


Last edited by Fixed Cross on Tue Oct 04, 2016 12:55 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 12:54 pm
Fixed Cross wrote:
Well the thing is that Trumps lies can be counted and listed - I looked at them, found no grave crimes against humanity in them. Whereas during the debate, Hillary has only told lies. She started lying, and never actually stopped. Plus her lies were importantly genocidal lies. She has already the blood of innumerable children on her hands, has already caused chaos for the next 1000 years for many millions. That has not really been addressed at all, I think.

I talk about being the tough and strong guy, that is a big part of Fixed Cross strategy. I disagree vehemently with tha attribution of strongman rhetoric to fascism. I think in fact that strongnman rhetoric is entirely anti-fascit in this time.

Fasicsm is just absolute tyranny of the corporation. That is its definition. Right now Hillary is literally fascist, as is Obama. There is no real argument here - fascism is the ruling form of state. That is is defended with democratic rhetoric makes it all the more typically fascist.

I hope it's ok to post this and my reply in the topic.

Yes and in this sense modern society is already fascist at heart simple due to the intertwining of government and corporate-capitalist interests. But that definition of fascism is to only simplistic, for one thing because this intertwining of interests is inevitable and not necessarily bad. This is another deep contradiction in the Right populist position today: they are implicitly and openly on the side of corporations and private interests, associating that with freedom and success of the individual in the marketplace, but they are against corporations in so far as corporations "represent capitalism as such" which simply means the companies are TOO successful, they use outsourcing or get special deals in their favor, don't pay taxes, etc: the very same stuff Trump already does and brags about.


As to what you just posted above, there is nothing wrong with low skill labor, I happen to like that kind of work myself. But here is another contradiction at the heart of the modern Right: the conflict between their value of Capital growth and corporate progress to profits such as with Ford for example making streetcars and trains largely obsolete, this kind of progress is always defended by conservatives in the US Right, and in the other hand being deeply protectionist and anti-progress when it comes to labor and unskilled work. If we can replace many unskilled jobs with robots or technological efficiency removing many workers, that is seen as bad from the Right's perspective yet in general the Right supports the advances of technology and capital toward expanding business profits and power. The reason for this difference is simply because many of the Right's voters are those in the very same low skilled labor jobs that are in decline.

I have nothing against labor at all. But I do have a problem with this kind of hypocritical "labor protectionism" (which has traditionally been the prerogative of the Left in the form of unions and worker rights) being elevated to basically the single issue of importance around which the entire modern Right turns.

Edit: for clarity sake, which lies and grave crimes of Hillary are you talking about? It would be good to make a side by side list of Trump and Hillary when it comes to lies told and crimes committed. But here we need to be pretty specific.



___________
"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." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 1:09 pm
Quote :
I hope it's ok to post this and my reply in the topic.

Certainly.


Quote :
Yes and in this sense modern society is already fascist at heart simple due to the intertwining of government and corporate-capitalist interests. But that definition of fascism is to only simplistic, for one thing because this intertwining of interests is inevitable and not necessarily bad. This is another deep contradiction in the Right populist position today: they are implicitly and openly on the side of corporations and private interests, associating that with freedom and success of the individual in the marketplace, but they are against corporations in so far as corporations "represent capitalism as such" which simply means the companies are TOO successful, they use outsourcing or get special deals in their favor, don't pay taxes, etc: the very same stuff Trump already does and brags about.

Now we're talking - here is where I clearly see deceit as well. It's just that all politicians deceive this way - it's still deceit that needs to be addressed. It is not genocidal deceit, but mere misleading.

The issue here is whether or not a corporation should be granted, as they are now, citizen rights. That is where the disparity was solidified.

Profit sand wealth and success have to be redefined in terms of a better understanding of value and gain. And companies cannot be granted citizens rights.


Quote :
As to what you just posted above, there is nothing wrong with low skill labor, I happen to like that kind of work myself. But here is another contradiction at the heart of the modern Right: the conflict between their value of Capital growth and corporate progress to profits such as with Ford for example making streetcars and trains largely obsolete, this kind of progress is always defended by conservatives in the US Right, and in the other hand being deeply protectionist and anti-progress when it comes to labor and unskilled work. If we can replace many unskilled jobs with robots or technological efficiency removing many workers, that is seen as bad from the Right's perspective yet in general the Right supports the advances of technology and capital toward expanding business profits and power. The reason for this difference is simply becausea many of the Right's voters are those in the very same low skilled labor jobs that are in decline.

This goes into Parodites' tertiary stage model, I think- how we should be dealing with the rise of an entirely technocratic system - on the other hand, the jobs right now are being outsourced to humans, not robots, who are simply paid less. Before robots replace these foreign children, I think we will have the chance of bringing back some of the work... but I dont know. I just know that it is a real issue he is talking about and that no politician has ever had a simple solution for such issues... but that fact that he is essentially a buillder speaks very well for him. As I see it, he'd be the first philosophical presidential choice in that sense, given how much importance I place on the physicality of rulership, its essence as building and managing growth.


Quote :
I have nothing against labor at all. But I do have a problem with this kind of hypocritical "labor protectionism" (which has traditionally been the prerogative of the Left in the form of unions and worker rights) being elevated to basically the single issue of importance around which the entire modern Right turns.

A lot of people are going do be disappointed in any scenario, granted.

Quote :

Edit: for clarity sake, which lies and grave crimes of Hillary are you talking about? It would be good to make a side by side list of Trump and Hillary when it comes to lies told and crimes committed. But here we need to be pretty specific.

Lybia, Iraq, Yugoslavia, are some prominent countries she and her clan ravaged. Ukraine is her fault, and 2004's NATO expansion which is a direct act of war against Russia and will probably be paid for still with much life, is her clans doing. She always speaks about freedom and human rights, and that is all vicious lying, as per the above. Of course Syria is directly her responsibility.

She is a figure in a political sect, that began effectively after Reagan and the USSR, that has determined the global military and social economic landscape. She and her people have brought global misery for three decades now.

Since bringing death, famine, disease and war is the only thing that she has ever done for the world, and since she never mentions any of these accomplishments of hers, all she says is deception.

all except the occasional slip of the tongue, like here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 1:20 pm
The beauty of it is that at the very moment that the carnage she set off is at its peak, she gets invited to Oslo to receive a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize.

I could see this as the 'end times', if ever such a word should apply, the time of the greatest imaginable injustice. Politics has entered its ugliest stage.

I imagine being part of one of these families that have been decimated by her, and seeing her ascend that stage... there is no greater dishonor that can be done to the human species; this brings to the lowest level of disgrace both humanity's heart, and the institutions of our intellect and arts.

At least Hitlers Olympics were real enough that a black athlete was able to win.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 1:31 pm
I think we seriously need to consider severing the latest 4 presidencies from what is technically the US of A. Since the USSR fell, US presidents have not be compelled to obey to any sort of law or agreement, and far from being lofty creators, they turned out to have been a robber-clan of sorts; the Bush and Clin ton families in central positions, with people like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Brzezinski, Wolfowitz, Albright, Rice to organize the big theft of the state from the people;

they are ordinary savages, they have nothing in common with the USA narrative or values - sheer murderers and plunderers that happen to have stolen a country. Hillary is a part of a robber clan that now owns the USA - she is no politician, no government, just a very sinister creep that came into possession of a lot of human fates."
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: 6578
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:32 pm

"I highly recommend this in depth article on the ME and the Arab spring. Edit: if you find any inaccuracies or lies in this article please call attention to them.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016 ... pe=article

From what I can tell, Gaddafi was in the running to be replaced for a long time, at least since 2003 in the Iraq invasion. Bush Jr really started this off. Of course he was just continuing the Bush Sr and Clinton program. We need look no further than Yugoslavia to see what Clinton creates as a precedent for NATO being the bitch of western corporate imperialism.

Again, I have no love for the Clintons. I'm just saying that Trump is a false flag. Hell, he has been friends with the Clintons. And Trump is surely on the side of pro-Bush Jr just like the modern US Right mostly is, remember these are the same "conservative" voters who supported Bush and the Iraq war who are now backing Trump, and of course now we know that originally Teump did support the Iraq invasion (despite lying about that fact now), in his own words.

The deeper problem is that these Iraq, Egypt and Libya tyrant governments were set up by the west. There is bo real government there, just arbitrarily lines drawn around older colonialist demarcations. Gaddafi was a brutal dictator of a totalitarian state, yet he had socialism like Saudi Arabia today so we are supposed to assume he was "ok", ha-- no, socialism in that sense is just buying the relative complicity of the people so you can go about with executing and imprisoning anyone who steps out of line. The concept of human rights is non-existent in these places. NATO backed Arab spring uprisings against Gaddafi due to his brutal crackdowns on protesters and of course because the west wanted to see him go, just like Saddam he was a petty tyrant who got big ideas about biting the hand that feeds. If you read Confessions of an Economic Hitman you'll see how the west manipulates and forces compliance out of these cheap petty dictators-- or removes them. Clinton is just as guilty here of supporting this fake system that props up sham governments and dictators and then removes them when it seee fit to do so. Again, I'm not supporting Clinton.

But I have to ask: you despise Islam, and in general you seem to adhere to the principle of western power and of the will to power as idea; what is, very clearly, the basis for your rejection of this kind of western neo-imperialism that makes the ME the bitch of the west? I understand that you do hold some regard for the Arabs in general and the Kurdish fighters specifically. I am just curious on hat basis do you oppose western new imperialism such as seen by the west supporting people like Saddam and Gaddafi for a while and then overthrowing them when they step too far out of line?

I certainly oppose this kind of neo-colonialism, I oppose it largely on moral and rational grounds. I don't have the same antipathy you do for Islam, however I would never support islam directly and I understand that teaching archaic old world ideology to children by the billions is not a good thing. In general the west's position toward ME certainly post-Jimmy Carter but going even further back has been to sublimate global colonial ambitions to capitalist intrusions and prop up fake regimes for westerners gain. That all seems very "Nietzschean" to me, I would have a hard time finding anything in Nietzsche that would have much of a problem with any of that, certainly when you factor in the extremely adverse sentiment toward modern Islam that you and I am sure Nietzsche would also have felt. My point is that it takes a kind of always-already moral "humanist" sentiment and value to even oppose this western neoliberal global capitalist imperialism in the first place, I don't think it can be opposed simply on utilitarian "amoral" grounds alone.

Why does Trump think we should stop meddling in the ME? Is it because Trump represents this moral rational position that such meddling is inherently immoral (unphilosophical) and cannot be rationally supported? No, his opposition is basically that it just costs us a lot of money. I mean I'm sure you can see the difference there. This is perhaps a subtler point I am trying to make here but I trust you will grasp it and reply in kind.


In the issue of corporations, I agree they should be held to a standard of social beneficience in general and all other things being equal. Corporations are not persons, and money is not speech. Perhaps we can all come together here around our opposition to the corporate oligarchy state. But note that the idea that corporations should be held to a standard of social beneficence and should not be given individual rights is inherently a Leftist position. The Right here supports the Citizens United ruling and opposes the EPA and other means of making sure corporations are not fucking up the common social spaces too much.



___________
"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." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson


Last edited by Capable on Tue Oct 04, 2016 2:48 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 2:45 pm
Parodites -
I agree with your breakdown. I have much to say to that specific nature of the gods you describe, too much at this point. That is always the case with such thoughts - they address the things that I have had kept silent for twenty years precisely now, because there was no language to express them in.

It leads up to the following, which crosses over a field of possibility I had out of prudence not yet considered.


Quote :
the task of fully developing the concatenation and combination of the inner
and outer worlds of man and nature, involuting and extro-verting the original image of
Being into the multitude of created forms, until at last, as Levi-Strauss said, the whole
symphony of combinations stands abrupted at the pinnacle of those combinatorial
resources and collapses into silence.

Ah! This is a perfect reflection on a higher arc of how I see the periodic table to have come into being; as a final result of a symphony of (an endless array of dimensions of) combinations of the self-valuing principle.

Yes, this is the aim. This is the very aim of creating the just-human-enough-human, that Nietzsche perhaps sought to circumvent in disgust with the all-too-human.

Quote :
Human speech does not name anything, it verbalizes or speaks itself into existence and asserts the ground of its own genesis, which is silence: in the beginning was the word and the word was god and the word was with god. The first model or image of Being to which man awoke from out of the animal paradise, namely the model of civilization itself as told by the Sumerians upon the mount Eridu- the image of creation, which became the sight of our first city, afforded an initial break with nature and organo-affective unity into mythic consciousness as Levi-Strauss called it, and we may consider our language to have developed so as to reconstitute the intrapsychical dimension after this Fall, after this reflective silence as lies both before and behind us, after the ecstasis, as within a new medium unaccounted for by the natural world- that is, within the medium of language itself. In summa: the discontiguity of techne and language, of being and time, of the symbol and the symbolized, of the mythos and the logos, of the model and the descriptive sign-system, is not the barrier to thought but the very engine of consciousness and of concept-creation. ]

Correct, I think - I treated the word and the idea in the same way, so as to arrive at the word "valuing" as being the most comprehensive reflection of that very beginning. It is as a full reflection, thus as a basic asymmetry, thus as a proper phenomenon, that it works; therefore it calls into being its own logic, i.e. its own grammar.

Ive found the word that can commands the entire logos, and logoocized it to perform that task.

Quote :
The silence following the death of God on the Cross, this has not been understood yet.

Therefore there hasn't been a resurrection.

Quote :
[ As in Rosenstock-Huessy: “Language is not speech, it is a full circle from word to sound to perception to understanding to feeling, to memorizing, to acting and back to the word about the act thus achieved. And before the listener can become a listener, something has to happen: he or she must expect.”

Indeed, language is the self-valuing non-human being in which terms all humans that arent of pure poesis value themselves, thereby being less than fully human, or 'all-too-human' - what N aimed for as the Superman is, I am beginning to think, the man of logoic poesis who cures mankind of its pale and lethargic conceptual grammar, allowing a fully fledged species of joy to come into being; a need this to reinterpret the Superman, perhaps more into what Sauwelios has been aiming for - himself. Ourselves. And thus, the Superman as a means rather than an end; all ends must become means for either good or ill.

Quote :
[ As in Rosenstock-Huessy: “Language is not speech, it is a full circle from word to sound to perception to understanding to feeling, to memorizing, to acting and back to the word about the act thus achieved. And before the listener can become a listener, something has to happen: he or she must expect.”

Precisely. Therefore we who have been expecting and finally received a fully fledged ontos, can never trust any operative terms but those very ones we forged the heat we were personally able to generate in our expectation.

Quote :
This expectation, this passivity which is transformed in activity back into passivity and vice versa, is precisely mythic consciousness, which through the closed circle of the logos is opened up to Being. Giambattista Vico draws attention to the semantic discontiguity built into the very concept of mythology, insofar as it combines two antithetical words- myth and logos, the structure of narrative and that of truth, mimesis and reason, the poetic and the rational, the fiction and the reckoning. His thesis is that logos cannot ground itself, a thoroughly modern problem that only reappeared in the light of Nietzsche and Heidegger: the problem of philosophy's self-grounding, its immanent locus, the point of departure for the vicious circle of the logos.

Precisely. Hence the fact that only the term valuing is suitable. Only this term refers directly to the objective groundlessness of objectifying identification, as well as to the objective ground of subjective iodentification; it is a proper ground to build. Not to "existence" - obviously any ground of existence would also have to exist - thus can not exist.

Quote :
This is why the logos must enter into relation with myth, for the fictive or mimetic
genesis of what I call the techne or model of the cosmos provides the logos and language
with a point of departure upon which to begin verbalizing or announcing itself. Vico
asserts that the primordial silence of man becomes explicable by the logos from the
standpoint of the mythic model, such that language can begin to evolve as the
externalization of the structure of logos in relation to its mythic foundation in techne.
When language first appeared it was, as Vico points out through the lens of Egypt, in the
form of hieroglyphics, still bound to the natural imagery around whose silence it had been
first inaugurated, enclothed in this way by the shadow of the object, or, in Kantian
language, as so many empirical images not yet configured by transcendental imagination
in a schematism of non-sensible images, in a state more or less of sur-reflection as
Merleau-Ponty phenomenologically designated it- that is, an account of the effects of
reflection in passivity to the spectacle. The specifying and identity forming power of
language- the general language of Being established by logos, when first confronting the
domain of mythic silence before the model of creation- before the cosmic image of Being
itself, spoke the lesser images of beings, of the hieroglyphy, into existence through the
medium of human consciousness. The heiroglyphic stage is the mimetic stage of language
and is the one that most fascinated Mallarme, who identified the mimetic act as a
perpetual allusion that does not shatter the mirror, or one which installs a space of pure
fiction- that is, myth. Within the immanent plane of language so it happened that the
logos enacted within its own vicious circle the continuous submergence of individual
beings within one another, through a concatenation of the natural world, producing men
with the heads of dogs and so on, with the sign-symbol emerging as the discontiguous
threshold of transition between techne and logos, myth and reason, the model and the
word, and all the gods themselves upon the first pronouncement of the mystic syllable
EL.]

I go to the end in agreeing here, as this is the path that I have followed to end up at self-valuing logic. I need only say this to you, I think; the first thought that entered the realization of the logic was: then all the myths and gods I have, in full irony, chosen to fully believe (where my smile was thus forever private, a painful affair), are just as fucking real as I thought I had to imagine them. Then I fully understood the nature of the imagination. Instantly, of course, I nodded to Schopenhauer, who is truly Nietzsche's begetter.

change, from:
EL.
Elohim,
etc

to
Val - (root)
Valor (prime identifier)
Valuing (concept)
Valency (application)
Value (Universal)

etc


Quote :
And thus the anti-dialectic I outlined is my formalization of this "Within the immanent plane of language [mythologos] so it happened that the logos enacted within its own vicious circle the continuous submergence of individual beings within one another...[this submergence is what myth became within the circle of the logos, the mythos on its own was a pure affirmation of Being in innumerable unconnected forms]" In essence: a logic in which Being does not contain the seed of its conceptual opposite or negation as it does in Hegel, where Being has an entirely affirmative content.


Yes, pure negation -
One pillar against the two by his sides. Difference and repetition; but with the consideration of the vertical plane as a result.

Tectonic pile-ups, mountain-ranges; this is the human being. The inward negation by necessity of its own conditions as it confronts itself as time, refined into what we call excellence, or beauty, or culture, or intellectual hygiene.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 2:49 pm
Capable wrote:
The deeper problem is that these Iraq, Egypt and Libya tyrant governments were set up by the west.

I will be back to address your post in the full, I have to meet someone -
but yes - this is the issue. The death of the Ottoman Empire has not been absorbed at all. Two world wars did very little to discharge that order of violence.

As to regards my valuing of Islam, in the terms you put it - please, watch my document, It is a year of my life, one fully dedicated to Islam, in the midst of muslims. I have been among the religion all my life, It is incomparably more powerful here than Christianity. It holds sway.

I dont loathe it. I loathe its imposition on my own values - and it is largely if not purely come to think of it the school of which Clinton is the spearhead now that that is responsible for this.

I had friends and girlfriends form muslim families since I was 2 years old.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 4:23 pm
Everything I am saying, I say respecting the honesty of your intentions, without any feeling of maliciousness. Sorry if I sound otherwise, I'm attacking your politics, because I have to, not you.


"remember these are the same "conservative" voters who supported Bush and the Iraq war who are now backing Trump, and of course now we know that originally Teump did support the Iraq invasion (despite lying about that fact now), in his own words. "

He did oppose the Iraq war. And your claim that it's the typical conservative Bush voter that's voting for Trump is objectively incorrect. Trump has pulled in a record number of voters to the Rep. party in the primaries: obviously it's not the typical Republican that's giving him all the votes. A lot of people who voted for him admit to never having voted before in their life. He's getting more of the minority vote than Bush or Romney, even blacks. This statement is not true. Pretty funny that he's the most racist bigoted guy to run under the Republican party yet he's gotten extremely impressive percentages of the minority vote.


Capable, your entire dismissal or Trump as well as the Washington Post article is a baseless accusation and a reflection of a defensive reaction to your not wanting to be lumped in with the lowly "rabble rousing Trump supporters". I have no qualms of taste about being lumped in with them for the same reason I have no qualms of taste about being lumped in with drug addicts: when one is above something, one can indulge it freely. Your dismissal of Trump is accusatory and psychological: my support of him is objective and logical, as I provide reasons not insults. I pecked at that article you posted for a bit and moved on because there is nothing to respond to. I have outlined my own politics and reasons for backing Trump, I've specified the historical role he is fulfilling, (all men who have come to political power have simply fulfilled a historical role, they themselves are of lesser importance- that's why Trump himself doesn't really matter, his external character is a fabrication anyway) and I have modified my own position in relation to your own throughout these exchanges, but you have not budged and it always comes back down to, quite simply: He's Hitler, he's a liar, he's a racist, he hates women, because that's all the stuff I heard about him and I don't want to be associated with any of that. I cannot argue with it. You say he's a racist bigot, I advise you that he's said nothing racist, and then you specify that you're using the word racist in an entirely different sense, etc.

You do a similar thing with fascism as you do racism- it's not an actual political scheme, it's just "an attitude." No, it's a very definite political schema that Trump has nothing to do with. I don't use words to draw and quarter those who offend my taste, or neutralize other people's lines of thought until I can shuffle them away into a little box, as those who use words like racist, misogynist, etc do.

" Trump isn't a solution to anything, he is a fake populist anti-intellectual puppet and empty sour of brainless reactionary meme-speak with zero political knowledge or experience..."


You request an argument to that? I can only argue with an argument, not an insult.


" As for Hegel, I find it amusing the trepidation he inspires, the loathing and dismissal. From where does this come, I wonder? Well I don't really need to wonder, I happen to know."

What are you talking about? The dialectic has been utilized by philosophers since Hegel developed it, I don't see a bunch of Hegel-hate when I look around. Not that I hate him: I take him as having schematized a degenerate way of thinking about the question of Being that was waiting to fully burst through for a long time. I don't hate him. The reason I dislike Hegel is not malicious, it's because I reject the fundamental premise of Hegelian philosophy. His system does not make sense. I hate his prose style though, I'll give you that. The basic premise of Hegelian philosophy (And Western philosophy in general right now) is that Being contains within itself the seed of its own negation, and the fundamental premise of my own philosophy is incompatible with that. I cannot logically accept him as anything but an example of my "antipode" as Nietzsche would say. It is good to know where one's antipodes are though. Even the quote in your sig now, "clings to finitude and thus to contradiction," becomes instantly translated for me, "clings to love and thus to death," "clings to earth and thus to sin," "clings to Being and thus to Nothing."


" He appeals to cheap reactionary fear- and anger-based rhetoric, inciting anger and disaffection and targeting it at certain groups we are supposed to assume are the cause of our problems-- Muslims, Mexicans, the Chinese. "

People aren't really apprehensive about more terror attacks (perhaps some pretend to be) by Muslims- that cannot really be stopped, it's going to continue happening. The reality is, Muslims do not integrate into our society. Multiple studies have show that the second generation of a Muslim migrant is even more "extremist" that his parents were, and they get more and more extremist as the generations pass. Want to know why? Because Muslims are alienated in our society, and the first person that comes along with words that can stir his racial sentiment and make him feel like he has a voice again, a connection to his fraternal spirit- he takes that person as a master. He becomes "radical." Because the first person he encounters with those words if often a radical, preying on his sense of isolation. And the Islamic faith is unique in how powerfully it can tap into this, while also being far more expansionist and theocratic than the other Abrahamic faiths. Trump is not attempting to deport a bunch of Muslims who are already citizens here- that would be illegal. But it is within his power to bar the entry (without extensive interviewing) of people coming from certain areas in the world where we know they kill women to save their honor, circumcise females, and have a history of sponsoring terrorism. A nation-state has an immortal right to self-determination. If a nation-state cannot determine what kinds of people and values it wants to be freely brought into it: then the nation-state does not exist. The fucking Chinese are fucking us. It's not just a blind hatred, they are negatively, along with the rest of the global-state, impacting the US.


"Why does Trump think we should stop meddling in the ME? Is it because Trump represents this moral rational position that such meddling is inherently immoral (unphilosophical) and cannot be rationally supported? No, his opposition is basically that it just costs us a lot of money. I mean I'm sure you can see the difference there. This is perhaps a subtler point I am trying to make here but I trust you will grasp it and reply in kind. "

See, right here, you're just calling his character into question even when the action he proposes is good, you still have to find a negative intention buried in it somewhere- that we discontinue operations in the ME. I cannot argue with an insult. I don't know- cannot know, the man's true character, all I know is the actual function he accomplishes. Even his use of memes sets off your alarm it seems.


"My point is that it takes a kind of always-already moral "humanist" sentiment and value to even oppose this western neoliberal global capitalist imperialism in the first place, I don't think it can be opposed simply on utilitarian "amoral" grounds alone. "

I oppose it because it destroys everything I value in life: beauty, personality, philosophy, personal freedom, national freedom, etc. If that's moral or amoral, doesn't matter to me.


As for serious philosophy: politics isn't philosophy. Politics is an application of philosophy. It's applied philosophy.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 4:40 pm
" As a matter of pure taste, Trump is lower than low. No serious thinker, no one with any shred of heart left, could ever cultivate any sort of taste for him. Nor am I interested in petty utilitarian ideological (religious) moralizing and metaphysical prophesizing about "what will happen if so and so is elected", like we're some sort of fucking partisan news commentator on CNN."

The first sentence is just an egregiously small-minded accusation, of the kind befitting religious people- oh, this person does this one thing I disagree with so his entire character is demonic and he's destined for hellfire, etc. The later is nonsensical. It's religious to respond to the actual world? To consider the causes and consequence of particular things in the real world- that's what politics is. And something about CNN.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 4:44 pm
"You like Trump so your entire personhood is invalidated" is what that statement you made means. And then you accuse others of being religious. Others of being bigots. It is hard to respect the purity of your intentions when you say things like this, because this is the same mechanism that allows religious people to discount entire segments of the populace as condemned and set in the loft of moral certainty. I despise the SJW type hyper-liberal from the bottom of my heart and even I would still not say something like "If you vote Hillary you're completely invalidated as a human being."



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 4:57 pm
The principle produces instances that attain not quite fully to it, because to do so would require for it to be alone, or in absolute control -

there is never a full negation - nuclear blastwaves are the result of approaching anything like negation - and stars are this limit - but there is a pure negation of every other entity that every entity starts out as, in order to affirm itself; or rather than to negate, it sculpts its image of it as either a function of itself, or moves to destroy, or if possible, disregard it. These: destroy, disregard, or integrate/integrate oneself into are the values to the variable 'chaos' or 'random'.

Trump is moving the population back to such a negating of the other in order to afrfirm the self; but what is really happening is that he affirms the principle of self-affirmation, as a result and cause of self-determination, which is a universally applicable principle, and he thus stimulates all humans implicitly to rise up against their totalitarian governments, and all governments to get their hands out of other countries.

The big oil Saudi clan of which Clinton is a function on the other hand seeks simply to keep the middle east a hell so that it is easy for Saudi Arabian royal house to keep its minority position as the rule and standard of all the worlds power balances and transactions, and remain the controller of the world economy. Her program, besides deeply warmongering, vaguely reminiscent of some humanist slogan, is only an excuse to keep the Saudis in control. They paid off Iran just to keep the panicky Saudis calm. Saudi Arabia owns all this process, it obviously created Isis - it's really all absolutely inhuman. Obviously, female children are the main victim. It's thus a matter of my deepest tastes, instincts, will, standards - this global rapist clan should not be elected again.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 5:02 pm
It's not even Trump. It's the death of one political axis and the birth of a new one, and a movement within the changing society, that is expressing itself in the form of Trump, because he happened to have the money, resources, and the ability to play the media in order to actually win. You insult and tear down this one man like it would really matter even if all your accusations were correct about him.





___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 5:04 pm
Even if Trump himself falls short of the idea of ending the globalist state and re-affirming the self-determination and rights of sovereign nations, you are not looking at it properly: that idea now has, through Trump, a public voice- a public force now strong enough to get within an inch of the presidency, where formerly it was relegated to the remote periphery of public discourse.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 5:09 pm
So a politician looks at the common sentiment and pronounces it to get an easy vote, as Clinton has: a leader looks at what the few are saying, though saying fervently, and pronounces it, in order to get people who never even bothered voting before to vote, and finally be heard. Trump did the later.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 5:12 pm
Though I will give Capable the benefit of the doubt: no serious person could cultivate taste for the bigoted genocidal maniac compulsive liar woman bashing bullying psychotic fascist you have turned Trump into, in your own mind.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 5:19 pm
But by all means, allow Clinton, a person who unironically suggested to drone strike Julian Assange and threaten Russia with war over her hacked server, accepted funding by Saudi tyrants, and essentially promised a ground war with Iran, to be voted in, because Trump called Rosie o Donnel fat. Because these two people are equally evil.


If Clinton is elected, her fiscal policies will tank the US economy and her actions on the world stage will invite the condemnation of every other Nation in the Western world and bring about our fall, economically and politically.


Trump's fiscal policy- in essence a drastic simplification of the tax code, will boost our economy and his return to national sovereignty will re-solidify our position among the world-powers.


You have taken the one election that does matter and turned it into the election that matters the least.


Trump is: antiglobalism and a return to nationalism and national sovereignty, with the US in a leading position among the world powers.

Clinton is: globalism, the deconstruction of the very idea of a nation-state, and the subordination of the US to the political hegemon of a global state.


The tertiary capital I have elaborated demands the continuation of the project of a global state. It implies the fall of the US. Trump will stall this process and bring about a global conflict, but with a rebirth of national liberty all over the world eventually. Hillary will complete it, sink the US into civil unrest and lose our positioning among the world powers, and blanket the human spirit in the night of a borderline communistic global state. Based on my theory of capital, it's not a prediction: it's a conclusion.


If we've ever had a true choice in an election before, this is a choice. I believe it's a choice which, if you have understood it, you are morally obligated to make.




This whole thing about how can a philosopher support Trump: how did Aristotle support Alexander? Was Alexander a beautiful image of philosophic and cultural refinement, while he was cutting off people's heads raiding all over the place?



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 5:48 pm
The reason I think Clinton might still be elected, despite all that is known about her, is this Japanese saying, 'in the depths of their hearts, all men long for the end of the world.'



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 5:57 pm
The decision the world is facing:

Do we take Hillary and inherit the cold, depressed world our fathers and mothers left us, or do we take Trump and act on all the instincts of need, thirst an will that we have learned to feel since Hitler was crucified?



___________
dionisius against the cross...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 6:58 pm
And one other thing about Hegel.


It is a property of dialectic reason in general, the way that some people choose to use words like racist, misogynist, fascist, etc. By not ascribing affirmation to Being, you have denied affirmation to all being(s)- all affirmative content is evaporated from philosophy, and all identity is lost, until there are no principles left, no oughts, no realities, and everything means everything else. Fascism has the seed of its own negation in it, absorbs with its opposite into a synthesis, and so on: this degenerating, emptying of affirmative content has been going on in philosophy for long enough to take us to the total annihilation of the political discourse, an annihilation epitomized in Clinton, the old axis. The Hegelian dialectic is even itself subject to the dialectic: "I'd be on your guard if you're reading Hegel, as Hegelianism is like a mental illness; in order to understand it, you have to subvert your own understanding of it, and become blind in a sense. Hegel's dialectic is itself subject to the dialectic, and transforms itself without your realizing it; it changes into its opposition and synthesizes." The only way to escape it, to escape this evaporation of philosophic content, is by parting ways with Hegel at the most obvious spot: his most fundamental starting point, his point of departure.


I don't hate, fear, or dismiss Hegel: I simply recognize that the Hegelian dialectic is a nonsensical system and is responsible for the evaporation of all philosophic content, all affirmation. Denying the purity of affirmation to Being is the greatest philosophical sin: from it, we have been taken to atheism, materialism, and liberal secular humanism.


This is the "danger" in him I mention. His system is not describing how concepts form- concepts don't form, he is unknowingly describing how they disintegrate. Concepts appear in what I call the mythos, at the liminal boundary between transcendence and immanence I mention, by man's intuiting the pure affirmation of Being through a limited image or episteme, and their genesis is inexplicable to the logos; the logos concatenates concepts in the vicious circle which it is, a concantenation performed by reifying them. That concatenation leading up to Straussian silence has the kind of genetic structure Capable's talking about. But to try and fully explicate logos under the assumption that you can describe the formation of concepts merely from other concepts- this has the effect of evaporating all meaning.


Hegel thought he could get away with disconnecting logos from mythos, philosophy from life; he thought logos could be explicated. The logos has no starting point without intuiting the pure affirmation of Being through the episteme or limitation, which originally rendered Doric man passive, silent before nature, out of which receptivity the Gods first appeared. Without a true point of departure in mythos, the representative faculty never develops for logos: the Hegelian dialectic is simply the evaporation of all concepts on the plane of this defective logos.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud


Last edited by Parodites on Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:22 pm; edited 4 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:05 pm
But then you fall into a new trap: deny Hegel?



___________
dionisius against the cross...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:06 pm
Just kidding.

My approach has always to take nothing seriously but my own perceptions. Some philosophers get closer to it than others. Hegel is fucking boring.



___________
dionisius against the cross...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:12 pm
Pezer wrote:
But then you fall into a new trap: deny Hegel?


Hegel denies himself, I don't have to.

"I'd be on your guard if you're reading Hegel, as Hegelianism is like a mental illness; in order to understand it, you have to subvert your own understanding of it, and become blind in a sense. Hegel's dialectic is itself subject to the dialectic, and transforms itself without your realizing it; it changes into its opposition and synthesizes."



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:15 pm
Sure. Only a kid's desires can take one in and out of the maze.



___________
dionisius against the cross...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:23 pm
Quote :
Concepts appear in what I call the mythos, at the liminal boundary between transcendence and immanence I mention, by man's intuiting the pure affirmation of Being through a limited image or episteme, and their genesis is inexplicable to the logos

I wanted to lift this out - it is the affirmative ground of the negation of Hegel. It is true, this.

Hegel naturally forces one to become its terms; all philosophers do this, thus taste drives me away from many once I have understood them. I only read what I want to shape me - and this is basically one line of thought, the line that sacrifices all coarse things to beauty.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:24 pm
It's only a maze if you want to get somewhere. Did Hegel want to get somewhere?



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:28 pm
I read to be shaped also, but shaped by resistance. Like a blade on a stone. Thus I craft my own books: as sharpening stones. Those hard enough will be sharpened, those not, will be broken.





___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:28 pm
Quote :
The History of the World travels from East to West, for Europe is absolutely the end of History, Asia the beginning.

Like Aristotle, he looked in the right direction, but was a total buffoon about what he figured we'd find there.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:32 pm
Parodites wrote:
I read to be shaped also, but shaped by resistance. Like a blade on a stone. Thus I craft my own books: as sharpening stones. Those hard enough will be sharpened, those not, will be broken.

If you have broken Hegel directly by reading him, 弓. I found him a very hard and dry type of stone I'd just rather leave to its devices.

If these devices are indeed todays reality, then Capable must certainly continue reading him... if he has the courage, that is only an asset.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:33 pm
Nah, Hegel's text isn't a stone or a blade. He's a melting furnace. I threw him into it."
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: 6578
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:32 pm

"I re-read him every few months for that reason: his system is the system governing the age. He epitomized a hidden defect or disease in philosophy in general, he's also useful in that regard: a medical text.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:43 pm
If you can get through him anyway. I had pharmaceutical aid.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:45 pm
I prefer to catalogue philosophers by smell. Hegel smells to me like old dust covering quaint pictures of ducks and duck hunters.



___________
dionisius against the cross...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:46 pm
We are all aware of the maze.

Some, it is true, rather experience it as a prison or lifeitself or something.



___________
dionisius against the cross...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:51 pm
The real problem is Hegel never made me live. A good book, you live. I don't mean you go back outside after reading it and have an experience; experiencing things- that's not living. Kierkegaard said you could only think backwards, you had to live forwards. Not very Hegelian of him!



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:55 pm
So the ol' Heidegger then, eh?

I like Capable precicely because there is infinitely more richness in French philosophy than in German philosophy.

Between those who do while thinking backwards and those who chill while thinking allwards... Well, the choice is clear. Germans fall too easily into the trap of the thing itsef.



___________
dionisius against the cross...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 8:00 pm
If Capable is seriously undertaking a reading of Hegel- read Kierkegaard too. K. was the only intentionally anti-hegelian I know of. His approach though: attack Hegel with Hegel. Do the, apply the dialectic to the dialectic itself thing I was talking about. Kierkegaard is fun to read though.

I don't mean to step on anyone's toes, but I perceive a mistreatment of Trump and misreading of where his support comes from. I am logically bound to defend the guy.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 8:05 pm
Trump, we can do little about.

Reaching back in history and stealing whatever treasure Hegel found sounds more achievable, at least in Capable's case. The only thing I see missing from Cap is joy, which is reflected in his support of a soul-less machine.

To think crankyness is the thing to rescue from Hegel is possibly the noblest faliure possible, but I suggest against it. Because my priority is people, not weird philosophical grails that have no care for what is good or bad but only intricate.



___________
dionisius against the cross...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 8:24 pm
So Pezer, you maintain that Nietzsche isnt German?

You really need to learn German to make such judgments.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 8:28 pm
I am Venezuelan.

Very much not a Venezuelan philosopher.



___________
dionisius against the cross...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 8:34 pm
There is a hard line between Greece-Rome-Germany, through grammar. Old Greek, Latin and German all work with the case-system. They divide the subject and object into 4, or in Latin 5 cases, and build their sentences from these understandings, rather than from an object-subject relation such as we have.

Philosophy as a thing of power has never been French - only with a vast sense of humor and sex can a French philosopher become vaguely interesting. Camus and Lacan are the only ones that manage, for me. But it isnt what I'd regard as philosophy.

Deleuze may be an exception - yet in his pure French contentedness and taunting to hierarchy as such, he avoided entirely the vertical plane that the Greeks, Romans and Germans have cultivated, and that creates living concepts.

The main value of French philosophy is for it to pronounce itself in a nice French accent. Hence, il n'y a pas de hors-texte. This is its positivism, its affirmation, and from this dancing surface, a womanly thing, some joys arise, like the men I mentioned.

Lacan has been the one to look at his own nature, and realize he was the Cokey itself.

Quote :
I am Venezuelan.

Very much not a Venezuelan philosopher.

Yes you are. A philosopher necessarily contradicts his people. How else could he possible discerned as a philosopher, as an outstanding man? I am a philosopher of the North Sea coast.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 8:39 pm
I speak Spanish indeed. My linguistic powers far outstrip English speakers. Like Germans, but passionate instead of fastidious. German passion seems to lie in the elevation of fastidiousness until, in Odin, it actually becomes holy.

Our task is not to find languages. It is to make 'em.



___________
dionisius against the cross...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 9:01 pm
Unfortunately that is indeed what seems to be the German path. They micromanage the whole, which has no essential micro-parts, and they disregard the parts, the humans, for the sake of the imagined whole - "The more I love humanity as a whole, the less I find that I like them in particular" as Dostoyevsky said.

But the German genius is the opposite. From Mozart to Nietzsche, Germans have far surpassed all other modern countries in terms of producing cultural marble.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 9:19 pm
Not to mention Johan S and Luwig Van.



___________
dionisius against the cross...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 9:20 pm
Greatness is in Germany, but only when it is not German.



___________
dionisius against the cross...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 9:22 pm
To be human first, before anything, is itself to cleanse one's self of the original crime.



___________
dionisius against the cross...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 11:43 pm
Just to be clear, if we're still on the topic, here is your standard of taste:

http://giphy.com/gifs/fun-trump-donald-cEb1tO6Xvn0DS

As for racism, the fact that Trump is a racist isn't anywhere near my main argument against him, my broader point was that the form of his approach, tactics and appeal is pure cheap demagoguery. I could cite plenty of evidence here to show that Trump is a racist but who am I kidding, it wouldn't be seriously looked at and even if it were no one here would particularly care. The false dichotomy of "either Trump or Clinton" holds sway here, absolutely. To hate one is to love the other. I recall Nietzsche talking about this logic as the basis of slave morality: you are bad (evil) therefore I am good. Clinton is bad/evil therefore Trump is good. Or, as Ive been falsely accused of already many times, just because I think Trump is bad (not "evil") must mean that I apparently think Clinton is good.

With my experience in judged debate competition I can clearly see in my mind where points are dropped or improperly addressed. I could make a nice layout of all this and clearly articulate each argument on both sides and where they meet and where they fail to meet; but that would take several hours, and I no longer feel inclined considering that I no longer believe it would be met with honest, philosophical treatment anyway. Hell, maybe I'll get bored someday soon and do it just for fun. But I'm not at all interested in ideology from any "side" of if, so I guess that's gotta be that.

Glad we can at least still agree on many other things, though. In fact why don't we try to find the points where to have agreement, such as in our opposition to the idea of the corporate oligarchy state as an easy example; or the most basic values that support and sustain human being. Well that last one could be tricky, if you don't really hold any actual values here but just the standard of valuing as such as the sole "base value". That would be another interesting issue to look further into.

You already know my cornerstone rational values. I consider these values truly universal and that human being as such is based in and on them. Of course there are many other values that are a half-step derivative up from these core ones, these derivative human values are also important despite and even because they are often opposed to the core ones. A true systematizing of the hierarchies of values from the core on upward through the derivative continua; that would be something to see.



___________
"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." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:41 am
Parodites wrote:

This is the "danger" in him I mention. His system is not describing how concepts form- concepts don't form, he is unknowingly describing how they disintegrate. Concepts appear in what I call the mythos, at the liminal boundary between transcendence and immanence I mention, by man's intuiting the pure affirmation of Being through a limited image or episteme, and their genesis is inexplicable to the logos; the logos concatenates concepts in the vicious circle which it is, a concantenation performed by reifying them. That concatenation leading up to Straussian silence has the kind of genetic structure Capable's talking about. But to try and fully explicate logos under the assumption that you can describe the formation of concepts merely from other concepts- this has the effect of evaporating all meaning.


Hegel thought he could get away with disconnecting logos from mythos, philosophy from life; he thought logos could be explicated. The logos has no starting point without intuiting the pure affirmation of Being through the episteme or limitation, which originally rendered Doric man passive, silent before nature, out of which receptivity the Gods first appeared. Without a true point of departure in mythos, the representative faculty never develops for logos: the Hegelian dialectic is simply the evaporation of all concepts on the plane of this defective logos.

Your idea here is that the articulation of the genetics as Hegel is after, is entirely formal and empty; this is not correct, because as soon as this 'empty' system is set up, and through being set up in the first place at all, it immediately starts appropriating contents to itself, like a low pressure system into which a high pressure naturally moves. And the system isn't used to push to the far End as you seem to imply, that would indeed terminate in evaporation, although not of truth or meaning, but of the human mind which is far too finite to handle such an attenuation. Rather, the system is used in the initial first stage to set itself up and naturally gathers contents to itself, the most salient ones available; then in the second stage these contents are "deconstructed" and becomes the empty forms into which other, now more refined and subtler contents move. But this deconstruction is not the kind of postmodern destruction into non-being that we think of today, it is simply an opening up of a content to see what is inside it, and figuring out how it works. Like opening up a clock and examining it for the first time. And this kind of opening-up does not destroy that which is examined, since we are talking about ideations and not about material clocks with fixed spatiotemporal existence.

Concepts may form spontaneously but that is only from our perspective on them, in fact concepts have their own genesis and causation-history. Rather it is the idea of a pure affirmation of being "as such" and as baseline, ground state that seems erroneous here. There is no "given" pure affirmation of being because even the initial (subjectively, immediate) givenness of this affirmation is itself already molded as excess by those forms and contents that preceded it and caused it into being. In the case of actual human beings and their instinctive biology, this is genetics; in the case of psyche and mind and learned emotions, this is the vast history of culture and ideas, in part recorded in myth but also in language and largely in how we pick up subtle non-verbal cues from our caregivers while we are in early infancy.

We model others that we encounter, especially when we are younger. The category of the individual is not absolute, nor given; it is created. Likewise the affirmation of Being from the pure breakthrough of the excess-as-such is indeed "given and immediate" as you say, but it is only so from the perspective of the already-setup subjectivity, the very immediacy itself is the lack of a true 'immediacy' on the part of the subject-as-excess-breakthrough-into-liminal-partitions; what you call the intuiting of the pure affirmation of being is really as I see it the fact that the immediacy appears precisely because this subject has not yet become distant from itself, and not because that immediacy holds any kind of special ontological-epistemological status.

What is immediate and given is basically what is still "only just itself", A=A, a kind of thing simply because it is also a non-thing, a pure self-equality which is therefore in that sense also purely empty. This is nice, but not any kind of philosophical Holy Grail around which everything rotates. This state of initial immediacy and self-identity that we might associate to an intuition of pure affirmation is really: 1) as intuition a kind of collapsed immediacy-for-self, the fact that self-division has not yet occurred, and 2) as pure affirmation is basically a clinging to this initiate state of immediacy-for-itself.



___________
"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." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson


Last edited by Capable on Wed Oct 05, 2016 3:10 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 3:07 am
The way I see it, the pure affirmation of being is like an implicit fidelity to the excess. Yes the excess exists, it exists both objectively as well as for a subject; and subjects are implicitly and always oriented toward that excess which is for them. However, this implicit orientation to that excess which is for the subject itself represents a kind of naivety in which the subject is self-identical in such a way that it is itself precisely and only because of how that excess which is for the subject is not yet at all resisted in any way. Being at this stage is nearly empty, and could never progress without ceaseless division of its substance, just like an embryonic cluster of cells dividing over and over to ultimately make a baby.

The "purity" of the affirmation of being rests precisely on this fact that division has not yet taken place, and after we have become subjects in our own own right, grown up and learned philosophy for instance, there is no real way to get back to that initial stage of naive purity. But religion attempts to hold this as a value and ideal, a return to a state of grace in which we were self-identical with our own excess which is for us in so far as we were "ourselves" in the first place and at all. Yet time only moves forward and never backward, we may unwind ideas at the conceptual level but we cannot unwind the substrata on which concepts move, nor can we unwind the body backward in time either.

The way I see it, is that the excess changes as being changes: as the subject ages and grows, that which is excess for it also changes, expands as well as differentiates into different excess-types. These types arent defined by different kinds of excess but by different ways in which excess is delimited and channeled effectively to the ends of being. The excess itself, as object-cause of the intuition of the pure affirmation of being, is always already split up within itself along the very same lines of the developing being itself, this is precisely what subjectivity is and means.

First of all, Hegel's system of philosophy cannot destroy an idea, because upon examining an idea that idea is not destroyed into non-being, the original idea remains there unchanged even as it is also in the mind being dissected; second of all, Hegel identifies that this kind of immediacy of being to and for itself, a kind of "intuition of pure affirmation as such" which is firstly a feeling (sentimental experience) and secondly a kind of "idea", is both productive of subjectivity in the first round and both productive and destructive of it in the second and derivative rounds: productive and destructive in precisely the sense that being-for-itself or the self-identity of a being with itself at the formal level is both productive of being qua being as well as highly limiting and destructive of being in so far as this self-identity prevents further differentiation and change, closes off possibilities and forces fetishized clinging to various specific contents and forms that are, in the particular moment that happens to be the case right now, constitutive of that subjectivity as itself as such thus far. This is basically what Hegel was referring to in that passage that is in my signature quote right now... we cling to ourselves because we are not yet ourselves, just as we must search for freedom precisely because we are not yet free, as Nietzsche said.



___________
"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." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 4:06 am
Back to Trump, I just realized something important: part of his appeal is, like any demagogue or fake populist, he makes politics look easy. He makes you think that you can understand and do politics just as well and even better than anyone else, precisely because you aren't an "insider".

The very fact that we lack knowledge prescient to politics is spun around into a kind of strength of capacity for politics, by people like Trump.

In a way there is a continuum based on knowledge of politics in both the general and specific. Those at the bottom know next to nothing about anything related to politics in reality, but these people still believe they understand foreign policy better than the president, for example; these people are now supporting Trump because they feel empowered by his braggadocio and demagogue status (religious pulpit approach) into thinking they now understand far more than they actually do.

Like I said before, mostly this is about bringing back manufacturing jobs, which is a bit ironic since Trump himself has used Chinese steel in his buildings. Feel free to look up the investigative reporting that uncovered this recently, I'm not going to waste my time referencing things when I don't think the desire is even there to look at the facts like that, but I hope I am wrong about that. In any case Trump could have used American steel but he didn't, on massive multi million dollar projects. Likewise as I have already pointed out, he uses third world labor in manufacturing his clothing and he owns stock in Ford and GM and Nabisco and all these companies he rips on for outsourcing. But anyway, I am getting back into facts, which I didn't want to do here for obvious reasons.

My point is simply that Trump gives voice to this feeling that one can become an armchair expert on just about anything just because one tells oneself it. "I understand geopolitics better than the political class!" is basically the line of thinking, and in typical Trump droning mind-control they just repeat this over and over and over and over again until they believe it.

"Terrific, just terrific, really I am so intelligent, I understand so much, really I do, you wouldn't believe if I told you, so good, I am so good at politics it is unreal, just unreal folks, no one has ever been as good at politics as me, believe me when I say I'm the top, the best there is, top notch, terrific, just the best folks."

It really is a form of "mind-control". One that he seemingly does to himself 24/7. And I cannot believe that you think this is normal human-level speech. Trump doesnt talk like a robotic Hillary institution, but neither does he talk like any person I've ever met.



___________
"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." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 9:17 am
I am seriously not at all trying to be a dick here. This is a serious point that must be addressed: Why is politics the only field in which one is supposedly qualified precisely because A) they do not even like that field as a general rule, and B) they have little to no experience in it?

Can you imagine an electrician, or a mechanic, or a philosopher, or a doctor, or an engineer, or a pilot, demeaning their own field and bragging that they're an "outsider" with little to no experience in that field, woud you hire an electrician who hates the field and has little to no experience in it?

Why is politics supposed to be different? Trump and his kind of "little guy, good old regular person" crowd seriously believe that government is the problem and seriously believe that not having experience in government is a requirement for being in government. This is a problem. Government is far more complex and multi-faceted than we realize, Trump's brand of "small guy conservatism" of armchair experts on everything from war to international trade to foreign policy to taxes and budgets to social issues seriously believe they and their man Trump are more qualified to run the government, and this belief is based on a seriously oversimplified view of what it actually takes to keep a government running. You can't treat government like a business, the government exists for exactly the opposite purpose as business exists; business makes profit, increases Capital, whereas government fulfills those roles that are either not capitalizable like that or should not be. We shouldn't be either defending or not defending other nations based on whether or not they've pay us; we should not be condemning global neoliberal colonialism in the ME simply because its expensive for us to be there. Yet these are precisely Trump's positions on those issues.

In case it isn't obvious, I raise these points to help break down the false dichotomy of EITHER Trump OR Clinton. We need to reject that way of thinking. Once we get past the fallacy of excluded middle here we are able to start to see what might potentially constitute a true political approach and value to political issues and problems. Clinton's sociopathy and lapdog to the neoliberal globalism status, and Trump's proud lack of experience and being part of a political class that hates the government in principle and narcissistically believes they are true experts on the subject, neither of these two clowns are a reasonable choice. Trump represents the very international globalized business that he apparently opposes, his "business success" was to inherit millions from his dad, go bankrupt a few times, lose a billion dollars in one year and then have the taxpayers bail him out of that, and now he brags about it -- "Hey I am on your side, believe me, but if I can screw you over in the process well hey folks that's just good business." Plenty of contractors were never paid by Trump for their work. Again feel free to look up the facts.

So what i am saying is: let's get past the false dichotomy. What would real political insight, skill and leadership really look like?



___________
"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." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 9:42 am
Oh yeah and Trump and these Right conservatives don't believe in global warming. This is sort of like their desire to teach creationism in schools, or their aversion to sex ed. There is a precise reason for this way of thinking, and it is based in ideology. I don't want to get deep into those reasons just yet, but I want to let this sink in: Trump rejects climate science, he seriously thinks he knows more than actual scientists and experts here. It isn't like he has studied the data and come to this conclusion, oh no, not at all, this is pure ideology. He literally and at the level of his self-valuing cannot accept even the basic concept of human-influenced global warming.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/full.html

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

https://www.skepticalscience.com/empiri ... arming.htm

http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/global-w ... _UCuIY8LYU

I really do understand and sympathize with the psychological need at the root of the impulse to deny global warming's existence or importance, I used to be in that same camp. But it was just based on ignorance, and once we educate ourselves a little bit there is no longer any excuse for that ignorance, nor is there any excuse to refuse to educate ourselves on this issue. This is a problem we can actually solve, addressing global warming before hitting the runaway peak threshold, but public leaders like Trump who arrogantly and petulantly deny the very problem, due to their ideologically driven need to remain ignorant, are the serious problem here.



___________
"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." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 11:28 am
Quick restatement of purpose here for me:

While I reject the false dichotomy of the choice between Trump and Clinton, because this dichotomy is logically based on a fallacy of excluded middle that is all but deliberately created by the US political system, I of course do understand that practically speaking this dichotomy is forced upon us because realistically either Trump or Clinton will win the election. I understand the desire to vote for the lesser of two evils in this situation, I don't condemn anyone for doing that. Clarify our values and try to reason out consequences and ends for each candidate being elected, and then vote for the lesser of two evils. That's perfectly fine, but it's not what I'm going to do. Neither candidate is close enough to my own values therefore I will vote for neither one.

But I think I'll withdraw from this thread, mostly because it isn't psychologically healthy for me to continue here; this unhealth is based on the fact that each of our respective positions and values have now been adequately clarified and I can't see that our positions or values will change as a result of my continuing to post in this thread. The exception is that I will gladly offer rationale and factual evidence backing up any of my claims made in this thread, if requested; I will do so happily, and if I cannot find fact and evidence for any claim, or a least a valid and solid rational defense, but really there must also be hard fact and evidence to support these positions too-- if I cannot find any to back up a claim that I've made here then I will absolutely and happily abandon that claim.

I reject ideology and psychological motives here, I want to uncover truths to "build thought to disclose the future". My positions so far are based on what is most justified based on the evidence, facts and rationale that I have to far: I would gladly yield any position that I've made here if new facts or evidence is brought to counter them. I could be converted into a Trump supporter if the facts, evidence and sound philosophical reasoning requires it. I'm happy to go that route if anyone would like. Otherwise we have mostly stated our positions and our values, and that will have to be enough for now.

So I'll leave this thread but with the caveat that a call for facts, evidence or philosophical reasoning in defense of anything I've said here will be met by me with a sincere attempt to provide as such. Otherwise, thanks to everyone here for engaging so openly in these ideas. I hope no feelings were injured in the course of those engagements.

In the Hegel discussion points, let's move that over to the Hegel thread I made, if possible.



___________
"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." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 12:18 pm
Here goes: an attempt at an apology for Trump.

That his tactics are disgusting is the reason he should be president.

Trump understands that a lot of people with what we might call disgusting opinions, or just a lot of pain from being mistreated, are getting angrier and angrier and holding more and more sway over the capital of the world, which the USA still is. Instead then of attempting to psychically eliminate them from the world with philosophy or somethin, Trump wants to give them a voice and integrate them into the fold.

I honestly think that a guy like Trump, distasteful as he might be, must win and must be coopted, as he has been, by movements like Black Lives Matter, Millenial Feminism, and generally speaking philosophers. We must respect that his supporters, too, were brought into this world, and there is enough cool shit in it for us to understand eachother. We just have to be gentle. That's all that the cranky people of the world want: we want gentleness. We know we have had a hard time showing it, thus all the more reason to show us how.

So. Respect your neighbours son. Otherwise, they might not respect YOU!



___________
dionisius against the cross...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 12:23 pm
Capable wrote:
Just to be clear, if we're still on the topic, here is your standard of taste:

http://giphy.com/gifs/fun-trump-donald-cEb1tO6Xvn0DS

The one who made that gif is tasteless - certainly.
I think Trump was sick of the emotional chokehold that forced us all to pretend that people with disabilities are Gods. That he doesn't give a shit about slave-moral codes about vulnerabilities is clear.
That he would be wise to keep this as an incident and not a pattern, is clear.

Quote :
As for racism, the fact that Trump is a racist isn't anywhere near my main argument against him,

Good, as no one had conceded that he is racist. You'd have to argue that. These claims aren't meaningful. I know he's not a racist. I know Islam is not a race, and "Mexican" isnt a race.

I know that virtually all Clinton supporters are racist. Here entire social agenda is the essence of racism. Its just 'racism that is okay because it hurts Trump'.
Fuck that man.

Quote :
my broader point was that the form of his approach, tactics and appeal is pure cheap demagoguery.

Clearly I disagree. I dont understand why you assume that such naked claims hold weight for a philosopher.

Quote :
I could cite plenty of evidence here to show that Trump is a racist but who am I kidding, it wouldn't be seriously looked at and even if it were no one here would particularly care. The false dichotomy of "either Trump or Clinton" holds sway here, absolutely. To hate one is to love the other. I recall Nietzsche talking about this logic as the basis of slave morality: you are bad (evil) therefore I am good. Clinton is bad/evil therefore Trump is good. Or, as Ive been falsely accused of already many times, just because I think Trump is bad (not "evil") must mean that I apparently think Clinton is good.

How is that?
I am just asking you to consider the lethal fascist your nation is about to elect. It is your responsibility as Americans. I dont care much for aloofness at this point.

Quote :
With my experience in judged debate competition I can clearly see in my mind where points are dropped or improperly addressed. I could make a nice layout of all this and clearly articulate each argument on both sides and where they meet and where they fail to meet; but that would take several hours, and I no longer feel inclined considering that I no longer believe it would be met with honest, philosophical treatment anyway. Hell, maybe I'll get bored someday soon and do it just for fun. But I'm not at all interested in ideology from any "side" of if, so I guess that's gotta be that.

Ive been articularing my arguments, as has Parodites, you havent addressed any of them. Your claims have been refuted, and still you keep making them as if they are evidently true. I think you are truly wrong here.

Quote :
Glad we can at least still agree on many other things, though. In fact why don't we try to find the points where to have agreement, such as in our opposition to the idea of the corporate oligarchy state as an easy example; or the most basic values that support and sustain human being. Well that last one could be tricky, if you don't really hold any actual values here but just the standard of valuing as such as the sole "base value". That would be another interesting issue to look further into.

We just disagree fundamentally on this political cycle.

Of course all this is a minute part of my philosophizing - this brilliant stuff about the Doric is deeply pertinent to the core, though.

Quote :
You already know my cornerstone rational values. I consider these values truly universal and that human being as such is based in and on them. Of course there are many other values that are a half-step derivative up from these core ones, these derivative human values are also important despite and even because they are often opposed to the core ones. A true systematizing of the hierarchies of values from the core on upward through the derivative continua; that would be something to see.

I consider no values universal except self-valuing itself- VO would not allow for another thing."
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: 6578
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:34 pm

"Capable wrote:
Quick restatement of purpose here for me:

While I reject the false dichotomy of the choice between Trump and Clinton, because this dichotomy is logically based on a fallacy of excluded middle that is all but deliberately created by the US political system, I of course do understand that practically speaking this dichotomy is forced upon us because realistically either Trump or Clinton will win the election. I understand the desire to vote for the lesser of two evils in this situation, I don't condemn anyone for doing that. Clarify our values and try to reason out consequences and ends for each candidate being elected, and then vote for the lesser of two evils. That's perfectly fine, but it's not what I'm going to do. Neither candidate is close enough to my own values therefore I will vote for neither one.

But I think I'll withdraw from this thread, mostly because it isn't psychologically healthy for me to continue here; this unhealth is based on the fact that each of our respective positions and values have now been adequately clarified and I can't see that our positions or values will change as a result of my continuing to post in this thread. The exception is that I will gladly offer rationale and factual evidence backing up any of my claims made in this thread, if requested; I will do so happily, and if I cannot find fact and evidence for any claim, or a least a valid and solid rational defense, but really there must also be hard fact and evidence to support these positions too-- if I cannot find any to back up a claim that I've made here then I will absolutely and happily abandon that claim.

I reject ideology and psychological motives here, I want to uncover truths to "build thought to disclose the future". My positions so far are based on what is most justified based on the evidence, facts and rationale that I have to far: I would gladly yield any position that I've made here if new facts or evidence is brought to counter them. I could be converted into a Trump supporter if the facts, evidence and sound philosophical reasoning requires it. I'm happy to go that route if anyone would like. Otherwise we have mostly stated our positions and our values, and that will have to be enough for now.

So I'll leave this thread but with the caveat that a call for facts, evidence or philosophical reasoning in defense of anything I've said here will be met by me with a sincere attempt to provide as such. Otherwise, thanks to everyone here for engaging so openly in these ideas. I hope no feelings were injured in the course of those engagements.

In the Hegel discussion points, let's move that over to the Hegel thread I made, if possible.

We disagree absolutely on all of what has been said in this thread; on what is disgusting, on what is philosophy, on what is an argument, etcetera - but as long as no one has been hurt, Im okay with that. I will remain active in this thread at least until the elections; a paradigm that I consider to be supremely powerful philosophy has been revealed here - at its center the Doric order.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 12:42 pm
Capable wrote:
Oh yeah and Trump and these Right conservatives don't believe in global warming. This is sort of like their desire to teach creationism in schools, or their aversion to sex ed. There is a precise reason for this way of thinking, and it is based in ideology. I don't want to get deep into those reasons just yet, but I want to let this sink in: Trump rejects climate science, he seriously thinks he knows more than actual scientists and experts here. It isn't like he has studied the data and come to this conclusion, oh no, not at all, this is pure ideology. He literally and at the level of his self-valuing cannot accept even the basic concept of human-influenced global warming.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/full.html

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

https://www.skepticalscience.com/empiri ... arming.htm

http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/global-w ... _UCuIY8LYU

I really do understand and sympathize with the psychological need at the root of the impulse to deny global warming's existence or importance, I used to be in that same camp. But it was just based on ignorance, and once we educate ourselves a little bit there is no longer any excuse for that ignorance, nor is there any excuse to refuse to educate ourselves on this issue. This is a problem we can actually solve, addressing global warming before hitting the runaway peak threshold, but public leaders like Trump who arrogantly and petulantly deny the very problem, due to their ideologically driven need to remain ignorant, are the serious problem here.

The pertinent point here is Parodites' one, that to give global authorities power to basically reorganize the earths entire economy so as to basically restructure the atmosphere, can not be done without creating a very dangerous inequality of power.

Trump uses rhetoric to keep a modicum of power out of the hands of the globalists. All means are justified here - as Globalism is precisely what Parodites says it is, and what every one can deduce it is; a concentration of power away from the people.

The belief in the need for global control is just an absence of faith in humanity's capacities to be at least as functional as a rodent. And it is precisely that lack of faith, stemming from weak people that are convinced that everyone must be weak - that has put genocidal sects that proclaim 'decency' in power....

When he is president, obviously Trump is going to be more effective in combating climate change as he is actually intelligent enough to deal with China, which is responsible for a massive part of the worlds greenhouse gasses.

The larger problem is obviously the cutting down of the Amazon. But Hillary and her sick snob electorate is just too fucking fond of soy to look in that direction. It's all so seethingly decadent, the left... fear of Trump only represents the apprehension before the surgeon.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 1:07 pm
Your definition of globalism as "concentration of power away from the people" is not a necessary definition at all, it totally rejects my definition of cooperative globalism among democratically participating nations in structures such as the UN; but worse, your definition other than being quite simplistic and black and white is basically just the definition of government as such. By definition to have a government at all is to concentrate some power a distance from "the people", and as I've already pointed out and which I believe has so far gone unanswered is that the political power of "the people" is largely the negative power to throw out bad leaders and is also the smaller positive power to abstractly ground political leadership in the populace at large, through voting and consent of the governed.

"The people" did not write the US Constitution. A very small group of highly educated and dedicated people did. This whole hypostasizing of the category of "the people" into some kind of political God is troubling to me, to say the least.

As for the other post you made, here is some response below (guess I got sucked back into the fray). And by the way, which points of yours or Parodites have I not responded to? Quote them and I will respond.

Definition: demagogue, " 1. a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.
1. synonyms:
2. rabble-rouser, agitator, political agitator, soapbox orator, firebrand, fomenter, provocateur"he was drawn into a circle of campus demagogues"

3. 

* (in ancient Greece and Rome) a leader or orator who espoused the cause of the common people."


In depth here, http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainmen ... es/419514/


What makes Trump a demagogue? He is the very definition of using rhetorical tactics (such as mind-numbing repetition, or using child-level vocabulary), lies, red herring, hyperbole, "racism" (bigotedly grouping people into fixed blocs based on nationality or religion (no use splitting hairs about "Islam is not a race" or "Mexican is not a race", I already know that, the idea still stands)), grandstanding, doomsday prophesizing, and generally feeding on populist sentiment and anger while offering very little real substance.


Quote :
Donald Trump appeals to voters’ fears by depicting a nation in crisis, while positioning himself as the nation’s hero – the only one who can conquer our foes, secure our borders and “Make America Great Again.”
His lack of specificity about how he would accomplish these goals is less relevant than his self-assured, convincing rhetoric. He urges his audiences to “trust him,” promises he is “really smart” and flexes his prophetic muscles (like when he claims to have predicted the 9/11 attacks).
Trump’s self-congratulating rhetoric makes him appear to be the epitome of hubris, which, according to research, is often the least attractive quality of a potential leader. However, Trump is so consistent in his hubris that it appears authentic: his greatness is America’s greatness.
So we can safely call Trump a demagogue. But one fear of having demagogues actually attain real power is that they’ll disregard the law or the Constitution. Hitler, of course, is a worst-case example.

http://theconversation.com/the-rhetoric ... ogue-51984

You could look up "demagogue" in the dictionary and find a picture of Trump. He is the textbook example of what the term means. I can't even see how that is possibly up for debate whatsoever.

As for that GIF image, so the person who used actual video of Trump himself is in poor taste, but Trump's own behavior on that video is not? How does that work? You seriously want to claim that a grown adult standing up in front of the world, wanting to be president, and physically emulating retarded motions with a douche bag look on his face is "high taste"? Um.

The shift to coddling disabilities today is an over-reaction to the much longer tradition of dismissing and discriminating against disabilities. Pendulums swing one way and then the other, not going to hit it perfectly on the mark until it has swung many times in both directions. But that doesn't at all justify Trump's absolutely childish, immature and quite frankly utterly embarrassing behavior. He is seemingly at the emotional level of a 12 year old boy bullying other kids on the playground because he thinks it makes him seem "cool".



___________
"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." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 1:12 pm
Fixed Cross wrote:
Capable wrote:
Oh yeah and Trump and these Right conservatives don't believe in global warming. This is sort of like their desire to teach creationism in schools, or their aversion to sex ed. There is a precise reason for this way of thinking, and it is based in ideology. I don't want to get deep into those reasons just yet, but I want to let this sink in: Trump rejects climate science, he seriously thinks he knows more than actual scientists and experts here. It isn't like he has studied the data and come to this conclusion, oh no, not at all, this is pure ideology. He literally and at the level of his self-valuing cannot accept even the basic concept of human-influenced global warming.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/full.html

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

https://www.skepticalscience.com/empiri ... arming.htm

http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/global-w ... _UCuIY8LYU

I really do understand and sympathize with the psychological need at the root of the impulse to deny global warming's existence or importance, I used to be in that same camp. But it was just based on ignorance, and once we educate ourselves a little bit there is no longer any excuse for that ignorance, nor is there any excuse to refuse to educate ourselves on this issue. This is a problem we can actually solve, addressing global warming before hitting the runaway peak threshold, but public leaders like Trump who arrogantly and petulantly deny the very problem, due to their ideologically driven need to remain ignorant, are the serious problem here.

The pertinent point here is Parodites' one, that to give global authorities power to basically reorganize the earths entire economy so as to basically restructure the atmosphere, can not be done without creating a very dangerous inequality of power.

Trump uses rhetoric to keep a modicum of power out of the hands of the globalists. All means are justified here - as Globalism is precisely what Parodites says it is, and what every one can deduce it is; a concentration of power away from the people.

The belief in the need for global control is just an absence of faith in humanity's capacities to be at least as functional as a rodent. And it is precisely that lack of faith, stemming from weak people that are convinced that everyone must be weak - that has put genocidal sects that proclaim 'decency' in power....

When he is president, obviously Trump is going to be more effective in combating climate change as he is actually intelligent enough to deal with China, which is responsible for a massive part of the worlds greenhouse gasses.

The larger problem is obviously the cutting down of the Amazon. But Hillary and her sick snob electorate is just too fucking fond of soy to look in that direction. It's all so seethingly decadent, the left... fear of Trump only represents the apprehension before the surgeon.

Before I read Capable's response, I want to say: I do not believe it is up to the gringos to defend the Amazon.

If the peoples and inmediate territorial allies of the Amazon cannot work shit out, we sort of deserve having it ripped from our hands.

The fight is not to avoid Clinton ripping the Amazon from the Amazonians, it is to become worthy as Amazonians of the Amazon.



___________
dionisius against the cross...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 1:15 pm
Let me put it this way.


As a prophet of the Amazon, I am not here to defend her. I am here to try to save the world from her wrath. But I'd rather lose myself than the Amazon lose anything, so beware all ye who seek her destruction.



___________
dionisius against the cross...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 1:43 pm
Bottom line, I like the Amazon better than I like Climate Agreements made by genocidal billionaire clans.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 1:54 pm
word



___________
dionisius against the cross...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:03 pm
Points I have made that I know or believe have not been addressed yet (please correct me if they have been):

1. The false conflation that Trump made between protecting Iraqi oil from terrorists and stealing it for our own use.
2. Trump ripping off contractors and American steel workers by secretly purchasing Chinese steel for his buildings and for refusing to pay contractors for work done.
3. Trump using third world sweat shops for his clothing line, and owning stock in the very companies he supposedly objects to (Ford, GM, Nabisco, etc.)
4. The fact that "tyranny of the majority" is a very real concern and that direct democracy on policy issues doesn't work very well and isn't ideal (as I said, in no other field or line of work or policy do we take a "vote of "the people"" for policy or decide what to do).
5. A democratized group of nations is a real possible form of globalism (globalism is not inherently "totalitarian" any more than government itself is).
6. The government should not be run like a business (for profits).
7. Global level problems actually do require global level solutions.
8. The idea of workers rights, unions and some trade protectionism is a basically politically Left position (the opposite position of "free trade" global capitalism is the neoliberal-neoconservative idea).
9. The political Right (Republican party of which Trump is a member) in the US generally supports corporations as people, money as speech and the decimation of institutions like the EPA whose task is to hold corporations to a basic standard of social beneficence toward public spaces and public health; again the notion that corporations are not people, money is not speech and companies should generally serve the public interest or at least not seriously damage it, these are all politically Left views.
10. Global warming does actually exist and it is actually very critically important that we address it somehow. Trump's denial of these facts is based on his ideological need to remain ignorant here.


I found one point Parodites made and you just reiterated which I have yet to respond to, namely that global government would amount to giving power to be tyrannical, that in order to fight global warming we would necessarily be handing over tyrannical power to a global level government. I disagree because while yes global government could be used for tyrannical ends, this is the case with any government; it requires that we carefully craft the structure of government such as the Founders did in the US, and not just abandon the entire project. Again this falls back on the fact that I've already outlined my idea of how global government could work, a kind of UN like setup but with more force of law and some kind of basic shared military apparatus. Decisions would be voted on by representatives, not made by one tyrant.

Another point I found where I didn't properly respond yet: Parodites claim that the US constitution exists as a means for the will of the people to realize itself, "The US constitution and founding documents were designed in order to provide the masses the instrument by which to express- as perfectly as possible, that will. It has been corrupted as I said by the centralized federal government. The founders also hoped we would even make further improvements to it, as opposed to fuck it up like we've done." My response is that the US constitution set up a government of division of powers and representative elected leadership precisely to also prevent the "the people" from "expressing their will". We have an entire judicial branch that is equal to the other branches; the judicial branch doesn't work by submitting issues to popular vote. Neither are laws written like that. In fact the US constitution makes it quite difficult for direct popular vote of the people to enact any laws (amending the constitution requires 3/4 vote of all states (yes states, not even direct democracy here either). It's diluted surrogate governance of layers of representation with checks and balances where experts positioned at key points in the system (such as judges) make critical determinations. I absolutely disagree that the will of the people is somehow the central or sole goal here. If it were, direct popular vote would have been the basic template on which decisions of law and policy are made, and that is not the case. The vast majority of the time we vote for REPRESENTATIVES, people, not on law or policy directly. This allows for compromises and for expert level thought on issues to coexist with the larger and more blind, inexpert will of the people. It's basically a system of compromise. And that is why it works.

Edit: Disclaimer: no feelings were harmed in the making of this post.



___________
"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." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 6:10 pm
Capable wrote:
Points I have made that I know or believe have not been addressed yet (please correct me if they have been):

Let me address all of them a bit. I will not make any excuses for what I think politics fundamentally is... which is opportunistic.

Quote :
1. The false conflation that Trump made between protecting Iraqi oil from terrorists and stealing it for our own use.

It's already stolen; the US and Saudi Arabia form a robber clan that controls the world through oil. Iraqs oil has been stolen when Saddam was put in power by the US... very many US wars have been about stealing resources. Trump is sort playing with what is de facto happening under Obama; stealing the oil.

Quote :
2. Trump ripping off contractors and American steel workers by secretly purchasing Chinese steel for his buildings and for refusing to pay contractors for work done.

Yes, everyone working in real estate contracting is in touch with crime, crime rules that world for the full hundred percent. I know Trump is very good in dealing with criminals - he is a New York businessman contractor. I consider his capacity for simple, effective schemes an asset, right now, in a world that is made entirely of scheming.

Obviously the president of the USA needs to be a highly amoral man - or woman - you need to kill arbitrarily a lot - I see Trump as the least amoral so far. Clinton was the worst - he destroyed Europe by bombing Belgrado and making war with the Russians when the cold war had just ended. Bush and Obama were just continuations of Clintons nationrobbing.

But I digress.

Quote :
3. Trump using third world sweat shops for his clothing line, and owning stock in the very companies he supposedly objects to (Ford, GM, Nabisco, etc.)

Ive seen him admit to this. He said "Im a businessman now, not yet a politician." Very honest of him, actually. It also shows that he understands what both are, business ad politics, how they differ at bottom; politics is representation, business is not.

US deregulation has made it very hard to profit from legitimate domestic businesses. They were all forced abroad by Clinton, or into bankrupcy, it seems...

Quote :
4. The fact that "tyranny of the majority" is a very real concern and that direct democracy on policy issues doesn't work very well and isn't ideal (as I said, in no other field or line of work or policy do we take a "vote of "the people"" for policy or decide what to do).

I agree, but only in that it has produced, so far, a lot of butchers. Imagine that Truman was once voted in... then Trump isnt all that bad, at all.
I think, as Ive said before, that Trump represents the more lofty ad sane part of the electorate.

Quote :
5. A democratized group of nations is a real possible form of globalism (globalism is not inherently "totalitarian" any more than government itself is).

Id call that a global balance of power, but if that is what you envision, we envision things that are alike.

Quote :
6. The government should not be run like a business (for profits).

Certainly, but it should also not spend tax dollars on things that a large part of the populace is vehemently against, especially if they are in direct contradiction with the founding Logos of the country, which is to have individualism over collectivism.

Quote :
7. Global level problems actually do require global level solutions.

Unfortunately we are all humans, and humans have never been able to reach that sort of agreement. As I see it, all attempts to regulate globally have directly caused genocidal wastelands. What I think is that al nations should take care of ther own shit, and by economy, pressure each others in doing that too.

Trump plans to do this sort of thing, he says - to put actual pressure on the Chinese, rather than get stuck in a fruitless intellectual debate, over what is real or isnt - all that can be done is to pressure the culprits with real, not rhetoric, pressure.

ALl these committees on climate change, they cost billions, and they only make sure no one is spontaneously doing anything.
Clinton appears a slave to the Chinese, as she is one to Wall Street, and Wall Street is seemingly enslaved to Chinese economical decisions. This is why she wont put direct pressure on them to reduce their exhaust gasses, I assume.

Quote :
8. The idea of workers rights, unions and some trade protectionism is a basically politically Left position (the opposite position of "free trade" global capitalism is the neoliberal-neoconservative idea).

I disagree. The left/right distinction came from Marx, who took a perfectly pan-political English workers movement for an extra day off (weekend), and minimum wage, and made it itno some bizarre metaphysical 'necessity'. Traditionally, working classes vote conservative, namely to keep their jobs - only when a right wing regime needs to be replaced to they sometimes go for left - but this regime now is ultra-left, ultra statist, and has all but destroyed the working class.

Consider how utterly noble it is for people to fight to the right to work, to build something.

I dont believe in left and right at all, never have, by the way. Trump talks like someone who understands peoples desire to make themselves useful, rather than being urged to feel guilty for wanting to work. I dont care who is in the left, or in the right textballoon - I just know that he's right about this, regardless of what he can ultimatey accomplish.
It is a very crucial thing to just have your values expressed for a person, especially when the last 20 years, your presidents have scolded you for having values, and for complaining when they give all your values away to fascist and simply incompetent regimes overseas.

Trump motly represents normal people being fed up with being lectured by the very people that ruin their lives, towns, states, country, and planet. In this sense, at least, he represents me. He is the most dignified and honest representative politician I ever saw. Hillary is of course not elected really, so she isnt a representative politician, just a banal criminal. But she's not the issue here.

Quote :
9. The political Right (Republican party of which Trump is a member) in the US generally supports corporations as people, money as speech and the decimation of institutions like the EPA whose task is to hold corporations to a basic standard of social beneficence toward public spaces and public health; again the notion that corporations are not people, money is not speech and companies should generally serve the public interest or at least not seriously damage it, these are all politically Left views.

As Ive said I dont see life in categories like that, what Ive seen happen with my own eyes is the Democrats under Clinton have sold out the country and planet to a few corporations, and they were enthusiastically helped by the Bush clan, for the whole thing to be extended by Obama. They are lal clearly of the same party,despite the shows they put up to pretend to be adversaries. It would be hilarious if it was acted a bit better. Now its just watching a bunch of sanctimonious Hitler wannabes seeing who can make the most pointless kills with a smile... I truly dont get what their joy is but they seem to enjoy it. Anyway - this is what I keep coming back to. The lat 4 presidents were just basically American Hitlers, in terms of the disregard for human life.

Quote :
10. Global warming does actually exist and it is actually very critically important that we address it somehow. Trump's denial of these facts is based on his ideological need to remain ignorant here.

I think that the point Parodites has been making is the right one; nothing is worth handing over our power to a global elite. Nothing furthermore exists that count count as a reason to trust that such elites would even be remotely capable of addressing any issue with success. These are the same elites that have caused global warming - who have shaped the world of uncontrolled industry that we're in.

Now we should give them more power in the belief they will act wisely and on our behalf? Hmmm... no.

Quote :
I found one point Parodites made and you just reiterated which I have yet to respond to, namely that global government would amount to giving power to be tyrannical, that in order to fight global warming we would necessarily be handing over tyrannical power to a global level government. I disagree because while yes global government could be used for tyrannical ends, this is the case with any government; it requires that we carefully craft the structure of government such as the Founders did in the US, and not just abandon the entire project. Again this falls back on the fact that I've already outlined my idea of how global government could work, a kind of UN like setup but with more force of law and some kind of basic shared military apparatus. Decisions would be voted on by representatives, not made by one tyrant.

That it happens with any government is precisely why it will certainly happen with something as colossal and unwieldy as a global government. Al the UN does these decennia is stand by while the chosen dictators or militias slaughter their populations. Then they extend the dictator a document.

Quote :
Another point I found where I didn't properly respond yet: Parodites claim that the US constitution exists as a means for the will of the people to realize itself, "The US constitution and founding documents were designed in order to provide the masses the instrument by which to express- as perfectly as possible, that will. It has been corrupted as I said by the centralized federal government. The founders also hoped we would even make further improvements to it, as opposed to fuck it up like we've done." My response is that the US constitution set up a government of division of powers and representative elected leadership precisely to also prevent the "the people" from "expressing their will". We have an entire judicial branch that is equal to the other branches; the judicial branch doesn't work by submitting issues to popular vote. Neither are laws written like that. In fact the US constitution makes it quite difficult for direct popular vote of the people to enact any laws (amending the constitution requires 3/4 vote of all states (yes states, not even direct democracy here either). It's diluted surrogate governance of layers of representation with checks and balances where experts positioned at key points in the system (such as judges) make critical determinations. I absolutely disagree that the will of the people is somehow the central or sole goal here. If it were, direct popular vote would have been the basic template on which decisions of law and policy are made, and that is not the case. The vast majority of the time we vote for REPRESENTATIVES, people, not on law or policy directly. This allows for compromises and for expert level thought on issues to coexist with the larger and more blind, inexpert will of the people. It's basically a system of compromise. And that is why it works.

Edit: Disclaimer: no feelings were harmed in the making of this post.

Im between you and Parodites in this - I do believe the logos was the correct one, but as I said in this thread earlier, the logos was superimposed on a highly unequal landscape.

The whole suing and countersueing culture evidently makes it impossible for a nation to be truly stable. It is absolutely prepostrous. Maybe this would be a fertile subject to investigate for us - how to construct a proper legislative system without becoming socialist or anti-capitalist or anti-wealth.

All of it comes down to how valuing is understood, how it is ranked in the episteme, from which the law is born



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 6:23 pm
That was a bit emotional again - the fate of the world may be decided in a month, I am a bit on edge.... it makes no sense to say they were Hitlers - it is just a reaction that I get, when I see a routine killer of civilians like Obama or Clinton compare their political adversary, who has not yet killed (nor condemned a race, or a gender), to Hitler I just instantly think: but wait, now that they mention the name, they do appear very Hitlerish...



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 7:07 pm
I just looked at the gif you sent, and the thing is: he does that hand thing to mock everyone, he had done it many times in the past. He didn't know the reporter had a disfigured arm. He made the same absurd gesture he had a million times before.

Is this your standard of taste? Just pull up a random hate article on Trump and run with it?



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 7:08 pm
And even if he did know the guy had a fucked up hand and mocked him- as I said, he didn't- so what? The reporter was a douche. I'll mock his fucking t-rex hand. I've done worse shit than that to people.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 7:54 pm
No hard feelings in this, just have to respond.

" To hate one is to love the other. I recall Nietzsche talking about this logic as the basis of slave morality: you are bad (evil) therefore I am good. Clinton is bad/evil therefore Trump is good. Or, as Ive been falsely accused of already many times, just because I think Trump is bad (not "evil") must mean that I apparently think Clinton is good. "


Bullshit, nobody has intimated that you support Clinton. I recognize you do not, I have also recognized you're not supporting the current globalist regime. Is putting words in our mouth part of your elite debating skills that you learned?


1. The false conflation that Trump made between protecting Iraqi oil from terrorists and stealing it for our own use.

2. Trump ripping off contractors and American steel workers by secretly purchasing Chinese steel for his buildings and for refusing to pay contractors for work done.
[His practice as a businessman is typical and nothing illegal was done.]
3. Trump using third world sweat shops for his clothing line, and owning stock in the very companies he supposedly objects to (Ford, GM, Nabisco, etc.)
[His practice as a businessman is typical and nothing illegal was done.]
4. The fact that "tyranny of the majority" is a very real concern and that direct democracy on policy issues doesn't work very well and isn't ideal (as I said, in no other field or line of work or policy do we take a "vote of "the people"" for policy or decide what to do).
[What does that have to do with Trump, specifically? And our process is much more complicated, it takes into account to some extent the non-homogeneous nature of ideology, it's a representative government, etc. Are you... suggesting that Trump should be denied the presidency even if we wins the popular vote? What is the point? Is Trump a tyranny of the majority? ]
5. A democratized group of nations is a real possible form of globalism (globalism is not inherently "totalitarian" any more than government itself is).
[Government- centralized federal top down government: is itself totalitarian and fascistic.]
6. The government should not be run like a business (for profits).
[Says who? The US government should exist to maximize American interests over those of other nations and populations. Does that mean "for profit"? Do you disagree?]
7. Global level problems actually do require global level solutions.
[An assertion.]
8. The idea of workers rights, unions and some trade protectionism is a basically politically Left position (the opposite position of "free trade" global capitalism is the neoliberal-neoconservative idea).

9. The political Right (Republican party of which Trump is a member) in the US generally supports corporations as people, money as speech and the decimation of institutions like the EPA whose task is to hold corporations to a basic standard of social beneficence toward public spaces and public health; again the notion that corporations are not people, money is not speech and companies should generally serve the public interest or at least not seriously damage it, these are all politically Left views.
[This is the most absurd comment you've made. The whole POINT is that Trump is transforming the Republican platform because people have demanded it change. Trump was once a democrat, once a reform party member. And if that's what the EPA does it fucking sucks at it- as all federal institutions do. I'd get rid of them all, including the EPA. The constitution didn't invest any power to the fucking EPA as far as I know, maybe I need to re-read it.]
10. Global warming does actually exist and it is actually very critically important that we address it somehow. Trump's denial of these facts is based on his ideological need to remain ignorant here.
[It's not that important. Russia's nuclear arsenal I'd say is a little more important.]




" Your idea here is that the articulation of the genetics as Hegel is after, is entirely formal and empty; this is not correct, because as soon as this 'empty' system is set up, and through being set up in the first place at all, it immediately starts appropriating contents to itself, like a low pressure system into which a high pressure naturally moves."


My whole point is that the dialectic does not logically function. If it actually worked, then sure. For the reason I mentioned in the other thread: in order for two things to enter into a dialectical relationship, you have to have a negative function: one has to negate the other. There exist many things that simply cannot be brought into a relation of this kind. Force, in Nietzsche, relates only in a positive function, namely to other Force, expressing the purity of Being's affirmation in terms of the Will-To-Power. I've already given my alternative to Hegelian dialectic, Nietzsche had his.

I cannot ascribe to Being any negativity. I simply can't accept the premise.





"Can you imagine an electrician, or a mechanic, or a philosopher, or a doctor, or an engineer, or a pilot, demeaning their own field and bragging that they're an "outsider" with little to no experience in that field, woud you hire an electrician who hates the field and has little to no experience in it? "


You're conflating. It's not good that he's not a politician, it's good that he's not one of these politicians. I'm a bit astounded. Do you find something tasteful in these people? I hate all the supreme court justices, I've hated the last couple presidents; I hate most of congress.


" Why is politics supposed to be different? Trump and his kind of "little guy, good old regular person" crowd seriously believe that government is the problem and seriously believe that not having experience in government is a requirement for being in government..."

The government has made decisions that have cost us. Philosophically, the federal government points a gun in my face and tells me what to do. That's why I dislike it. I mean: these politicians and government officials have experience navigating through reams of useless laws like our present tax code that only benefit them and the corporate elites- yes, they have experience in that.


"Your definition of globalism as "concentration of power away from the people" is not a necessary definition at all, it totally rejects my definition of cooperative globalism among democratically participating nations in structures such as the UN"

Yeah, and the point is: what if America doesn't want to fucking cooperate anymore? What if it is costing us too much?


" But that doesn't at all justify Trump's absolutely childish, immature and quite frankly utterly embarrassing behavior. He is seemingly at the emotional level of a 12 year old boy bullying other kids on the playground because he thinks it makes him seem "cool". "


Jesus Christ, more about t-rex arm guy. You need to lighten up. I mentioned how Jefferson and the like did even more "outrageous" things than Trump has. Who cares?



"My response is that the US constitution set up a government of division of powers and representative elected leadership precisely to also prevent the "the people" from "expressing their will". We have an entire judicial branch that is equal to the other branches; the judicial branch doesn't work by submitting issues to popular vote. Neither are laws written like that. In fact the US constitution makes it quite difficult for direct popular vote of the people to enact any laws (amending the constitution requires 3/4 vote of all states (yes states, not even direct democracy here either). It's diluted surrogate governance of layers of representation with checks and balances where experts positioned at key points in the system (such as judges) make critical determinations. I absolutely disagree that the will of the people is somehow the central or sole goal here."


Nobody was talking about popular votes. The point is our federal government has vastly overstepped the boundary of power afforded to it by the constitution. Unless the constitution explicitly defines a power for the federal government, then that power doesn't exist.




___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud


Last edited by Parodites on Wed Oct 05, 2016 7:57 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 7:56 pm
Fixed Cross wrote:
Capable wrote:
Points I have made that I know or believe have not been addressed yet (please correct me if they have been):

Let me address all of them a bit. I will not make any excuses for what I think politics fundamentally is... which is opportunistic.

Quote :
1. The false conflation that Trump made between protecting Iraqi oil from terrorists and stealing it for our own use.

It's already stolen; the US and Saudi Arabia form a robber clan that controls the world through oil. Iraqs oil has been stolen when Saddam was put in power by the US... very many US wars have been about stealing resources. Trump is sort playing with what is de facto happening under Obama; stealing the oil.

Thanks sincerely for taking the time to address each of these points I made. I hope to reply in kind.

But when we went into Iraq and secured the oil fields, we ultimately left them, returned them to the Iraqis. The entire problem Trump was talking about was that the US forces left the oil fields and ISIS moves in to take them over. Yes I realize that the US has stolen national resources such as oil, again I am not naive, if you read Confessions of an Economic Hitman this is really the best source material I know of here. I have no illusions. But Trump is nakedly bragging that we should just embrace this deplorable state of affairs.

You yourself seem to clearly oppose the state of affairs where the US "steals the oil", so why on earth are you defending Trump when he "goes along with Obama?" More specifically, in Iraq, the US did return the oil fields to the Iraqi people, which was absolutely the right thing to do.

Quote :
Quote :
2. Trump ripping off contractors and American steel workers by secretly purchasing Chinese steel for his buildings and for refusing to pay contractors for work done.

Yes, everyone working in real estate contracting is in touch with crime, crime rules that world for the full hundred percent.

I don't know this. How could you know that this is true, what is your reasoning or experience or evidence here? This seems like a quite extreme claim. And again, even if it is true, which I do not know that it is, you seem to just be apologizing for it while at the same time you acknowledge on some level that you know it is problematic. Or maybe you don't find organized crime problematic or morally reprehensible at all?

Quote :
I know Trump is very good in dealing with criminals - he is a New York businessman contractor. I consider his capacity for simple, effective schemes an asset, right now, in a world that is made entirely of scheming.

Again this is a very, very cynical view. Yes there are schemes, but no I do not think "everything is a scheme". That sort of thinking seems to be a cop out, the kind of easy hyperbole that Trump uses to make thinking easy on himself -- dividing the world into blacks and whites, "this is that" sort of absolute statements. I think, instead, that things are quire a bit more complex than this. Most things are somewhere in the gray area. But again, what evidence or reason do you have to claim that Trump is "very good at dealing with criminals"? I don't know that this is true. And what specifically do you even mean by that statement?

Quote :
Obviously the president of the USA needs to be a highly amoral man - or woman - you need to kill arbitrarily a lot

I disagree. And again, you seem to be, on the one hand, deploring Clinton-type sociopathic US imperialism while on the other hand saying this is somehow necessary... I don't understand this weird combination of these two opposed attitudes.

But more to the point, the US does not need a highly immoral leader. Killing is not always immoral. Killing should not be arbitrary, it should be driven by philosophical principles when it is necessary (self-defense, national defense, in defense of human rights, etc.). I do not accept that immoral arbitrary killing simply for our own narrow gain (of oil, or whatever else) can at all be justified. I think you probably agree, because if you don't, then you would have no problem with Clinton at all. She would be your champion.

Quote :
- I see Trump as the least amoral so far. Clinton was the worst - he destroyed Europe by bombing Belgrado and making war with the Russians when the cold war had just ended. Bush and Obama were just continuations of Clintons nationrobbing.

But I digress.

Yes the whole Afghanistan/Iraq thing was really bad. Clinton in Europe, yes also very bad.

Your argument seems to be trying to thread the needle as follows: "We need some immorality, but not too much immorality... Trump is at little immoral but not as bad as Clinton, Bush etc." Is this really your position, are you trying to toe the line here on precisely how much "immorality" is "necessary" or not? How would you know, what are your standards of measure and value in making such a determination?

Quote :
Quote :
3. Trump using third world sweat shops for his clothing line, and owning stock in the very companies he supposedly objects to (Ford, GM, Nabisco, etc.)

Ive seen him admit to this. He said "Im a businessman now, not yet a politician." Very honest of him, actually. It also shows that he understands what both are, business ad politics, how they differ at bottom; politics is representation, business is not.

US deregulation has made it very hard to profit from legitimate domestic businesses. They were all forced abroad by Clinton, or into bankrupcy, it seems...

I have not seen Trump admit this. If that is true then he is basically saying "hey I am doing bad things because it is really hard to be good!" Well, that isn't really a defense, just a pale justification and excuse. In any sense it is not a philosophical reason. If Trump really, sincerely cared about these issues of sweatshops and outsourcing and the like, he wouldn't be doing these very same things himself. And not only in the past, and that he now had a change of heart... he is still doing these things right now.

Quote :
Quote :
4. The fact that "tyranny of the majority" is a very real concern and that direct democracy on policy issues doesn't work very well and isn't ideal (as I said, in no other field or line of work or policy do we take a "vote of "the people"" for policy or decide what to do).

I agree, but only in that it has produced, so far, a lot of butchers. Imagine that Truman was once voted in... then Trump isnt all that bad, at all.
I think, as Ive said before, that Trump represents the more lofty and sane part of the electorate.

I absolutely do not agree on this point. That little GIF clip of him demonstrates quite clearly the kind of "sanity" he has, especially when you consider that he did those antics on live TV broadcasting to the entire world.

Quote :
Quote :
5. A democratized group of nations is a real possible form of globalism (globalism is not inherently "totalitarian" any more than government itself is).

Id call that a global balance of power, but if that is what you envision, we envision things that are alike.

Great, this is good to know. We have a clear thing in common now. We can build from this.

Quote :
Quote :
6. The government should not be run like a business (for profits).

Certainly, but it should also not spend tax dollars on things that a large part of the populace is vehemently against, especially if they are in direct contradiction with the founding Logos of the country, which is to have individualism over collectivism.

Like what? What sort of things and spending are you referring to here? Please state it and explain how it is in direct contradiction with the founding Logos.

Quote :
Quote :
7. Global level problems actually do require global level solutions.

Unfortunately we are all humans, and humans have never been able to reach that sort of agreement. As I see it, all attempts to regulate globally have directly caused genocidal wastelands. What I think is that all nations should take care of ther own shit, and by economy, pressure each others in doing that too.

Trump plans to do this sort of thing, he says - to put actual pressure on the Chinese, rather than get stuck in a fruitless intellectual debate, over what is real or isnt - all that can be done is to pressure the culprits with real, not rhetoric, pressure.

ALl these committees on climate change, they cost billions, and they only make sure no one is spontaneously doing anything.

How does scientists and policy makers getting together to discuss climate change and share data with each other, and think up things like the Paris Agreement, "make sure no one is spontaneously doing anything"?

International agreements are indeed quite possible, and have happened many times. "Globalism" is just another word for "international agreements". You can add the "by some degree of force" at the end if you like, but that is both unnecessary in the extreme apocalyptic sense of "force" here as well as always already the case in terms of mild force as incentives and pressure applied economically, as you were saying.

Quote :
Clinton appears a slave to the Chinese, as she is one to Wall Street, and Wall Street is seemingly enslaved to Chinese economical decisions. This is why she wont put direct pressure on them to reduce their exhaust gasses, I assume.

I did not know that Hillary Clinton will not put direct pressure on the Chinese to reduce their exhaust gasses. Where is this written or why do you think this?

As Zizek pointed out, the US sucks in a billion dollars a day from the rest of the world; this is debt spending that sustains not only the US economy through consumption but also sustains the other economies of the world, namely we buy the things they produce, we directly fund their economics through this trade deficit. Yes this is definitely a problem. But how is Trump going to solve that? Trump's own tax plan will add trillions of dollars to the US debt. Plus the situation is so complex now that if you just shut off the flow of billions into the US from the rest of the world, economies will collapse everywhere. There needs to be a measured, gradual winding-down of this situation into something more reasonable. I don't think Trump's proposes for trade wars would at all solve that. And other than trade wars and "making people pay what they owe (us)", I don't even know what is coherent macroeconomic policies are... maybe you do? Can you explain them to me if so and how they would slowly unwind the present irrational situation without blowing it all up to hell?
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: 6578
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:35 pm

"
Quote :
Quote :
8. The idea of workers rights, unions and some trade protectionism is a basically politically Left position (the opposite position of "free trade" global capitalism is the neoliberal-neoconservative idea).

I disagree. The left/right distinction came from Marx, who took a perfectly pan-political English workers movement for an extra day off (weekend), and minimum wage, and made it itno some bizarre metaphysical 'necessity'. Traditionally, working classes vote conservative, namely to keep their jobs - only when a right wing regime needs to be replaced to they sometimes go for left - but this regime now is ultra-left, ultra statist, and has all but destroyed the working class.

I am only speaking of US politics here. I understand the left/right political divide doesnt perfectly translate from the US to European countries.

Marx's point was that the class war being fought at the economic level of labor against capital owners is indeed a kind of metaphysical necessity as you called it. That is absolutely truly the case. Marx was right about that. If you disagree, tell me why. The entire nature of labor is that we (you and I, most people) are required to sell our labor power as a commodity to a capital owner; the capital owner literally buys us as indentured servants and we sell our intellectual or physical or emotional labor, the capitalist sits around and by virtue of owning the capital is able to directly appropriate our labor to himself, and "pays" us wages that are commensurate only with the cost of this labor (again, us, you and me and most people) replacing itself over time as a flesh mass workforce.

Yes, that is a fucked up, highly "metaphysical" situation that human being is present locked in. Marx was right to call bullshit on it.

Quote :
Consider how utterly noble it is for people to fight to the right to work, to build something.

Indeed work is, all other things being equal, a noble and necessary thing. That does not at all refute the above point I just made.

Quote :
I dont believe in left and right at all, never have, by the way. Trump talks like someone who understands peoples desire to make themselves useful, rather than being urged to feel guilty for wanting to work. I dont care who is in the left, or in the right textballoon - I just know that he's right about this, regardless of what he can ultimatey accomplish.

You're homogenizing all "work" into the same category, a supposedly noble thing where we desire to "be useful" in some grand beautiful sense. Most work today does not conform to that standard. Most people feel like slaves, and are slaves.

Quote :
It is a very crucial thing to just have your values expressed for a person, especially when the last 20 years, your presidents have scolded you for having values, and for complaining when they give all your values away to fascist and simply incompetent regimes overseas.

Trump mostly represents normal people being fed up with being lectured by the very people that ruin their lives, towns, states, country, and planet. In this sense, at least, he represents me. He is the most dignified and honest representative politician I ever saw. Hillary is of course not elected really, so she isnt a representative politician, just a banal criminal. But she's not the issue here.

Again, we will disagree. Which people have ruined the lives of which other people, and how? NAFTA puts manufacturing out of business but creates a ton of other jobs elsewhere, such as in service industries and traded goods, imports, small proprietors and entrepreneurs and salesmen. NAFTA also lowers prices on goods and services over time (I am not defending NAFTA, but I am pointing out that these same Trump supporters have also benefitted from it too). The only ones who really get net zero or negative benefit from NAFTA are A) if you literally really did lose your job at the steel mill and are basically unemployable now, or 2) if you are working in a third world sweat shop or jumping off the roof of Foxconn. Those people have legitimate complaints against NAFTA... these petulant Trump supporters are not seriously in a position to complain at all, they are just "disaffected" and mostly whining. Trust me, I have been to Tea Party rallies, I have seen what it is like there.

Imagine a bunch of well to do upper middle class white guys in business suits holding up anti-Obama signs about how Amerca is Tyranny now. Yeah, these fucking people have no idea what tyranny really is -- do you think they give one shit about the workers in the third world, or the lower class laborers who REALLY lose their jobs due to free trade policies? Nope. They just care about their own narrow ideological, partisan feelings and getting to spout off against "them liberals".

This is precisely my point, that most of these supposedly angry Trump supporters aren't seriously upset by the REAL problems that we have. And neither for that matter is Trump. Mostly it is a lot of fake outrage (it is real outrage for faked reasons).

Quote :
Quote :
9. The political Right (Republican party of which Trump is a member) in the US generally supports corporations as people, money as speech and the decimation of institutions like the EPA whose task is to hold corporations to a basic standard of social beneficence toward public spaces and public health; again the notion that corporations are not people, money is not speech and companies should generally serve the public interest or at least not seriously damage it, these are all politically Left views.

As Ive said I dont see life in categories like that, what Ive seen happen with my own eyes is the Democrats under Clinton have sold out the country and planet to a few corporations, and they were enthusiastically helped by the Bush clan, for the whole thing to be extended by Obama. They are lal clearly of the same party,despite the shows they put up to pretend to be adversaries. It would be hilarious if it was acted a bit better. Now its just watching a bunch of sanctimonious Hitler wannabes seeing who can make the most pointless kills with a smile... I truly dont get what their joy is but they seem to enjoy it. Anyway - this is what I keep coming back to. The last 4 presidents were just basically American Hitlers, in terms of the disregard for human life.

There are clear differences between the left and right parties here in the US. This radically cynical view, which I also think is deliberately defeatist, that they are all the same, there is no difference, it is all shit, everyone of them is Hitler, is just nonsense to me. But then again I live here and see first hand the real, down to earth differences in beliefs and attitudes of these people based on their political persuasion. And more to the point, the ideas themselves which you seem to appreciate, namely the ones mentioned just above in the quote, are at the philosophical and theoretical level progressive ideas, namely they stem from a deeply rooted belief and value in human rights, equality, fair treatment, the rights of the individual, and social justice when it comes to caring for public spaces and not allowing private industry to run over all of it, destroying and polluting or even just privatizing it all. These are good ideas, we need more ideas like this; they are fundamentally philosophical, progressive thoughts and values. It is good that you have them implicitly, but you don't seem to want to acknowledge from where they come or why they are really valuable at all.

Quote :
Quote :
10. Global warming does actually exist and it is actually very critically important that we address it somehow. Trump's denial of these facts is based on his ideological need to remain ignorant here.

I think that the point Parodites has been making is the right one; nothing is worth handing over our power to a global elite. Nothing furthermore exists that count count as a reason to trust that such elites would even be remotely capable of addressing any issue with success. These are the same elites that have caused global warming - who have shaped the world of uncontrolled industry that we're in.

Industry itself isn't bad. Technology and science are the only ways we can fix global warming. We do not need to shut everything down, we need to keep innovating new ideas like carbon capture tech. And no, "the elites" didn't "create global warming", that is a weird and false way of looking at it. Global warming is a natural consequence of the industrialization of the modern world, probably every self-aware, sentient species in the universe confronts this challenge at a certain stage in its development as a species.

I of course agree that we should not just hand over our power to anyone. Obviously I agree on that. But I am saying we do not need to do that. Things like the Paris Agreement can happen if idiots like Trump get out of the way, denying the very problem itself. And why do you think big business apologists like these Republicans deny global warming? It is because of their own narrow self-interest at the level of business and profit. They do not want to have to scale back or pay for more advanced technology or pay a cost for the carbon they emit. There is heavy lobbying here in the US by the energy industry. The Republicans are basically, to a certain degree, beholden to these people and special interests. I don't know if Trump is beholden to them or not, but the GOP in general is.

Quote :
Now we should give them more power in the belief they will act wisely and on our behalf? Hmmm... no.

Again, this is not something I ever advocated, nor is that what would be necessary. When it comes to politics and serious problems I believe in honest and difficult pragmatism, not easy hyperbole.

Quote :
Quote :
I found one point Parodites made and you just reiterated which I have yet to respond to, namely that global government would amount to giving power to be tyrannical, that in order to fight global warming we would necessarily be handing over tyrannical power to a global level government. I disagree because while yes global government could be used for tyrannical ends, this is the case with any government; it requires that we carefully craft the structure of government such as the Founders did in the US, and not just abandon the entire project. Again this falls back on the fact that I've already outlined my idea of how global government could work, a kind of UN like setup but with more force of law and some kind of basic shared military apparatus. Decisions would be voted on by representatives, not made by one tyrant.

That it happens with any government is precisely why it will certainly happen with something as colossal and unwieldy as a global government. Al the UN does these decennia is stand by while the chosen dictators or militias slaughter their populations. Then they extend the dictator a document.

You are arguing against a specific iteration of the UN, and not even the UN in general, much less the idea as such of a "United Nations" sort of structure. The UN indeed does condone violence and genocide, approve sanctions, sent in peacekeepers and relief supplies and aid workers, and try to organize for peace. Yes they aren't always great at it, there needs to be a lot more work being done here. That is precisely my point, which you seem to indirectly be agreeing to: the UN is not yet good enough, we need more of this very same thing. Your very complaint against the UN, that it is not effective at its ostensible goals, is also precisely my point too.

Quote :
Quote :
Another point I found where I didn't properly respond yet: Parodites claim that the US constitution exists as a means for the will of the people to realize itself, "The US constitution and founding documents were designed in order to provide the masses the instrument by which to express- as perfectly as possible, that will. It has been corrupted as I said by the centralized federal government. The founders also hoped we would even make further improvements to it, as opposed to fuck it up like we've done." My response is that the US constitution set up a government of division of powers and representative elected leadership precisely to also prevent the "the people" from "expressing their will". We have an entire judicial branch that is equal to the other branches; the judicial branch doesn't work by submitting issues to popular vote. Neither are laws written like that. In fact the US constitution makes it quite difficult for direct popular vote of the people to enact any laws (amending the constitution requires 3/4 vote of all states (yes states, not even direct democracy here either). It's diluted surrogate governance of layers of representation with checks and balances where experts positioned at key points in the system (such as judges) make critical determinations. I absolutely disagree that the will of the people is somehow the central or sole goal here. If it were, direct popular vote would have been the basic template on which decisions of law and policy are made, and that is not the case. The vast majority of the time we vote for REPRESENTATIVES, people, not on law or policy directly. This allows for compromises and for expert level thought on issues to coexist with the larger and more blind, inexpert will of the people. It's basically a system of compromise. And that is why it works.

Edit: Disclaimer: no feelings were harmed in the making of this post.

Im between you and Parodites in this - I do believe the logos was the correct one, but as I said in this thread earlier, the logos was superimposed on a highly unequal landscape.

The whole suing and countersueing culture evidently makes it impossible for a nation to be truly stable. It is absolutely prepostrous. Maybe this would be a fertile subject to investigate for us - how to construct a proper legislative system without becoming socialist or anti-capitalist or anti-wealth.

All of it comes down to how valuing is understood, how it is ranked in the episteme, from which the law is born

Yes, basically: reality is imperfect. Politics and economics especially.



___________
"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." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 8:03 pm
" You yourself seem to clearly oppose the state of affairs where the US "steals the oil", so why on earth are you defending Trump when he "goes along with Obama?" More specifically, in Iraq, the US did return the oil fields to the Iraqi people, which was absolutely the right thing to do. "

Obviously it wasn't. We shouldn't have left oil to a destabilized state where we know terrorist ideology was propagated.

"I have not seen Trump admit this. If that is true then he is basically saying "hey I am doing bad things because it is really hard to be good!" Well, that isn't really a defense, just a pale justification and excuse. In any sense it is not a philosophical reason"


You claim we can't rag on politicians because we haven't read their 1,000 page tax code, but your rag on Trump's business practice. People in his position have something called fiduciary responsibility. They must avoid paying costs that could be legally avoided, in order to maximize profits for their workers. If that means working the tax code, moving a factory out of the US, etc. then that's what he does. His point is that he shouldn't have to move his shit to another country, there shouldn't be a tax code full of loop holes. The tax code reform he is going to pass simplifies hundreds of pages to a single page, making it more of an even playing field for small and larger businesses. This reform will cost Trump himself a significant monetary loss.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 8:05 pm
"There are clear differences between the left and right parties here in the US. This radically cynical view, which I also think is deliberately defeatist, that they are all the same, there is no difference, it is all shit, everyone of them is Hitler, is just nonsense to me. But then again I live here and see first hand the real, down to earth differences in beliefs and attitudes of these people based on their political persuasion. "

Nah, they're both (were) globalist corporatocratic parties. The only difference is in meaningless social issues: one likes fags, the other doesn't. On everything that matters they are the same. Bush and Obama's foreign policy was the same. Their views on the surveillance state were the same.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 8:09 pm
"I found one point Parodites made and you just reiterated which I have yet to respond to, namely that global government would amount to giving power to be tyrannical, that in order to fight global warming we would necessarily be handing over tyrannical power to a global level government. I disagree because while yes global government could be used for tyrannical ends, this is the case with any government; it requires that we carefully craft the structure of government such as the Founders did in the US, and not just abandon the entire project. Again this falls back on the fact that I've already outlined my idea of how global government could work, a kind of UN like setup but with more force of law and some kind of basic shared military apparatus. Decisions would be voted on by representatives, not made by one tyrant."



The cultures and national identities in this world cannot possibly ever come together in the way you describe. It is not conceivable. You would have to first get rid of the idea of the nation state and open the borders, then simmer the population in a melting pot for a few generations.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 8:11 pm
Parodites wrote:
No hard feelings in this, just have to respond.

" To hate one is to love the other. I recall Nietzsche talking about this logic as the basis of slave morality: you are bad (evil) therefore I am good. Clinton is bad/evil therefore Trump is good. Or, as Ive been falsely accused of already many times, just because I think Trump is bad (not "evil") must mean that I apparently think Clinton is good. "


Bullshit, nobody has intimated that you support Clinton. I recognize you do not, I have also recognized you're not supporting the current globalist regime. Is putting words in our mouth part of your elite debating skills that you learned?

Thanks for the attitude and making it personal. Glad we can really elevate the conversation here.

Yes many times when I make arguments against Trump it has been replied that Clinton is much worse, or why don't I also attack Clinton also? This is the false dichotomy I am taking about; "Clinton is bad, therefore Trump is good, or must be good". It doesn't need to be a direct "You believe X" statement to conform to that fallacy, nor for the implication to be quite clear that apparently in order for me to attack or criticize Trump I am supposed to also either attack or defend Clinton; after all, why would Clinton come up so much when I am talking about Trump specifically, if perhaps not as the false dichotomy of the fallacy of excluded middle then maybe just as a kind of redirection?

Quote :
1. The false conflation that Trump made between protecting Iraqi oil from terrorists and stealing it for our own use.

2. Trump ripping off contractors and American steel workers by secretly purchasing Chinese steel for his buildings and for refusing to pay contractors for work done.
[His practice as a businessman is typical and nothing illegal was done.]

That wasn't my point. My point was that Trump is being a clear hypocrite and apparently lying about truly caring about issues like cheap Chinese imported steel.

Quote :
3. Trump using third world sweat shops for his clothing line, and owning stock in the very companies he supposedly objects to (Ford, GM, Nabisco, etc.)
[His practice as a businessman is typical and nothing illegal was done.]

Ok, it is clear that tou are [i]deliberately missing my point.

I will be honest, this is a new low for BTL.

Quote :
4. The fact that "tyranny of the majority" is a very real concern and that direct democracy on policy issues doesn't work very well and isn't ideal (as I said, in no other field or line of work or policy do we take a "vote of "the people"" for policy or decide what to do).
[What does that have to do with Trump, specifically? And our process is much more complicated, it takes into account to some extent the non-homogeneous nature of ideology, it's a representative government, etc. Are you... suggesting that Trump should be denied the presidency even if we wins the popular vote? What is the point? Is Trump a tyranny of the majority? ]

No, I am not saying that Trump should be denied the presidency if he wins the popular vote (although he could still lose anyway, thanks to the electoral college system). And the kind of fake populism and cheap religious pulpit-like demagoguery that Trump represents and cultivates in his followers is indeed flowing from the same place where the danger of tyranny of the majority resides. As de Tocqueville was referenced as saying in that news piece which you summarily dismissed without serious discussion.

Quote :
5. A democratized group of nations is a real possible form of globalism (globalism is not inherently "totalitarian" any more than government itself is).
[Government- centralized federal top down government: is itself totalitarian and fascistic.]

No it is not, not necessarily. You can define it that way if you want, but that doesn't make it true. You could of course provide some evidence or reasoning in favor of the logical argument that federal top down government is necessarily totalitarian and fascistic.. that should be interesting to see.

Quote :
6. The government should not be run like a business (for profits).
[Says who? The US government should exist to maximize American interests over those of other nations and populations. Does that mean "for profit"? Do you disagree?]

The point I made was that the nature of government is different from the nature of business. Not every thing can be capitalized upon to turn a profit, case in point with addressing polluting of common spaces (economic Tragedy of the Commons). The government in part exists to address those issues and problems which are either not capitalizable or ought not to be capitalized upon; the business world exists to generate those profits, pure and simple.

Quote :
7. Global level problems actually do require global level solutions.
[An assertion.]

What the fucking hell? Where has the honest intention for serious discussion gone?

Yes it is an "assertion". It is also one that makes perfect sense, or perhaps you can tell me how you are going to address a problem of X scope if you aren't going to operate solutions at the same X level? Or perhaps you can be bothered to even reply to the point I made at all, rather than dismiss it out of hand like some fucking troll.

Anyway, I am fucking pissed off now. You achieved your end. I will not bother with the rest of what you wrote.



___________
"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." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 8:13 pm
"I of course agree that we should not just hand over our power to anyone. Obviously I agree on that. But I am saying we do not need to do that. Things like the Paris Agreement can happen if idiots like Trump get out of the way, denying the very problem itself. And why do you think big business apologists like these Republicans deny global warming? It is because of their own narrow self-interest at the level of business and profit"

And why do you think others push it so vehemently?

Could it be- perhaps, that the gravity of global warming falls somewhere in the middle between "it doesn't exist" and "it's our gravest existential threat," and that both parties are using it- as they use everything, to profit themselves?



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 8:20 pm
"Thanks for the attitude and making it personal. Glad we can really elevate the conversation here. "

No, no, no. You're the one who made it personal. At no point until this thread did I ever exhibit hostility, you are the one who has done so repeatedly.

I'm pissed that you lump several million Trump supporters into the "irredeemable asshole" category. As I support him, that is personal. You explicitly stated that one cannot like Trump "and have any heart", etc.



" No it is not, not necessarily. You can define it that way if you want, but that doesn't make it true. You could of course provide some evidence or reasoning in favor of the logical argument that federal top down government is necessarily totalitarian and fascistic.. that should be interesting to see. "


I'm not defining it, it's called a principle. The federal government draws its authority through force- it can legally dispense force; it does not draw it from our volition. Perhaps to some extent it will always be necessary, but this federal government has gone far beyond the scope of powers originally afforded to it. If you read the constitution as granting implied powers, there is no limit to the number of additional capacities you can add to the federal government. The only way to read it, is: if the constitituon does not explicitly define that power, it does not exist.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 8:22 pm
You're the one in general that has allowed political discussion to become personal, when you began levying insults all over the place at Trump and anyone who likes him.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 8:23 pm
" That wasn't my point. My point was that Trump is being a clear hypocrite and apparently lying about truly caring about issues like cheap Chinese imported steel. "


What I said about fiduciary responsibility applies. Or instead of that explanation for the variance in his business practice and his politics, you could just call him a liar.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 8:29 pm
"Global level problems actually do require global level solutions."


The reason I didn't address it seriously, is the following: for the reasons I mentioned about national identities being too different to cooperate effectively, that global level of cooperation will never appear organically. China is never going to quit fucking up the environment in some spirit of human fraternity with us. You might get Russia to dismantle a couple bombs, if you're lucky: but they're never going away. So we must rely on less than global solutions.


Last edited by Parodites on Wed Oct 05, 2016 8:43 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 8:30 pm
And I am still irritated that you claim: I am the one making it personal. My debate skill comment was a fucking joke, dude. Your comment that I'm an irredeemable amoral heartless asshole because I like Trump- that wasn't a joke.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 8:34 pm
Honestly, what the fuck are you talking about?

[Just to be clear, if we're still on the topic, here is your standard of taste:

http://giphy.com/gifs/fun-trump-donald-cEb1tO6Xvn0DS]


That wasn't a personal insult?


So go be pissed off, just understand: you're the one who made it personal first.


The fact that you won't support Trump never became for me a signature of defect or malice in your person, I just took you as having got caught up in the spirit of Trumpenhate, as we may have perhaps got caught up in the opposite. But you have quite clearly allowed the fact that a person likes Trump to override your rationality. You could have even voted Clinton and I would have never read you a list of the dictators she's received money from and said to you: that's your standard of taste, you're basically soul-less and heartless for supporting this cunt, you're just a rabid racist spellbound by empty demagoguery, etc."


" I could be converted into a Trump supporter if the facts, evidence and sound philosophical reasoning requires it. I'm happy to go that route if anyone would like. Otherwise we have mostly stated our positions and our values, and that will have to be enough for now. "

I explained his fiduciary responsibility, and his dealings as a businessman have nothing to do with his politics. Especially when the very tax reforms he has proposed would cost him significantly. I have explained my position on the global state and the fact that a politics based on national identity cannot coexist with it. The global structure you want does not exist. The one that does, has cost us gravely, and Trump at least claims to stand against it. I have explained that his support is coming from a transition into a new political paradigm, and that the parties are reformulating; while Trump openly embraces that reform, Clinton has stuck to the old dying axis- that's where Trump's support is coming from. It isn't because he's just a "populist, a demagogue." I have explained the material danger of a Clinton presidency. There is nothing else I can do. A few of his little gaffes, like the t-rex arm guy, I explained as well, but for the most part I thought them insignificant. I could throw my hands up and say you've ignored all my arguments just as you say we've ignored yours. Clinton is: we're definitely fucked. Trump is: maybe we're fucked. If you can't honestly see enough of a reason to vote one way or the other on that, fine. Honestly your entire line against Trump revolves around petty gaffes and drudging up random blurbs he made without any context, insulting his supporters; comparing his business practice with his politics without any apparent understanding of his fiduciary responsibility, comparing him to Hitler, insinuating he's a racist, (he's simply not) etc.

I've brought this thread into page 9, but one gets carried away sometimes.


We've been friends for about 10 years at least, you want to tell me to fuck off because I committed the egregious crime of poking fun at your "I learned how to debate bit", (you can't go on a rant about how great you learned to debate and expect nobody to say anything) especially after all the insulting shit I pointed out that you've hurled at people on Trump's side, (which I obviously am) it's your prerogative. You can't say shit like "If you like Trump you have no heart, no taste, you're not a thinker anymore you just want a Fuhrer," and not expect me and anyone else on Trump's side to not take that personally, as you know I definitely like him. I let it go at first though. What if I said: you can't support the centralization of federal government and a global state without being a soul-dead conformist pussy retard? What if I said: If you're a leftist, you're a tasteless douche with no credibility as a human being. Would that not be insulting? I didn't do that shit to you. But you can do it to us. I wouldn't do it either, because I don't believe it.


But hey, maybe I just need to read some more Washington Post, it will all make sense to me then. That's called levity. Now you're supposed to say: and maybe I can just pop a couple dozen pain killers and probably fall right on the Trump Train too. Or ignore everything, then tell us we're ignoring you; insult anyone who likes Trump repeatedly and then get pissed off when I take one jab at something you said, riding off into the night on your cloud of moral superiority. Don't post that bullshit fucking gif and tell me you're here for a serious debate or what my taste is and then get mad when I make fun of one thing you said. I explained why it was a ridiculous image.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 9:51 pm
I think by now the title of the thread has been revealed to not be hollow.

VO prescribes irreconcilable value-differences. That is what being is.

This election is of absolute significance. So we are being valued in its terms. Our resources, powers, are being drawn out into this battle.

I agree with Parodites on every point.

Also, I didnt even know it wasnt some kid in a wheelchair he mocked, but a reporter with a fucking paying job.

That is pure wretchedness and ill will, to use that incident as such. The people who framed this story are indeed heartless, soulless, and if that word has any meaning at all, evil people -

as I see it. I'd imagine this fabrication to be very painful for the actually disabled.

Ive also had no choice but to feel offended as someone who likes Trump, for being called all these things. I figured I didnt need to take too seriously, as obviously the working premise of our forum is a deep mutual valuing.

It is only natural that this critical time (with Saturn on Antares, the ancients would be hiding in caves) the most violent valuings find their way out. Valuings that apply to the future of the west, which is being decided.

I would propose that we agree that none of us could possibly be seen as heart- or tasteless, but I'll wait until after the elections.




___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 10:01 pm
Yeah, without VO it's all doomed to stay in the middle ages - at least the bottom line. Without the formal appreciation of irreconcileable value differences among humans and creatures in general, and a system of reconciling them indirectly by employing the very logic that commands this rugged individuality of being, the world will continue to burn and produce bullshit dichotomies over which friends and family will kill each other.

Divide and conquer... the US election circus has divided us here on BTL... which really is quite proper, under the circumstances. We can suffer a bit for this.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 10:05 pm
" All of it comes down to how valuing is understood, how it is ranked in the episteme, from which the law is born"


"Yes, basically: reality is imperfect. Politics and economics especially. "

I dont know what perfect means if not reality - (how can reality be more 'perfected'?) but perfection doesnt imply the absence of friction.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 10:08 pm
It's obvious what you're doing Capable. You're going around on random news sites trying to find the dirtiest shit on Trump to make us all feel guilty about supporting him, because the incident in the gif happened months and months and months ago. You didn't for five fucking seconds google the t-rex arm guy incident and find out what actually happened. I know you haven't listened to Trump himself much or you'd know that he had made that very gesture numerous times before the incident- he makes that absurd hand gesture to everybody, to signify that they're being too sensitive or babyish or girly, that's what the gesture means when you raise your hands up really high and flap them around: he did it to Jeb, did it to Rubio, etc. It's obvious that you simply believe we've fallen into a mind trap over Trump. And I believe you've simply fallen into the media's mind trap over despising Trump, the media which de-contextualizes every-last-fucking-thing the guy does or says, as was the case with Mr. T-rex hand. Anyway, I still don't have any personal malice toward you, I just thought the debate thing was funny: my view of you is not lessened. I just think your politics is fucked. But I understand that politics can only ever be an application of a philosophy, to the world. The same philosophy can be applied numerous ways. Your philosophy may be sound, and your politics can still be fucked.


One great thing about Trump, he's made a line. There's not many lines left in the world. A bit of a living strike against old Hegel: synthesize this shit. And it is good that there are still some lines, some separations.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 10:11 pm
"Industry itself isn't bad. Technology and science are the only ways we can fix global warming. We do not need to shut everything down, we need to keep innovating new ideas like carbon capture tech "

In fact, no one is stopping anyone from developing such technology. Governments are entirely free to do this. But they don't. Globalism is a moot point here. Nothing more is required to start attack this problem than the gigantic scientific apparatus the US has at its disposal. That they arent doing this, and trying for globalism first, is evidence that they have no intention of solving it.

" I of course agree that we should not just hand over our power to anyone. Obviously I agree on that. But I am saying we do not need to do that. Things like the Paris Agreement can happen if idiots like Trump get out of the way, denying the very problem itself. "

A formal agreement and promise to do something without having anything close to sufficient means to do it, is certainly not hope-giving. It is rather a statement of being entirely unfit for the task, of completely lacking seriousness. Which hardly came as a surprise.

The best thing for a scientist now is not to wait until his government gives him an order, but to start thinking for himself.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 10:33 pm
Oh yeah, Capable, you also mentioned I was behaving like some kind of religious nutjob or cnn correspondent because I- predicted things that might take place should Clinton or Trump be elected. Fuck off with the personal shit like you haven't gotten personal yourself, before I ever did.


"In fact, no one is stopping anyone from developing such technology. Governments are entirely free to do this. But they don't. Globalism is a moot point here. Nothing more is required to start attack this problem than the gigantic scientific apparatus the US has at its disposal. That they arent doing this, and trying for globalism first, is evidence that they have no intention of solving it."

Yes, I would add: All higher level science is a government affair. (Schooling is also a government affair and they fucked that up too.) The government funds all the fucking research projects. Instead of trying to pass laws for us with the alliance you've made with other governments, just fund some solar technology or something. Oh yeah, you have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year to maintain that alliance, this globalism- because our so called allies demand we give them all our military resources, defend their boarders, relinquish our assets to foreign aid, etc, out of the goodness of our heart, for the sake of the noble project of a global state, so your budget for science projects is likely pretty limited. If the globalization had never commenced, our country would have had the funds to get us to Alpha Centauri by now and none of this would matter.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 10:56 pm
Parodites wrote:


Yes, I would add: All higher level science is a government affair. (Schooling is also a government affair and they fucked that up too.) The government funds all the fucking research projects. Instead of trying to pass laws for us with the alliance you've made with other governments, just fund some solar technology or something. Oh yeah, you have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year to maintain that alliance, this globalism- because our so called allies demand we give them all our military resources, defend their boarders, relinquish our assets to foreign aid, etc, out of the goodness of our heart, for the sake of the noble project of a global state, so your budget for science projects is likely pretty limited.

True. A single percent of the military budget solves all hunger too. The real priorities are evident only by what is actually happening, not by what politicians are saying and formally agreeing on.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 11:03 pm
Essentially the larger structures get the blinder their will to power unless they are integrally regulated by the self-valuing principle proper; usually this happens as the cost of parts of the environment. Kissingers post-political confession is the final political logos, I think - curb unifying ambitions and tread in deference around great historical powers - above all ones own. Postwar USA equals a globalized politics; Trump understands well that all that is needed now, is boldness, which requires independence.
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: 6578
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:35 pm

Your definition of globalism as "concentration of power away from the people" is not a necessary definition at all, it totally rejects my definition of cooperative globalism among democratically participating nations in structures such as the UN; but worse, your definition other than being quite simplistic and black and white is basically just the definition of government as such. By definition to have a government at all is to concentrate some power a distance from "the people", and as I've already pointed out and which I believe has so far gone unanswered is that the political power of "the people" is largely the negative power to throw out bad leaders and is also the smaller positive power to abstractly ground political leadership in the populace at large, through voting and consent of the governed.

"The people" did not write the US Constitution. A very small group of highly educated and dedicated people did. This whole hypostasizing of the category of "the people" into some kind of political God is troubling to me, to say the least.

---


The political elitism is troubling to me. The Fathers wrote the Constitution to give the people a voice, not to command them. The constitution grants very few powers- very few legitimate commands, to the central government. This political elitism reaches it greatest formulation in the global state: you believe the masses cannot learn to take care of themselves, that they must be administered to.

" A democratized group of nations is a real possible form of globalism (globalism is not inherently "totalitarian" any more than government itself is)."

Yeah your democratized group of nations is possible if those nations tell their populations to fuck off in order to cut deals between each other, because otherwise difference in national identity and interest will cause nations to drop out of the arrangement. As our government has told all of us to fuck off- and essentially giving hundreds of billions of our dollars away to other countries in the form of military aid is in fact telling us to fuck off.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 11:16 pm
I am still troubled by your bit about how politics is like engineering, we can't let Trump in because he doesn't know politics. More political elitism.


These political elites and lawyers- they're fucking useless: their skill, their equivalent to engineering, is working through hundreds of pages of over complicated legalese like our 1,000 page tax code. True, Trump doesn't know that. But he knows how to throw that fucking tax code in the trash and write one about a page long, which would level the playing field and prevent corporations from amassing their inordinate wealth. The State- I made this point pages ago- got involved in the Braudelian stage of capital through this process: they make it so that you need massive amounts of cash to hire the lawyers necessary to figure out how to get you out of paying so much in tax. A smaller buisness cannot afford that. So the big business just keeps getting bigger. And this is possible because of the bullshit politician crafted piece of brilliant fucking engineering we call the tax code. These politicians are really good at doing something that's fucking really meaningless, managing a 1000 page tax code that shouldn't even fucking exist and which we can just throw out when Trump gets in. It's like being a professional at- what's as useless as a politician, I don't know; it's like being really good at something really inconsequential and unnecessary.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 11:25 pm
Parodites, what do you think about a synthesis of on the one hand the will to reduce US government to bare essentials as the fathers intended, and on the other the will to implement a US type constitution as a default code for nations that are pining for a sane form of government?

Rule by example conquers in the best way, it commands excellence simply by the fact that only an excellent being attracts exemplification. Excellence isn't a qualitative but a quantitative one, as excellence applies in potential to all proper qualities, it is merely the full (quantity) explication of them. At least, this is a way of arriving at the convenient truth that all men need to be free to be excellent, and that we can never convince someone by logic, but only by example.

Capable simply refuses to be convinced by a man who gives this example; I respect him for that, it is also an aesthetically righteous resistance to the most convenient path. The price of this is apperently a misunderstanding of our intentions; Capables philosophical mind is set against relativizing and taking opportune routes unless they can be made with the full being. I imagine he has met a great deal of people in person both who vote for Trump and are abject, and on the other hand those who are decent and compromised by Trumps rhetoric. This is democracy, the true battle to the death for values. If Clintons vices are less pertinent to his experience than Trumps vices, then at least I must concede that Trump needs to alter certain things. I do trust Capable as an instinct. His political ideas are incomplete simply because he has not seen the necessity of my scheme, which needs a Trumpian victory (small dissolution wars) or a Hillerian defeat (a large failed unification war ending in renewed chaos, possibility, remaining of the lucky nations who are rich but have no nuclear arsenal) I would not have been so bold in the title had I not figured out the line of the best prospect from value ontology. There is going to be a global agreement, but it is not going to be of a political nature, rather a purely juridical one; the court in the Hague. Global Justice must be done to the worst criminals - to set an example. That is all. For the rest, all private and national agencies across the globe have all the resources to do what they need to do.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 11:37 pm
The US must formally agree to some conditions for the Tribunal (the work of which has not been without hypocrisy, but has still inspired fear in the right type of people - a unique feat) - it must admit to some responsibility for its actions abroad. If it does this, a league of world leaders will have emerged in the US first, then China and Russia, then Europe (nuke-alliances are regional), India/Pakistan/Iran/Israel, the whole axis of - as well as Japan/Korea (I assume the Northern half will either go to China or to the Southern logos, which is a supremely privileged US vassal state where life is quantitatively much better than in the US (but infinitely more monomanic), Brazil, and whatever rising nation is exploiting its population or resources cleverly and according to the standard of self-valuing so as to produce true power, which is vitality. All nations are led both in foreign politics and self-cultivation in example by the virtues of the supreme nation, the United States of America, which will find, in this role, in all its American fellow nations happy second-equals. America as a continent has never seen its pride compromised, so it is robustly fit for the task, and I can't see any other historical necessity than that some axis from Washington to Sao Paulo will come to take the world in a grip that will become its spine over the course of the next centuries. Formally all nations are equal, and Russia and China are giants by all measure, but the sort of agreement by rapport that can be formed along that ten thousand mile mountainrange is invincible by its pure aesthetics.



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


Last edited by Fixed Cross on Wed Oct 05, 2016 11:41 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 11:40 pm
... US type constitution as a default code for nations...

Yes I agreed a while back in the thread that American constitutional philosophy should first: be perfected in a true independent US free from intrusion by foreign interests, cultures, and governments. (the Constitution was only the first brick in the edifice) Then: exported to the rest of the world. But that first part has never been allowed to happen, due to globalization. We must re-assert our independence politically and economically with a Trump victory, strip the central government, and continue working out our political system until we are satisfied with it for our own populace.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 11:43 pm
Sounds like a plan.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 11:44 pm
We simply do not yet possess the political scheme required to bring about the global system Capable envisions, (I recognize it is not the same as the current globalist regime) for our constitution itself has failed us in this country, that's why the central government has been able to overstep its sphere to this extent. Until we develop that scheme, acting on the intention for a democracy of nations- however noble that intention may be, will likely prove disastrous, at a time when there is no more room left for disasters of the global variety.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 11:57 pm
And one other thing about the fact that Trump is not a politician or legal expert, and that isn't the worst thing in the world- some would say it is good:


Our first president was a general. He killed guys. Not a politician or lawyer. With an equivalent of an elementary school education.


He seemed to do alright.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Thu Oct 06, 2016 12:50 am
"We simply do not yet possess the political scheme required to bring about the global system Capable envisions, (I recognize it is not the same as the current globalist regime) for our constitution itself has failed us in this country, that's why the central government has been able to overstep its sphere to this extent. Until we develop that scheme, acting on the intention for a democracy of nations- however noble that intention may be, will likely prove disastrous, at a time when there is no more room left for disasters of the global variety."

Here Heideggers virtues comes in, the bridge concept, the self-midwifery of mankind, mastering-emerging, physis; detail through scope.

To have seen which mechanisms must end up ruling is literally to speak from the future. Science speaks from the future of objects. Philosophy from the future of man. God is a cheap philosophical trick; globalist unificationism is a result, we now break up the scheme into gods - and multiple futures. Man is writhing in clasutrophobia, the idea of a unified, shared destiny of all is as terrifying as hell has ever been to the subconscious psyche; it knows what madness that entails, and is reminded of the primordial chaos of drives...



What I means practically is that the principle has to be conceived simultaneously as a project for the US and for the world, because this is the most reliable way of honing it to perfection. Simplifying dramatically; Only in this sense is it bold enough to be American, which means 'not silly'.

Simultaneously conceived, or conceived to apply universally, but not implemented anywhere before it is verified in its effectiveness at home. Prudence in boldness, boldness for prudence; the Doric spirit of the US.

Expand minimalization [myhth - Zeus subduing Kronos/time (and by implication liberating Ouranos/potential)]; philosophy commanding being-as-time, bringing about the powers of value. To value power here - value the cycles, 'the way things go' - affirmation of recurrence - not feverish and idealistic but calm and empirical. Real cycles, clockwork.

To begin with, what we can actually accomplish globally as Nietzsche's favorite men, forgers of myth and morality,
'Eternally' recurring feasts.
We wont be able to organize shit without them. This the Fathers knew and implemented well.

A feat in the sense of Halloween or Thanks giving or Christmas is a formal and symbolic recognition of valuing, in terms of the self-valuing of the entire nation. It is a true institution of love, and it cultivates what I will plainly call the good. The more festivals the better - the Romans had one nearly every day.

These arent coincidences in the normal sense of the word; they are engineered co-incidences, producing this Heideggerian emerging, the Greek physis.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Thu Oct 06, 2016 2:42 am
I don't entirely go along with Nietzsche's conception of the affirmation, but the idea that the dialectic literally makes the negation of Being the essence of Being, is my starting problem with it. The dialectic is entirely re-active. It does not touch the ground of Affirmation. Because it is entirely reactive, the dialectic is concerned with change- it is the essential formulation of change and incorporation. But:

[ The eudaemonia
of man, the perfected happiness of humanity, must lie in what Aristotle deems
pure activity, that is, activity outside of time, activity that is not passive before the goad
of any other kind of activity, rather such exogenous re-active forces are located in the
poetic compulsion toward beautiful forms or in the religious instinct, and we have only
philosophy to turn to for this perfect activity. A timeless, motionless activity is simply an
activity that does not cause change, that does not influence any other activities into
becoming reactive to it: philosophy is this perfection. ]


By my definition, dialectics is simply not philosophy. In fact... it seems to be the opposite. The dialectic makes all concepts become reactive to it, absorbed into it, and submitted to its process. It needs other concepts to become reactive to it in order to function, and thus it seems to be a diminishing force, a force exhausted by its own strength, a force incapable of affirming its own positive being.

True philosophy does not require the reactive submission of other powers to itself, in order to exist.

Not only does philosophy not force other powers to become reactive to it, true philosophy forces other powers to become active, affirmative of themselves and their own positive being: (this is why I can support Trump and delight in things contrary to my own philosophy- my philosophy has liberated all powers within myself to establish their independence and affirmative character, their plurality rather than dialectical synthesis)

[ Once freedom is set into motion its tendency is to communicate itself as Schelling says,
to induce everything that it touches to exercising its own liberty and, just as the stars
begin to appear in the firmament, so the stars in the moral heavens rouse themselves one
by one, each seemingly as a champion to every other, to finally annunciate that perfected
eutaxy of powers over whose image we are set upon ourselves in capitulant deliverance- to
a philosophy, if we but light that first star, that is, the urge for immortality, for
continued Being, for existence. ]

This is what I want VO to be: and dialectics seems to be literally the opposite.

And this perhaps not coincidentally fits what I want politics to become as well, with a return to independent nation states.


As you said above: "we now break up the scheme into gods - and multiple futures. Man is writhing in clasutrophobia, the idea of a unified, shared destiny of all is as terrifying as hell has ever been to the subconscious psyche; it knows what madness that entails, and is reminded of the primordial chaos of drives... "




___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Thu Oct 06, 2016 3:02 am
The whole point of the dialectic is that two things, like Being and Nonbeing, are opposites, because each contains within itself the seed of the other. So when you combine them in synthesis, what you're doing is eliminating their difference: difference here is only an existent quality, not essential. The culmination of the dialectic in absolute spirit lies in the extinguishing of all difference and identity from thought, a full enclosure of the logos from the mythos: it lies in extinguishing everything that life is, for life is identity, self-valuations, self-determinations, boundaries, difference.

If every thing contains within itself the seed of its own opposite or negation, and thought itself- should thought be dialectical, can only synthesize them by eliminating their difference, when we are left with absolute spirit with no identity, how can there possibly exist self-valuation?

" Not only does philosophy not force other powers to become reactive to it, true philosophy forces other powers to become active, affirmative of themselves and their own positive being... "

This is what I mean by reification.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Thu Oct 06, 2016 3:17 am
In my system, two datums enter into conceptual opposition, not by expressing the seed of their own negation in the other, but in mutually affirming Being in its purity, from two independent vantage points (epistemes*); thus Luther talked about how the evil man affirms the being and potency of god but in an inverted way, while the good man affirms it just the same. Then there is a stage of negative reflection in which that basis of mutual affirmation is negated, namely Being in its pure affirmative character, thus both the good and evil man sin they simply respond to it differently, and sin is the negation or absence of the divine potency. Then the good and evil man atone for their sin and reincorporate that purity of Being's affirmation which they both were grounded in, though now it enters into the world through their atonement in a new form- it has been reified. And so the history of thought is the history of this constant withdraw and re-participation of the divine, Being, in the material world, as it changes forms with each reification.

" Instead of ascribing the imperfect core of Nonbeing to Being, its opposite: we ascribe everything to Being. Being contains, not the core of its own conceptual opposite or nonbeing, but the plenitude, the pure Affirmation. Then when it externalizes itself, this process, instead of producing the paradoxical negation of the negation, produces an infinitude of Being(s.) Being becomes surrounded on all sides by innumerable other(s), not just its own "conceptual opposite." Then two of these other(s) reify their conceptual tension through a stage of negative reflection, which destabilizes them by reincorporating the original affirmative Being: they reify Being in its otherness as a new term born of their negation, they internalize the externalization of Being's plenitude as otherness, for the other- as pure otherness- as consciousness or spirit, as humanity specifically: that is what human consciousness is. This is how the infinite God creates the finite consciousness of man in which he participates like one solitude within another solitude, ie. love, without ever diminishing the duality of god and man, of solitude and solitude. My process of reification describes not change, but generation; not transformation into something's opposite, but how Being in its pure affirmation, setting behind the universe and history, finds a way to constantly participate in that universe it is conceptually isolated from, participate in the very plentitude it itself generated; how the infinite Being of pure affirmation re-submerges itself in its universe and re-emerges within it through the reification as a guiding episteme to continue driving history forward, to continue generating the expressed plenitude of other being(s) we see around us."



In other contexts I refer to the episteme alongside the passive ground:

" The perfect, timeless activity of philosophy is that which supplies the passive ground of
value or meaning, it is in other words the creative act, but philosophy is not constituted by
the value it creates."

The timeless perfection of philosophy, which acts without causing change- without forcing other things to become reactive to it, instead prodding them with Being's affirmative content to become activities themselves, to express their self-valuation, is accomplished in that it supplies the passive ground of a value upon which these things can begin actively expressing their own affirmative being to Being. But it is this very passivity or ground, which allows being(s) to express their affirmative content to Being, that prevents being(s) from ever fully ridding themselves of their identity, of becoming their opposite, or dialectically synthesizing and re-unifying with their source in Being. Thus:



[ Politics is in essence the
organization of imperfect activities upon the innermost passive ground, upon a meaning,
a value, an aspiration- a ground that is supplied by philosophy but does not constitute
philosophy. In Nietzsche this passive ground as is supplied by philosophy is called simply
Power, for every moral and philosophic value constitutes a quanta of power, a certain
specification of potential energetics. The actualization and configuration of this power
and potential with other quanta of power, with other values, is Will, which takes the form
of politics both in external society and inwardly as a rank ordering of our evolutionary
drives: the Will to Power specifies the dimension within which these configurations are
made, within which the imperfect reactivity of forces exogenous to philosophy are
organized on the passive ground of philosophy, whose highest realization is the eternal
return, a complete re-action and involution. Insofar as kinesis is a movement of the
imperfect toward the perfect, following Aristotle's definition, the kinesis of the polis is a
movement from present material conditions toward eudaemonia or happiness, from
reactivity coordinated within an organism toward the timeless perfected activity of a soul,
but since this movement takes place on a passive ground it can never arrive at its object,
for the polis, in its organization of re-active forces, creates the very dimension of time or
kinesis which it wants to escape from- a dimension we call history. History is the
reckoning of its own end. Thus Nietzsche proposes transvaluation as the form of this
reckoning, whereby the circle of time is turned back around in the vicious circle of God.]



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Thu Oct 06, 2016 4:08 am
So the relation between a (b)eing and (B)eing can never be negative in this scheme, which is the central anti-dialectical core. That relation, of being to Being, is pure difference, after Deleuze. It can only be positive, generative, irresolvable. It is the excess. What Kierkegaard called: qualitative disjunction. What N. called Will to Power- each philosopher had a name for it: being strives toward that Being, strives to destroy itself and overcome itself to shed its identity and become the All, the Affirmation itself. ... To become the Affirmation itself... That is what self-valuation is in my terms. Yet, it cannot succeed: the very kinesis this will institutes condemns it to its identity, to the passive ground, which Nietzsche grasped as the eternal recurrence. So in my philosophy Nietzsche is absorbed and reinterpreted: the Will-To-Power is simply the fact of this asymmetry between being and Being, which urges each being to affirm its being as Being and become the All, the Affirmation.








___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Thu Oct 06, 2016 4:28 am
Yes this is Beings nature as I also see it, a violent glory bursting into tragedy, which is the sap of culture, but this history of philosophy is superseded here - in this particular philosophy where pure affirmation is embodied as difference; where a paganism comes out of the affirmation both of god, pure affirmation, and Being, pure difference; instincts are born here that can endure this condition of asymptotic approach to perfect self-valuation to the point of discovering a new bliss, which is an order created by the continuous presence of also asymptotically rising wills - my mind had instantly connected this to the notion of the Doric order, which was always the chosen structurality of aesthetics to guide my intellectual politics towards a world. Somehow my mind works like that, with stone and light and iron, materials.

In this light Capable and I did design the Pentad; to separate pillars in the most separating form. (The path of Venus as seen from the Earth happens to have that structure - I don't know why. Well I do, valuing, maximization of difference --- exaltation is the backbone of all dynamis.)



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Thu Oct 06, 2016 6:47 am
Really I'd love a debate on the merits of Trump where the following terms are banned for all involved: racist, sexist, bully, Hitler, fascist, egomaniac, megalomaniac, demagogue, I could think of a few more. Then we'll see where we're at.


" I found one point Parodites made and you just reiterated which I have yet to respond to, namely that global government would amount to giving power to be tyrannical, that in order to fight global warming we would necessarily be handing over tyrannical power to a global level government. I disagree because while yes global government could be used for tyrannical ends, this is the case with any government; it requires that we carefully craft the structure of government such as the Founders did in the US, and not just abandon the entire project. Again this falls back on the fact that I've already outlined my idea of how global government could work, a kind of UN like setup but with more force of law and some kind of basic shared military apparatus. Decisions would be voted on by representatives, not made by one tyrant."


Yes but a new world order- an actual shared military apparatus over the earth: that would be a lot harder to overthrow, should things sour. And my point will continue to be: the national identities in play are too different to reconcile their populations with the interests of the respective nation-states. I have also pointed out how the EU will never be like the US for geographic and economic reasons. In order for it to function, one nation will end up having to compromise the interests of its own citizens on the behalf of a foreign nation: outside governments will be able to influence us, etc. I don't want any outside force to influence the US government. I don't want a vote cast in Brussels to have any effect on anything in the US, as it once effected Britain, because the culture of Brussels isn't the culture of the US. It doesn't make sense. Someone in Europe doesn't understand the situation and culture of someone living in the US, these populations are completely separate from one another, why would we want to pool their political force into a few common representatives who could not possibly consolidate the differences in these populations? In the US, ideology is not consistently spread out: if we take a consensus of the whole population on rather gay marriage should be legalized, it will probably come out yes, but there are many states where, if that vote was taken from their sole consensus, the result would be no, as the populace there has a different culture and they're more religious: this dis-empowering at the level of local communities would be magnified a thousand times in the system you're describing; a thousand-thousand times. Entire small nation-states would have their political force cut to nothing, and lose their sovereign right to self-determination. This is why mandating a federal legalization of gay marriage is an unjust execution of central authority; the states have a right to self-determination. Without an amendment, the Constitution does not grant the power to define marriage to the central government. And this is the way it should be, to preserve the integrity of national ethos at the most fundamental level, local community. Do you not see, even if you think gays should be able to marry as I do, that if we do not follow that course, and we allow the central government to magically produce these "implied" powers, that there is nothing to limit it? It will continue growing and growing, expanding its power, as it has done so.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Thu Oct 06, 2016 8:13 pm
Increasing military strongholds and centralization does not seem the best way of moving away from fascism to me either.

However, reducing US leverage in the world is unacceptable as well, as the system will collapse. What needs to happen first is increasing the leverage, by electing a strong politician, a man with an actual love for his country, and the experience of building things by bridging ideological gaps, a restoration of the areas that have been made into less than humane by the post cold war chaos politics by inserting working economic infrastructure, opening markets - so as to eventually ennoble the populations so as to actually want a secular minimalist government.
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: 6578
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:38 pm

Truth will triumph either way, it is just a matter of how far the attempt to circumvent it is stretched, and thus how much will be destroyed in the path towards it.

Truth is local.
Any attempts to organize the world as a whole are insane - there is no "the world", except indeed as a monster of energy.

There are realms.

The US is a portal-realm, a beginner-stage, but it is an advanced realm, an endgame as well. It is not much in between.

As a superior nation isolated on its own continent, the US can reign for thousands, and determine nature for millions of years. It is the first global hegemon, and if it plays its cards right (which means to stop bluffing (acting superior to ones position) against weaker enemies, who grow stronger and stronger, but simply "call it" before they catch up), then the world belongs to the US simply by its superior human self-valuing stronghold. Trump is the archetypical American. Americans are known to be blunt, bold, sexual, unapologetic, straightforward and effective. They are also known to be weak minded, cruel, self-ignorant, sanctimonious, backwards about the rest of the world, hypocritical and inhuman. All nations have strengths and weaknesses. Russia has been looking more human than the US for a decade now - electing Clinton will tilt the scales for good, as the US will have lost its bluff, shown a much weaker hand than we all figured it to have.

Electing Trump is simply cutting your losses. They're big, but not bigger than your gains. Clinton would be turning all gains finally into loss - initiating the stage of global, fully unaccountable "Capital" (deadly force - lets drop the deeply receded semantic euphemism) - and thus, anarchy, and rise of totalitarian nations, predominantly China, which will not hesitate to start killing all muslims, taking some Pakistani missiles for granted, I reckon.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 12, 2016 2:55 pm
The US and France created its current form, and the British empire protected Islam for the longest time, but the Chinese and Indians perceive them as vermin. In China, a muslim uprising is shot down to the last man. No beheadings, you dont torture vermin. (these views arent my own)

Our culture has set off a lot of shit in Asia, and China aint taking kindly. If you look at what they are capable of doing to themselves, then really, just imagine what they would do if the west didnt stand in the way, to purify their continent of Abrahamistic and Alexandrine perversions of the true state of Being as they figured it out under the Yellow Emperor. The Russians will be all too glad to help them, as will the Indians.

This is fact: Chinese engineers and politicans speak of their project as 'ah, around in a thousand years, this will begin to produce its intended rendement.'

A Somali generals son who lived in a house we shared with the Zen painters zon, who taught me a part of what I know about Islam and related cultures, told me this prophecy: when the men with the narrow eyes in the east will grow stronger, the end of times is upon us.

I naturally approach this within the framework of the ontological status of perspective alone; the end of times for a certain Realm.

We best not stand in the way of that end too much, unless we want to be reincarnated muslim girls... kek. But really, if valuing coherence could perpetuate in spin configurations alone, I could see it work quite like that. Value-consequence, 'karma', is pretty obvious always, if all systems are dropped - the greatest art to me is to think directly, to See True Relation.

What this requires is the absolute absence of neutrality - it requires a veritable self, to be valued into being. Which, since it is a fiction, I had to construct - and I am among fellow marblesmiths. We need a Pericles now with Athenian sophists around him but a Trump with a staffer who occasionally does a clever search online will do.

Trump is preferable even for this reason alone: he will listen to us, if it happens to be opportune for him. All true leaders look directly to the ground. If I look at his daughters pure adoring and at the same time perfectly reality-grounded loyalty, I see a leader of some capacity.

And from the get-go it was ridiculous of the US media establishment to ridicule Trump for his a reality tv program - at least he ran his own show! You need a president like that, who runs the show he's in charge of. Not one who just turns grey as the machine reaps his years in human blood.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Thu Oct 13, 2016 1:25 pm
I continued posting in another thread -
http://beforethelight.forumotion.com/t732-marx

To clarify this

" the end of times for a certain Realm.

We best not stand in the way of that end too much"

I continued:

---

"Genocide of muslims is not implied here- just the fact that Socialism would long have absorbed Islam if it hadnt been for the West.

Parallel to my absolute rejection of Marxism as a valid enterprise-related theory, I have seen it also as the empirical resolution to Islam. Afghanistan is the example, a perfect hippy state until Mr Brzezinski decided to use it to kill the USSR."




and further


"All Russian leaders after Stalin have expressed themselves well about the American people. All they tried to defeat was the banking system. N one ever came closer to defeat Russia than Gorbachev, who of course was just a shadow of Stalin, a conscience. But the bizarre magic of the old land produced Yeltsin as an absolutely irreducible "Always Close Russian" -


this "Always Close Russian" is required on our Eurasian continent. It is the depth that is deep enough to be unfathomable, therefore fearsome to nations like India and China, which dont much give a shit about nukes, much more about the actual proximity of a magical adversary.

Magic just refers to the capacity to do what the other cant, by mechanisms that the other cant see.

The US media's magical mechanism is just pure low-ness; because people are in general decent and quite honest, it is literally impossible for the large majority to imagine the degree of deceit that defines their media - no man ever fully believed a newspaper at face value, but hardly any man would have suspected a paper like the New York Times to be entirely used to spread perfect lies for perfectly vile political ends.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Thu Oct 13, 2016 5:14 pm
Constitutional Law
Mathematics
Semantic Structure
Game Theory (entities aren't ontically closed off from each other, as more of them take part, identification dynamics change underneath the frozen episteme)
Subatomic Coherency (replacing Quantum Physics and String Theory)
Macro-Probabilistic Mapping (combining Relativity with Quantum Mechanics)
"Sciences of Sanity" (integrating all western psychological theory, before exploring the East from a solid Occidental vantage point )
Supranational Politics (value ontology of nations and peoples; a lot of the Earths poor or unfortunately mineral-rich regions are still entirely unpolitical, living in arbitrary borders under arbitrary regimes, disconnected from large flocks of their own who live across these arbitrary borders)

etc etc


what I can not see myself doing is intervene in penal law. It's the area I have absolutely no philosophic idea about except the pure evolutionary logic of being driven to 'punish' someone who causes harm - I have the idea that the standards can not be set here, that this is where excess must find a very clean and direct path, that should not be absorbed for to long by the system. I think the system is never dead - the institution is always as Pezer says up close and personal - and thus that it actually suffers of the misdeeds it is asked to process, and can come up fairly quickly with appropriate punishments if only wrong/right are set in stone, and degree all due to context.

Capable and I used to disagree penal law, and again it is not my strength at all, the best I can do is rationalize my will to leave it locally whereas I know full well that this would lead to lynchings. So, in effect, I am at loss - because once a self-valuing is violated and the state interprets this as a violation of it, of its laws, then both the perpetrator and the victim are absorbed in a 'sinful state' - which then through the theory of law, philosophy, attempts to attone for itself.

There is something to be said for the Iranian model, which is not strictly Islamic, but simply an eye for an eye, when it comes to violent crimes - they allow the victim or the victims kin to execute the payback. I know that it sounds barbaric, but it will at least be infinitely more sensible than what the US has now, where a good part of its most vital population has been legally entrapped at the age of 18-22 into a petty drug deal to be imprisoned simply so the owners of these prisons can take their daily couple of hundred taxdollars for each inmate... capitalism is worse than religion in the illusions it is able to spin - that is precisely its power, probably. And why it now is running seemingly inevitably into an abyss of impossible necessary return. But since it is all a figment of the imagination the worthy of all money (none of it can be eaten or used as a tool, other than a coin as a screwdriver) it will be possible for to whomever the debts are outstanding to just dissolve the whole problem. the economy itself cant really crash, it can just happen that too much misplaced money gets between the wheels and it slows down for a bit, which in turn causes poverty and that may case violence, which in turn has some power to hinder production - but the original cause is simply an idea, which can be let go off quite easily - as I see it, which may be wrong - it's only an idea that occurred just now.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Mon Oct 17, 2016 4:08 am
Okay, so I started to scatter some seeds of political self-valuing among The People of ILP. Im going to water this and see if it takes root. Here is my OP - a zanyness is always required, - or as Parodites would never say: a romantic irony to ward off cynicism and have style become reality-generative meme - let the stars follow their course and the gods scatter along its path, pouring the water of life as the Hades conquers the house of our birth.

trash:





These elections are the first ones of the people. No matter who wins, the people will have elected now. All have been able to see the truth and fraud will be difficult to pull off. Whatever happens is the will of the people. Now we begin to see what that actually means.



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


Last edited by Fixed Cross on Tue Oct 18, 2016 12:33 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Mon Oct 17, 2016 4:22 am
the essential question of Nietzsche is what the truth is worth.

The people of America will now decide that among themselves. They will also bear the first consequences, but the results will shape the will to power more than any decision so far since Caesar passed his power along to Octavian.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sisyphus
Path
Path


Posts : 1281
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Mon Oct 17, 2016 4:32 am
Please keep in mind that "We the People", at the time of writing, was referring to "landed white men". Little has changed.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sisyphus
Path
Path


Posts : 1281
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Mon Oct 17, 2016 4:42 am
Fixed Cross wrote:
the essential question of Nietzsche is what the truth is worth.

The people of America will now decide that among themselves. They will also bear the first consequences, but the results will shape the will to power more than any decision so far since Caesar passed his power along to Octavian.

Yes, this upcoming election is a very important one. Sad that the Republicans could do no better than Trump. But then, Trump may be what my country needs right now.

Truth is the most important asset a person has. I believe Nietzsche tried to express this in his own way.

I also believe that the "will to power" is rooted in the individual's desire to live one's own life the way (s)he sees fit (without violating the same right of others).

We Americans will soon be making a choice. Continue on the same path (most people don't like and can't handle change) or start walking a different path.

Fixed Cross wrote:I believe n an artist class, emerging.

It may sound strange and petty, but I have grown up with certain artists, many of whom were black, and Ive seen a rise in clean power.

The men and women took for slaves from the first continent were obviously the strongest and most beautiful ones of the ones who did not fight to the death - many of them would have been nobles. As Ive seen some black people arent as capable of pure savagery as other races, even in violence they are somehow kingly, which makes them scary. Also the black woman carries all the colors in her genes, as the only one of our species. So they are superior biologically in important ways; they can endure. And this was proven.

Nietzsche says make conditions harder so as for people to become hard, and learn to know themselves, and select themselves -
he spoke of ideally, danger in the streets and danger in the heart.
The American black man is a man so powerful that he was able to throw off the slave shackles and take over the nation with his spirit - Ive witnessed when Ive read the history of the united states and its central protagonist, the black man or 'african american' who came purely out of merit, (value to others) and not out of self-interest- the spirit of music born of tragedy?

As Public Enemy titled their album, the first cd I owned "It takes A Nation Of Millions To Hold Us Back."
I am insulted by Black Lives Matter - you dont say that about the dominant race of the Earth. Especially you dont give cops that shoot them the honor of thinking there are those who think that these lives do not matter.

Clinton is a master in making victims out of protagonists - she is a lawyer after all.

To have a black president, and at the same time an organization called black lives matter - this is pure schizophrenia, far more pure than any individual could suffer it. It is pure hell, for anyone who takes it seriously.

But back to the serious people; I have seen from the first ground roots East and West, the political and the capitalistic, a culture grow that had its rising and slain heroes, and then brought forth ..wait for it... Kanye West.

The most hated black man alive.
He is a Genius. He and Jay Z and their wives now rule symbolically, which is directly, over our planets youth.

We should not be afraid, let alone ashamed, to acknowledge this reality.

This guy isnt.


[youtube]KL93YUWBObQ[/youtube]




Just letting you know that I have read the post, that I'm basically in agreement with what you said but have nothing to add at the moment.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:23 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Maybe I should add that all my commentary on the US is extremely ironic - all the facts I state are true to my knowledge but the paradigm I sketch is naturally very far from an American psyche.

BUT THAT IS THE POINT.

The US has imposed itself on the world through the selective values that the world is now holding back up to it. It is not hamburger culture, it has no claim to food in such a dramatic way - it is violent sanctimoniousness. The error Freud spoke of, that he feared could bring a great catastrophe upon mankind.

Trump is the least sanctimonious man ever to run for president, and yet the first candidate of which the Americans are ashamed. He is the first one who behaves in a way that is clearly the same as the behavior the US has been selling as cool, and as how it's done. But apparently Americans dont actually believe in what theyve been selling us.

So we I am giving back now some impressions - it is always insulting if ones country is defined by a foreigner, especially one that has some stake in it - I am aware of the ugliness of mistakes precisely if they are rare but structural. But so here it goes.

America is a stupid country, it has had stupid sanctimonious barbarians as leaders. Leaders who had no clue as to who they were leading... and who were being led by a large oligarchy of capitalistic interests that were the true benefactors of our age. Your presidents have been arbitrary men, puppets of a clunky evolution that brought about a regime of douchebags utterly unnecessary under the umbrella of free value exchange. Clinton is sort of the decision that douchebaggery now needs to be the iron rule of the planet. It wont co 'click' like the previous times.

Someone actually managed to tell me that it was sort of rational for the NATO to be mobilizing in Ukraine because Russia is. People think that. I realize that most Americans must have no clue that Ukraine borders on Russia. Ugly ugly ugly. And as the world is self-valuing, it truly will very likely come to an end when this motivation comes to be the dominant one.

So fuck it. Im posting some shreds of your constitution with Betty Boop. Pop culture is the highest pronunciation of the US in any case - it is the lightness that did not exist before.

This lightness has gone to its head...


Philosophers are of course not tied to their national ethos and worth, even though they may determine it.



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

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:34 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sisyphus, are you American? If so from which state?

It would be nice if we dont go to war, I still have much to see - as do we all.



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

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:41 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Of course there is the Third Possibility we need to be talking about - or not - probably not -
what the establishment will do if Trump wins.

You have to offer them jobs. Maybe you can give them Australia.


Now this is how a Amsterdam kid saw your country in the 90's.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mY0TcSrt8os


(to 'understand' ... lol... one must first see part 2, the first part. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mgZLTzuVxw )



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


Posts : 1281
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Mon Oct 17, 2016 10:58 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:


America is a stupid country, it has had stupid sanctimonious barbarians as leaders. Leaders who had no clue as to who they were leading... and who were being led by a large oligarchy of capitalistic interests that were the true benefactors of our age. Your presidents have been arbitrary men, puppets of a clunky evolution that brought about a regime of douchebags utterly unnecessary under the umbrella of free value exchange. Clinton is sort of the decision that douchebaggery now needs to be the iron rule of the planet. It wont co 'click' like the previous times.

I can't argue with that. The last president we had that I actually respected was Ike.

So fuck it. Im posting some shreds of your constitution with Betty Boop. Pop culture is the highest pronunciation of the US in any case - it is the lightness that did not exist before.

I was surprised to see Betty Boop. I have a few of the original black/white graphics of her.

Philosophers are of course not tied to their national ethos and worth, even though they may determine it.

In truth, my ideal is that all humans can become cosmopolitans. This was inspired by Albert Camus. There is much philosophy in Camus' writings but most people miss it.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path


Posts : 1281
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Mon Oct 17, 2016 11:07 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Sisyphus, are you American? If so from which state?

It would be nice if we dont go to war, I still have much to see - as do we all.

Yes, I am an American. A proud one. I served twenty years in the Army.

I was born/raised in northern Ohio. Retired from the Army to Florida where I still live.

My philosophy while in the Army was to preserve the peace, not to make war.

As the warrior's code states: I will help you if I can; I will kill you if I must.

My country is involved way too much in the affairs of other countries. The new president of the Philippines is the only person recently who has had the balls to talk back to dictates from America when after Obama attempted to counsel him on how to rule his country the newly elected president told Obama to go to hell. I fell he was right and just in doing so.

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path


Posts : 1281
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Mon Oct 17, 2016 11:16 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Of course there is the Third Possibility we need to be talking about - or not - probably not -
what the establishment will do if Trump wins.

You have to offer them jobs. Maybe you can give them Australia.


Now this is how a Amsterdam kid saw your country in the 90's.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mY0TcSrt8os


(to 'understand' ... lol... one must first see part 2, the first part. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mgZLTzuVxw )

Yeah, a lot of negative things can be said about America and most of them are likely justified.

However, there are still people who come here on visitor's or education visa and after their visa expires they just stay here in the USA. And there are many who come here to find work and never go back home.

My nation still has great potential for millions of people but big industry, big banking, and my government keeps screwing up the "American Dream".

I have no idea where my country is headed but I don't like the indicators I have seen over the past 50 years.

Trump may be what America needs to get back on track. I don't know. I don't like the idea of Trump being president but that doesn't matter if it would bring positive changes.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 18, 2016 5:57 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Im honored that someone with all that experience find sense in my analyses.

It has always seemed me as well that Eisenhower was the best president of the post war era. I suppose this means that indeed for an imperial nation, generals can very well make good presidents.

De Gaulle was one of Frances best presidents and George Washington was of course a general.
Military men have the knowledge of necessity and sacrifice that no state can do without.



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

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 18, 2016 5:59 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Can you imagine a military coup in the US? The thought never occurred to me before now.
It would require an absolute chaos among the Agencies.



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


Posts : 1281
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:00 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes, military people have had to opportunity to view things from the outside and most try to stay out of politics.

Powell was a good General. Too bad he accepted that job with Bush.

McArthur was feared by the politicians and that's why he got fired.

I think a military coup in the US would be almost impossible. The various commands are too separated. Yes, it would require chaos at the top levels of government.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:15 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
With a knot in my stomach I remember Powells face like I just saw it. As he presented the aerial pics of the supposed facilities, his soul broke.

I dont know how they coerced him but it may simply have been with dishonorable discharge due to some woman he saw or something.
It seems to be the way leaders are generally being discredited.

You can see my issue with puritanicalism - it doesnt mix well with militarism.

The Roman Mars was an absolute servant to the central state-goddes Venus.
No nation ever rose to power without gods except the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and Maoist China.

We must discuss this - because we need to look at consequences, not ideals.

Go visit the Temple of Zeus in Athens (it is not on the Acropolis, but down amidst the dirty traffic), and tell me if you do not understand why I say that gods exist.
Fictions that cause cultures into being, whole sciences, these are existing things. Even though I feel that Zeus is far more than a fiction, as purely a fiction he already is more real and tangible than most things.

The World is Will to Power, Zeus is an image of power that compels my psyche into ecstatic creative downpouring. Odin is a god that guides my path to beautiful girls. I live with gods since a while, since Ive discovered which ones are both relevant and real enough to me, their presence comes alive through valuing their attributes.

The psyche is more powerful than it strictly needs to be - this is the human problem. It is my experience that to hold on to a supreme but non absolute value, which is to say a great love, is in general the best way of getting things done in the long run. If a god serves such a purpose, then belief is justified ( granted that it does not get into the way of other values, such as science or common sense, that it does not restrict, but only discloses.

Hence - N's question about the value of truth.
And since it can be questioned at all - if value does not take prevalence -
if value, furthermore is not Truth itself.

And what is a god if not a Value... the truth about truth is its value, which first of all is determined by its pertinence. And value is per definition pertinent.

ᚨᚨᚨ
ᚨᛇᚨ
ᚨᚨᚨ

Because I dont accept any limits set by authority figures, a god who is totally indifferent to human affairs except when they produce supreme beauties or virtues like the Greeks had their Gods is a perfect catalyst of life, for a forcefully imaginative type like me. Zeus is not an authority, nor is lightning an authority, not that it knows anyway - it does not even notice us.

I wonder if it is possible for you accept the gods existence to me, as I accept his non existence to you. Not that I care to convince, I just like to explicate - and I psychologically wonder about the thresholds that values put in the human mind.

Truth is great, but it has too many wings to fly.





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


Posts : 1281
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:55 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I can't question beliefs no more than I can question faith or a person's religion.

Those are personal and I have no right to question them.

But I will, on occasion, point out reality to another if appropriate.

A story about the Buddha: it is said that a disciple asked Buddha if the gods answer a person's prayers. Buddha replied that there are no gods but if you pray to them they will answer you prayers.

I did read some Greek mythology during my mid-teens but that was so very long ago. Hardly any recall.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan


PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 18, 2016 12:51 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
You might like the novel American Gods by Neil Gaiman, Fixed. It's not bad. Odin makes an regular appearance if I remember right.



Fixed Cross wrote:I will look at it, thanks.


An ILP thread inspired me to a meme.

https://i.imgflip.com/1cps7u.jpg
and another

if theres somethng weird
and it dont look good

Image

I believe he is pretty sharp, when he wants to be anyway.

It would be the first logical post war president. The first Jefferson type position  from which to run. But now beyond a lot of inequality before the law. He's fortuitous, as an institution, Trump.  



Fixed Cross wrote:Image

Welcome to reality.

Kentucky was the first state to call its valuing red.
In honor thereof

[youtube]wiE_Bk8FOY0[/youtube]

As far as what the fuck happened tonight in Pennsylvania... I have a pretty strong idea that it was Mike Pence who suddenly caught the hearts of many who wouldn't vote for Trump, but saw the evil of Clinton and especially Kaine. I bet millions made their choice this way. Of all the 4, Mike Pence is the one who is manifestly bona fide. A man who can eat apple pie with his hands and look tough and clean.

There is a deep silence now in the world. It is hard to catch a note.
the New York Times still has the header "Trump on the verge of stunning upset" that it has had for hours, even if its counter is already at 174. They just were unable to formulate the sentence.

The Guardian now acknowledges the nations victory, namely so:

"The United States elects its most dangerous leader yet"

We'll never know the extent of their hollow despair.

We've won. The world now belongs to the West.

Image


Thrasymachus wrote:Very nice.

I have to say, I haven't felt this calm and peaceful in a long time. Something happened so deep in the tectonics that it can't even be articulated in words. A certain pressure was finally lifted.
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: 6578
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Arcturus Descending » Wed Jul 26, 2017 5:02 pm

Trump mostly represents normal people being fed up with being lectured by the very people that ruin their lives, towns, states, country, and planet. In this sense, at least, he represents me. He is the most dignified and honest representative politician I ever saw.

:lol:

I don't know who it was doing the talking here but that is one of the saddest statements I've heard lately.

I voted for this lesser-of-two evils and wish that I hadn't voted at all, which isn't me.

Define dignified?
Define honest?

He's a demagogue!
SAPERE AUDE!


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


What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

Thomas Nagel


I learn as I write!
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 14675
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A snowy dark luminous landscape bathed in solitude

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Jul 26, 2017 5:40 pm

Arcturus Descending wrote:Trump mostly represents normal people being fed up with being lectured by the very people that ruin their lives, towns, states, country, and planet. In this sense, at least, he represents me. He is the most dignified and honest representative politician I ever saw.

:lol:

I don't know who it was doing the talking here but that is one of the saddest statements I've heard lately.

I voted for this lesser-of-two evils and wish that I hadn't voted at all, which isn't me.

Define dignified?
Define honest?

He's a demagogue!


I pity you. Its great to have Trump. You should not be seduced into feeling bad about a human running your nation for a chance, Arc.

you wouldnt happen to read mainstream media, would you???

Trump uses the means of the people... this makes him a demagogue in the eyes of elitist. Yes, we know this. But are you elitist, Arc?
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: 6578
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Arcturus Descending » Wed Jul 26, 2017 6:25 pm

I pity you. Its great to have Trump. You should not be seduced into feeling bad about a human running your nation for a chance, Arc.


Compassion might be a better word to use.
Define human.
Would you like to have him? Take him.

you wouldnt happen to read mainstream media, would you???


Do I listen to the news? Yes, I do. But I also read him, I listen to his so-called rhetoric. I see his narcissism and his insecurities. I do not trust him. Thankfully, hopefully, he will not run this country as he did his own businesses.
He's like a fascist.
Do I have a bias against? I sure do but I also see that he is not good for this country...only for a chosen few.


But are you elitist, Arc?

No, I am not. I am rather surprised that you would have to ask me that question.
SAPERE AUDE!


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


What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

Thomas Nagel


I learn as I write!
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 14675
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A snowy dark luminous landscape bathed in solitude

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Jul 26, 2017 6:41 pm

I cant even begin to imagine why someone with a heart would think of Trump as bad. I only see fascistic media and idiotic beliebers lying and crying, for the rest I just see Trump making miracles happen domestically and abroad to save mankind.

Defeating isis, repealing Obamacare, getting out of tpp, just a few world class savior acts he pulls off in the first year. But there is so much more that he does that is better than I ever expected Americans to be capable of doing, politically.
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: 6578
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Void_X_Zero » Wed Jul 26, 2017 7:51 pm

Trump began a process of healing, but the disease is close to terminal already. If he can bring the debt down somehow that would be most useful. But the Fed Reserve always retains the ability to crash the economy at moment notice, which power they have acquired since 2008 by loading up their balance sheets with over 4 trillion dollars (almost 1/4 the whole GDP) of bad debts. If they start selling those debts, it's all over.

I don't know if they would use that as a threat or not. But I wouldn't put anything past them.

Regardless, the disease was so massive that the healing simply had to start, somewhere, anywhere. Doing nothing (electing The Shill) was not an option. And the deep earthy wisdom of Americans understood this.
"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: 1461
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Will to Power

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Otto_West » Wed Jul 26, 2017 8:27 pm

Void_X_Zero wrote:Trump began a process of healing, but the disease is close to terminal already. If he can bring the debt down somehow that would be most useful. But the Fed Reserve always retains the ability to crash the economy at moment notice, which power they have acquired since 2008 by loading up their balance sheets with over 4 trillion dollars (almost 1/4 the whole GDP) of bad debts. If they start selling those debts, it's all over.

I don't know if they would use that as a threat or not. But I wouldn't put anything past them.

Regardless, the disease was so massive that the healing simply had to start, somewhere, anywhere. Doing nothing (electing The Shill) was not an option. And the deep earthy wisdom of Americans understood this.

And the Federal Reserve is run by......???
Your entire world of fantasy and make believe is doomed, have a nice day.
User avatar
Otto_West
Doom Pornographer
 
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu May 04, 2017 7:40 pm
Location: Dumbfuckistan- Will Work For (FRN) Shekels.

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Void_X_Zero » Wed Jul 26, 2017 8:34 pm

Otto_West wrote:
Void_X_Zero wrote:Trump began a process of healing, but the disease is close to terminal already. If he can bring the debt down somehow that would be most useful. But the Fed Reserve always retains the ability to crash the economy at moment notice, which power they have acquired since 2008 by loading up their balance sheets with over 4 trillion dollars (almost 1/4 the whole GDP) of bad debts. If they start selling those debts, it's all over.

I don't know if they would use that as a threat or not. But I wouldn't put anything past them.

Regardless, the disease was so massive that the healing simply had to start, somewhere, anywhere. Doing nothing (electing The Shill) was not an option. And the deep earthy wisdom of Americans understood this.

And the Federal Reserve is run by......???


The Fed Reserve is a private company owned by the major US banks, with its governors being appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate.
"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: 1461
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Will to Power

PreviousNext

Return to Non-Philosophical Chat



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users